Financial Markets
Highlights President Biden has called for the US intelligence community to investigate the origins of COVID-19 and one of Biden’s top diplomats has stated the obvious: the era of “engagement” with China is over. This clinches our long-held view that any Democratic president would be a hawk like President Trump. The US-China conflict – and global geopolitical risk – will revive and undermine global risk appetite. China faces a confluence of geopolitical and macroeconomic challenges, suggesting that its equity underperformance will continue. Domestic Chinese investors should stay long government bonds. Foreign investors should sell into the bond rally to reduce exposure to any future sanctions. The impending agreement of a global minimum corporate tax rate has limited concrete implications that are not already known but it symbolizes the return of Big Government in the western world. Our updated GeoRisk Indicators are available in the Appendix, as well as our monthly geopolitical calendar. Feature In our quarterly webcast, “Geopolitics And Bull Markets,” we argued that geopolitical themes matter to investors when they have a demonstrable relationship with the macroeconomic backdrop. When geopolitics and macro are synchronized, a simple yet powerful investment thesis can be discerned. The US war on terror, Russia’s resurgence, the EU debt crisis, and Brexit each provided cases in which a geopolitically informed macro view was both accessible and actionable at an early stage. Investors generally did well if they sold the relevant country’s currency and disfavored its equities on a relative basis. Chart 1China's Decade Of Troubles Of course, the market takeaway is not always so clear. When geopolitics and macroeconomics are desynchronized, the trick is to determine which framework will prevail over the financial markets and for how long. Sometimes the market moves to its own rhythm. The goal is not to trade on geopolitics but rather to invest with geopolitics. One of our key views for this year – headwinds for China – is an example of synchronization. Two weeks ago we discussed China’s macroeconomic challenge. In this report we discuss China’s foreign policy challenge: geopolitical pressure from the US and its allies. In particular we address President Biden’s call for a deeper intelligence dive into the origins of COVID-19. The takeaway is negative for China’s currency and risk assets. The Great Recession dealt a painful blow to the Chinese version of the East Asian economic miracle. By 2015, China’s financial turmoil and currency devaluation should have convinced even bullish investors to keep their distance from Chinese stocks and the renminbi. If investors stuck with this bearish view despite the post-2016 rally, on fear of trade war, they were rewarded in 2018-19. Only with China’s containment of COVID-19 and large economic stimulus in 2020 has CNY-USD threatened to break out (Chart 1). We expect the renminbi to weaken anew, especially once the Fed begins to taper asset purchases. Our cyclical view is still bullish but US-China relations are unstable so we remain tactically defensive. Forget Biden’s China Review, He’s A Hawk Chinese financial markets face a host of challenges this year, despite the positive factors for China’s manufacturing sector amid the global recovery. At home these challenges consist of a structural economic slowdown, a withdrawal of policy stimulus, bearish sentiment among households, and an ongoing government crackdown on systemic risk. Abroad the Democratic Party’s return to power in Washington means that the US will bring more allies to bear in its attempt to curb China’s rise. This combination of factors presents a headwind for Chinese equities and a tailwind for government bonds (Chart 2). This is true at least until the government should hit its pain threshold and re-stimulate. Chart 2Global Investors Still Wary New stimulus may not occur in 2022. The Communist Party’s leadership rotation merely requires economic stability, not rapid growth. While the central government has a record of stimulating when its pain threshold is hit, even under the economically hawkish President Xi Jinping, a financial market riot is usually part of this threshold. This implies near-term downside, particularly for global commodities and metals, which are also facing a Chinese regulatory backlash to deter speculation. In this context, President Biden’s call for a deeper US intelligence investigation into the origin of COVID-19 is an important confirming signal of the US’s hawkish turn toward China. Biden gave 90 days for the intelligence community to report back to him. We will not enter into the debate about COVID-19’s origins. From a geopolitical point of view it is a moot point. The facts of the virus origin may never be established. According to Biden’s statement, at least one US intelligence agency believes the “lab leak theory” is the most likely source of the virus (while two other agencies decided in favor of animal-to-human transmission). Meanwhile Chinese government spokespeople continue to push the theory that the virus originated at the US’s Fort Detrick in Maryland or at a US-affiliated global research center. What is certain is that the first major outbreak of a highly contagious disease occurred in Wuhan. Both sides are demanding greater transparency and will reject each other’s claims based on a lack of transparency. If the US intelligence report concludes that COVID originated from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the Chinese government and media will reject the report. If the report exonerates the Wuhan laboratory, at least half of the US public will disbelieve it and it will not deter Biden from drawing a hard line on more macro-relevant policy disputes with China. The US’s hawkish bipartisan consensus on China took shape before COVID. Biden’s decision to order the fresh report introduces skepticism regarding the World Health Organization’s narrative, which was until now the mainstream media’s narrative. Previously this skepticism was ghettoized in US public discourse: indeed, until Biden’s announcement on May 26, the social media company Facebook suppressed claims that the virus came from a lab accident or human failure. Thus Biden’s action will ensure that a large swathe of the American public will always tend to support this theory regardless of the next report’s findings. At the same time Biden discontinued a State Department effort to prove the lab leak theory, which shows that it is not a foregone conclusion what his administration will decide. The good news is that even if the report concluded in favor of the lab leak, the Biden administration would remain highly unlikely to demand that China pay “reparations,” like the Trump administration demanded in 2020. This demand, if actualized, would be explosive. The bad news is that a future nationalist administration could conceivably use the investigation as a basis to demand reparations. Nationalism is a force to be reckoned with in both countries and the dispute over COVID’s origin will exacerbate it. Traditionally the presidents of both countries would tamp down nationalism or attempt to keep it harnessed. But in the post-Xi, post-Trump era it is harder to control. The death toll of COVID-19 will be a permanent source of popular grievance around the world and a wedge between the US and China (Chart 3). China’s international image suffered dramatically in 2020. So far in 2021 China has not regained any diplomatic ground. Chart 3Death Toll Of COVID-19 The US is repairing its image via a return to multilateralism while the Europeans have put their Comprehensive Agreement on Investment with China on hold due to a spat over sanctions arising from western accusations of genocide (a subject on which China pointedly answered that it did not need to be lectured by Europeans). Notably Biden’s Department of State also endorsed its predecessor’s accusation of genocide in Xinjiang. Any authoritative US intelligence review that solidifies doubts about the WHO’s initial investigation – even if it should not affirm the lab leak theory – would give Biden more ammunition in global opinion to form a democratic alliance to pressure China (for example, in Europe). An important factor that enables the US to remain hawkish on China is fiscal stimulus. While stimulus helps bring about economic recovery, it also lowers the bar to political confrontation (Chart 4). Countries with supercharged domestic demand do not have as much to fear from punitive trade measures. The Biden administration has not taken new punitive measures against China but it is clearly not worried about Chinese retaliation. Chart 4Large Fiscal Stimulus Lowers The Bar To Geopolitical Conflict China’s stimulus is underrated in this chart (which excludes non-fiscal measures) but it is still true that China’s policy has been somewhat restrained and it will need to stimulate its economy again in response to any new punitive measures or any global loss of confidence. At least China is limited in its ability to tighten policy due to the threat of US pressure and western trade protectionism. Simultaneous with Biden’s announcement on COVID-19, his administration’s coordinator for Indo-Pacific affairs, Kurt Campbell, proclaimed in a speech that the era of “engagement” with China is officially over and the new paradigm is one of “competition.” By now Campbell is stating the obvious. But this tone is a change both from his tone while serving in President Obama’s Department of State and from his article in Foreign Affairs last year (when he was basically auditioning for his current role in the Biden administration).1 Campbell even said in his latest remarks that the Trump administration was right about the “direction” of China policy (though not the “execution”), which is candid. Campbell was speaking at Stanford University but his comments were obviously aimed for broader consumption. Investors no longer need to wait for the outcome of the Biden administration’s comprehensive review of policy toward China. The answer is known: the Biden administration’s hawkishness is confirmed. The Department of Defense report on China policy, due in June, is very unlikely to strike a more dovish posture than the president’s health policy. Now investors must worry about how rapidly tensions will escalate and put a drag on global sentiment. Bottom Line: US-China relations are unstable and pose an immediate threat to global risk appetite. The fundamental geopolitical assessment of US-China relations has been confirmed yet again. The US is seeking to constrain China’s rise because China is the only country capable of rivaling the US for supremacy in Asia and the world. Meanwhile China is rejecting liberalization in favor of economic self-sufficiency and maintaining an offensive foreign policy as it is wary of US containment and interference. Presidents Biden and Xi Jinping are still capable of stabilizing relations in the medium term but they are unlikely to substantially de-escalate tensions. And at the moment tensions are escalating. China’s Reaction: The Example Of Australia How will China respond to Biden’s new inquiry into COVID’s origins? Obviously Beijing will react negatively but we would not expect anything concrete to occur until the result of the inquiry is released in 90 days. China will be more constrained in its response to the US than it has been with Australia, which called for an international inquiry early last year, as the US is a superior power. Australia was the first to ban Chinese telecom company Huawei from its 5G network (back in 2018) and it was the first to call for a COVID probe. Relations between China and Australia have deteriorated steadily since then, but macro trends have clearly driven the Aussie dollar. The AUD-JPY exchange rate is a good measure for global risk appetite and it is wavering in recent weeks (Chart 5). Chart 5Australian Dollar Follows Macro Trends, Rallies Amid China Trade Spat Tensions have also escalated due to China’s dependency on Australian commodity exports at a time of spiking commodity prices. This is a recurring theme going back to the Stern Hu affair. The COVID spat led China to impose a series of sanctions against Australian beef, barley, wine, and coal. But because China cannot replace Australian resources (at least, not in the short term), its punitive measures are limited. It faces rising producer prices as a result of its trade restrictions (Chart 6). This dependency is a bigger problem for China today than it was in previous cycles so China will try to diversify. Chart 6Constraints On China's Tarrifs On Australia By contrast, China is not likely to impose sanctions on the US in response to Biden’s investigation, unless Biden attacks first. China’s imports from the US are booming and its currency is appreciating sharply. Despite Beijing’s efforts to keep the Phase One trade deal from collapsing, Biden is maintaining Trump’s tariffs and the US-China trade divorce is proceeding (Chart 7). Bilateral tariff rates are still 16-17 percentage points higher than they were in 2018, with US tariffs on China at 19% (versus 3% on the rest of the world) while Chinese tariffs on the US stand at 21% (versus 6% on the rest of the world). The Biden administration timed this week’s hawkish statements to coincide with the first meeting of US trade negotiators with China, which was a more civil affair. Both countries acknowledged that the relationship is important and trade needs to be continued. However, US Trade Representative Katherine Tai’s comments were not overly optimistic (she told Reuters that the relationship is “very, very challenging”). She has also been explicit about maintaining policy continuity with the Trump administration. We highly doubt that China’s share of US imports will ever surpass its pre-Trump peaks. The Biden administration has also refrained so far from loosening export controls on high-tech trade with China. This has caused a bull market in Taiwan while causing problems for Chinese semiconductor stocks’ relative performance (Chart 8). If Biden’s policy review does not lead to any relaxation of export controls on commercial items then it will mark a further escalation in tensions. Chart 7US Tarrifs Reduce China In Trade Deficit Bottom Line: Until Presidents Biden and Xi stabilize relations at the top, the trade negotiations over implementing the Phase One trade deal – and any new Phase Two talks – cannot bring major positive surprises for financial markets. Chart 8US Export Controls Amid Chip Shortage Congress Is More Hawkish Than Biden Biden’s ability to reduce frictions with China, should he seek to, will also be limited by Congress and public opinion. With the US deeply politically divided, and polarization at historically high levels, China has emerged as one of the few areas of agreement. The hawkish consensus is symbolized by new legislation such as the Strategic Competition Act, which is making its way through the Senate rapidly. Congress is also trying to boost US competitiveness through bills such as the Endless Frontier Act. These bills would subject China to scrutiny and potential punitive measures over a broad range of issues but most of all they would ignite US industrial policy , STEM education, and R&D, and diversify the US’s supply chains. We would highlight three key points with regard to the global impact of this legislation: Global supply chains are shifting regardless: This trend is fairly well established in tech, defense, and pharmaceuticals. It will continue unless we see a major policy reversal from China to try to court western powers and reduce frictions. The EU and India are less enthusiastic than the US and Australia about removing China from supply chains but they are not opposed. The EU Commission has recommended new defensive economic measures that cover supply chains in batteries, cloud services, hydrogen energy, pharmaceuticals, materials, and semiconductors. As mentioned, the EU is also hesitating to ratify the Comprehensive Agreement on Investment with China. Hence the EU is moving in the US’s direction independently of proposed US laws. After all, China’s rise up the tech value chain (and its decision to stop cutting back the size of its manufacturing sector) ultimately threatens the EU’s comparative advantage. The EU is also aligned with the US on democratic values and network security. India has taken a harder stance on China than usual, which marks an important break with the past. India’s decision to exclude Huawei from its 5G network is not final but it is likely to be at least partially implemented. A working group of democracies is forming regardless. The Strategic Competition Act calls for the creation of a working group of democracies but the truth is that this is already happening through more effective forums like the G7 and bilateral summits. Just as the implementation of the act would will ultimately depend on President Biden, so the willingness of other countries to adopt the recommendations of the working group would depend on their own executives. Allies have leeway as Biden will not use punitive measures against them: Any policy change from the EU, UK, India, and Australia will be independent of the US Congress passing the Strategic Competition Act. These countries will be self-directed. The US would have to devote diplomatic energy to maintaining a sustained effort by these states to counter China in the face of economic costs. This will be limited by the fact that the Biden administration will be very reluctant to impose punitive measures on allies to insist on their cooperation. The allies will set the pace of pressure on China rather than the United States. This gives the EU an important position, particularly Germany. And yet the trends in Germany suggest that the government will be more hawkish on China after the federal elections in September. Bottom Line: The Biden administration is unlikely to use punitive measures against allies so new US laws are less important than overall US diplomacy with each of the allies. Some allies will be less compliant with US policies given their need for trade with China. But so far there appears to be a common position taking shape even with the EU that is prejudicial to China’s involvement in key sectors of emerging technologies. If China does not respond by reducing its foreign policy assertiveness, then China’s economic growth will suffer. That drag would have to be offset by new supply chain construction in Southeast Asia and other countries. Investment Takeaways The foregoing highlights the international risks facing China even at a time when its trend growth is slowing (Chart 9) and its ongoing struggle with domestic financial imbalances is intensifying. China’s debt-service costs have risen sharply and Beijing is putting pressure on corporations and local governments to straighten out their finances (Chart 10), resulting in a wave of defaults. This backdrop is worrisome for investors until policymakers reassure them that government support will continue. Chart 9China's Growth Potential Slowing Chart 10China's Leaders Struggle With Debt China’s domestic stability is a key indicator of whether geopolitical risks could spiral out of control. In particular we think aggressive action in the Taiwan Strait is likely to be delayed as long as the Chinese economy and regime are stable. China has rattled sabers over the strait this year in a warning to the United States not to cross its red line (Chart 11). It is not yet clear how Biden’s policy continuity with the Trump administration will affect cross-strait stability. We see no basis yet for changing our view that there is a 60% chance of a market-negative geopolitical incident in 2021-22 and a 5% chance of full-scale war in the short run. Chart 11China PLA Flights Over Taiwan Strait Putting all of the above together, we see substantial support for two key market-relevant geopolitical risks: Chinese domestic politics (including policy tightening) and persistent US-China tensions (including but not limited to the Taiwan Strait). We remain tactically defensive, a stance supported by several recent turns in global markets: The global stock-to-bond ratio has rolled over. China is a negative factor for global risk appetite (Chart 12). Global cyclical equities are no longer outperforming defensives. There is a stark divergence between Chinese cyclicals and global cyclicals stemming from the painful transition in China’s bloated industrial economy (Chart 13). Global large caps are catching a bid relative to small caps (Chart 14). Chart 12Global Stock-To-Bond Ratio Rolled Over Chart 13Global Cyclicals-To-Defensives Pause Chart 14Global Large Caps Catch A Bid Versus Small Caps Cyclically the global economic recovery should continue as the pandemic wanes. China will eventually relax policy to prevent too abrupt of a slowdown. Therefore our strategic portfolio reflects our high-conviction view that the current global economic expansion will continue even as it faces hurdles from the secular rise in geopolitical risk, especially US-China cold war. Measurable geopolitical risk and policy uncertainty are likely to rebound sooner rather than later, with a negative impact on high-beta risk assets. Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Coda: Global Minimum Tax Symbolizes Return Of Big Government On Thursday, the US Treasury Department released a proposal to set the global minimum corporate tax rate at 15%. The plan is to stop what Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has referred to as a global “race to the bottom” and create the basis for a rehabilitation of government budgets damaged by pandemic-era stimulus. Although the newly proposed 15% rate is significantly below President Biden’s bid to raise the US Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income (GILTI) rate to 21% from 10.5%, it is the same rate as his proposed minimum tax on corporate book income. Biden is also raising the headline corporate tax rate from 21% to around 25% (or at highest 28%). Negotiators at the OECD were initially discussing a 12.5% global minimum rate. The finance ministers of both France and Germany – where the corporate income tax rates are 32.0% and 29.9%, respectively – both responded positively to the announcement. However, Ireland, which uses low corporate taxes as an economic development strategy, is obviously more comfortable with a minimum closer to its own 12.5% rate. Discussions are likely to occur when G7 finance ministers meet on June 4-5. Countries are hoping to establish a broad outline for the proposal by the G20 meeting in early July. It is highly likely that the OECD will come to an agreement. However, it is not a truly “global” minimum as there will still be tax havens. Compliance and enforcement will vary across countries. A close look at the domestic political capital of the relevant countries shows that while many countries have the raw parliamentary majorities necessary to raise taxes, most countries have substantial conservative contingents capable of preventing stiff corporate tax hikes (Table 1, in the Appendix). Our Geopolitical strategists highlight that the Biden administration’s compromise on the minimum rate reflects its pragmatism as well as emphasis on multilateralism. Any global deal will be non-binding but the two most important low-tax players are already committed to raising corporate rates well above this level: Biden’s plan is noted above, while the UK’s budget for March includes a jump in the business rate to 25% in April 2023 from the current 19%. Ireland and Hungary are the only outliers but they may eventually be forced to yield to such a large coalition of bigger economies (Chart 15). Chart 15Global Minimum Corporate Tax Impact Is Symbolic Rather Than Concrete Thus a nominal minimum corporate tax rate is likely to be forged but it will not be truly global and it will not change the corporate rate for most countries. The reality of what companies pay will also depend on loopholes, tax havens, and the effective tax rate. Bottom Line: On a structural horizon, the global minimum corporate tax is significant for showing a paradigm shift in global macro policy: western governments are starting to raise taxes and revenue after decades of cutting taxes. The experiment with limited government has ended and Big Government is making a comeback. On a cyclical horizon, the US concession on global minimum tax is that the Biden administration aims to be pragmatic and “get things done.” Biden is also working with Republicans to pass bills covering some bipartisan aspects of his domestic agenda, such as trade, manufacturing, and China. The takeaway from a global point of view is that Biden may prove to be a compromiser rather than an ideologue, unlike his predecessors. Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Roukaya Ibrahim Vice President Daily Insights RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Kurt M. Campbell and Jake Sullivan, "Competition Without Catastrophe," Foreign Affairs, September/October 2019, foreignaffairs.com. Section II: Appendix Table 1OECD: Which Countries Are Willing And Able To Raise Corporate Tax Rates? GeoRisk Indicator China Russia UK Germany France Italy Canada Spain Taiwan – Province Of China Korea Turkey Brazil Australia Section III: Geopolitical Calendar
Highlights China's high-profile jawboning draws attention to tightness in metals markets, and raises the odds the State Reserve Board (SRB) will release some of its massive copper and aluminum stockpiles in the near future. Over the medium- to long-term, the lack of major new greenfield capex raises red flags for the IEA's ambitious low-carbon pathway released last week, which foresees the need for a dramatic increase in renewable energy output and a halt in future oil and gas investment to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. Copper demand is expected to exceed mined supply by 2028, according to an analysis by S&P, which, in line with our view, also sees refined-copper consumption exceeding production this year (Chart of the Week). A constitution re-write in Chile and elections in Peru threaten to usher in higher taxes and royalties on mining in these metals producers, placing future capex at risk. Chile's state-owned Codelco, the largest copper producer in the world, fears a bill to limit mining near glaciers could put as much as 40% of its copper production at risk. We remain bullish copper and look to get long on politically induced sell-offs as the USD weakens. Feature Politicians are inserting themselves in the metals markets' supply-demand evolutions to a greater degree than in the past, which is complicating the short- and medium-term analysis of prices. This adds to an already-difficult process of assessing markets, given the opacity of metals fundamentals – particularly inventories, which are notoriously difficult to assess. Chinese Communist Party (CCP) jawboning of market participants in iron ore, steel, copper and aluminum markets over the past two weeks has weakened prices, but, with the exception of steel rebar futures in Shanghai – down ~ 17% from recent highs, and now trading at ~ 4911 RMB/MT – the other markets remain close to records. Benchmark 62% Fe iron ore at the port of Tianjin was trading ~ 4% lower at $211/MT, while copper and aluminum were trading ~ 5.5% and 6.5% off their recent records at $4.535/lb and $2,350/MT, respectively. In addition to copper, aluminum markets are particularly tight (Chart 2). Jawboning aside, if fundamentals continue to keep prices elevated – or if we see a new leg up – China's high-profile jawboning could presage a release by the State Reserve Board (SRB) of some of its massive copper and aluminum stockpiles in the near term. In the case of copper, market guesses on the size of this stockpile are ~ 2mm to 2.7mm MT. On the aluminum side, Bloomberg reported CCP officials were considering the release of 500k MT to quell the market's demand for the metal. Chart of the WeekContinue Tightening In Copper Expected Chart 2Aluminum Remains Tight Brownfield Development Not Sufficient Our balances assessments continue to indicate key base metals markets are tight and will remain so over the short term (2-3 years). Economies ex-China are entering their post-COVID-19 recovery phase. This will be followed by higher demand from renewable generation and grid build-outs that will put them in direct competition with China for scarce metals supplies for decades to come. Markets will continue to tighten. In the bellwether copper market, we expect this tightness to remain a persistent feature of the market over the medium term – 3 to 5 years out – given the dearth of new supply coming to market. Copper prices are highly correlated with the other base metals (Chart 3) – the coefficient of correlation with the other base metals making up the LME's metals index is ~ 0.86 post-GFC – and provide a useful indicator of systematic trends in these markets. Chart 3Copper Correlation With LME Index Ex-Copper Copper ore quality has been falling for years, as miners focused on brownfield development to extend the life of mines (Chart 4). In Chart 5, we show the ratio of capex (in billion USD) to ore quality increases when capex growth is expanding faster than ore quality, and decreases when capex weakens and/or ore quality degradation is increasing. Chart 4Copper Capex, Ore Quality Declines Chart 5Capex-to-Ore-Quality Decline Set Market Up For Higher Prices Falling prices over the 2012-19 interval coincide with copper ore quality remaining on a downward trend, likely the result of previous higher prices that set off the capex boom pre-GFC. The lower prices favored brownfield over greenfield development. Goehring and Rozencwajg found in their analysis of 24 mines, about 80% of gross new reserves booked between 2001-2014 were due not to new mine discoveries but to companies reclassifying what was once considered to be waste-rock into minable reserves, lowering the cut-off grade for development.1 This is consistent with the most recent datapoints in Chart 5, due to falling ore grade values, as companies inject less capex into their operations and use it to expand on brownfield projects. Higher prices will be needed to incentivize more greenfield projects. A new report from S&P Global Market Intelligence shows copper reserves in the ground are falling along with new discoveries.2 According to the S&P analysts, copper demand is expected to exceed mined supply by 2028, which, in line with our view, sees refined-copper consumption exceeding production this year. Renewables Push At Risk Just last week, the IEA produced an ambitious and narrow path for governments to collectively reach a net-zero emissions (NZE) goal by 2050.3 Among its many recommendations, the IEA singled out the overhaul of the global electric grid, which will be required to accommodate the massive renewable-generation buildout the agency forecasts will be needed to achieve its NZE goals. The IEA forecasts annual investment in transmission and distribution grids will need to increase from $260 billion to $820 billion p.a. by 2030. This is easier said than done. Consider the build-out of China's grid, which is the largest grid in the world. To become carbon neutral by 2060, per its stated goals, investment in China’s grid and associated infrastructure is expected to approach ~ $900 billion, maybe more, over the next 5 years.4 The world’s largest fossil-fuel importer is looking to pivot away from coal and plans to more than double solar and wind power capacity to 1200 GW by 2030. Weening China off coal and rebuilding its grid to achieve these goals will be a herculean lift. It comes as no surprise that IEA member states have pushed back on the agency's NZE-by-2050 plan. This primarily is because of its requirement to completely halt fossil-fuel exploration and spending on new projects. Japan and Australia have pushed back against this plan, citing energy security concerns. Officials from both countries have stated that they will continue developing fossil fuel projects, as a back-up to renewables. Japan has been falling behind on renewable electricity generation (Chart 6). Expensive renewables and the unpopularity of nuclear fuel could make it harder for the world’s fifth largest fossil fuels consumer to move away from fossil fuels. Around the same time the IEA released its report, Australia committed $464 million to build a new gas-fired power station as a backup to renewables. Chart 6Japan Will Continue Building Fossil-Fuel Back-Up Generation Just days after the IEA report was published, the G7 nations agreed to stop overseas coal financing. This could have devastating effects for emerging and developing nations‘ electricity grids which are highly dependent on coal. In 2020 70% and 60% of India and China’s electricity respectively were produced by coal (Chart 7).5 Chart 7EM Economies Remain Reliant On Coal-Fired Generation Near-Term Copper Supply Risks Rise Even though inventories appear to be rebuilding, mounting political risks keep us bullish copper (Chart 8). Lawmakers in Chile and Peru are in the process of re-writing their constitutions to, among other things, raise royalties and taxes on mining activities in their respective countries. This could usher in higher taxes and royalties on mining for these metals producers, placing future capex at risk. In addition, Chile's state-owned Codelco, the largest copper producer in the world, fears a bill to limit mining near glaciers could put as much as 40% of its copper production at risk.6 None of these events is certain to occur. Peruvian elections, for one thing, are too close to call at this point, and Chile has a history of pro-business government. However, these are non-trivial odds – i.e., greater than Russian roulette odds of 1:6 – and if any or all of these outcomes are realized, higher costs in copper and lithium prices would result, and miners would have to pass those costs on to buyers. Bottom Line: We remain bullish base metals, especially copper. Another leg up in copper would pull base metals higher with it. We would look to get long on politically induced sell-offs, particularly with the USD weakening, as expected Chart 8Global Copper Inventories Rebuilding But Still Down Y/Y Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish Next Tuesday's OPEC 2.0 meeting appears to be a fairly staid affair, with little of the drama attending previous gatherings. Russian minister Novak observed the coalition would be jointly "calculating the balances" when it meets, taking into account the likely official return of Iran as an exporter, according to reuters.com. We expect a mid-year deal on allowing Iran to return to resume exports under the nuclear deal abrogated by the Trump administration in 2019, and reckon Iran has ~ 1.5mm b/d of production it can bring back on line, which likely would return its crude oil production to something above 3.8mm b/d by year-end. We are maintaining our forecast for Brent to average $64.45/bbl in 2H21; $75 and $78/bbl, in 2022 and 2023, respectively. By end 2023, prices trade to $80/bbl. Our forecast is premised on a wider global recovery going into 2H21, and continued production discipline from OPEC 2.0 (Chart 9). Base Metals: Bullish Our stop-losses was elected on our long Dec21 copper position on May 21, which means we closed the position with 48.2% return. The stop loss on our long 2022 vs short 2023 COMEX copper futures backwardation recommendation also was elected on May 20, leaving us with a return of 305%. We will be looking for an opportunity to re-establish these positions. Precious Metals: Bullish We expect the collapse in bitcoin prices, the US Fed’s decision to not raise interest rates, and a weakening US dollar to keep gold prices well bid (Chart 10). China’s ban on cryptocurrency services and Musk’s acknowledgment of the energy intensity of Bitcoin mining sent Bitcoin prices crashing. The Fed’s decision to keep interest rates constant, despite rising inflation and inflation expectations will reduce the opportunity cost of holding gold. According to our colleagues at USBS, the Fed will make its first interest rate hike only after the US economy has reached "maximum employment". The Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey reported that job openings rose nearly 8% in March to 8.1 million jobs, however, overall hiring was little changed, rising by less than 4% to 6 million. As prices in the US rise and the dollar depreciates, gold will be favored as a store of value. On the back of these factors, we expect gold to hit $2,000/oz. Ags/Softs: Neutral Corn futures were trading close to 20% below recent highs earlier in the week at ~ $6.27/bu, on the back of much faster-than-expected plantings. Chart 9 Chart 10 Footnotes 1 Please refer to Goehring & Rozencwajg’s Q1 2021 market commentary. 2 Please see Copper cupboard remains bare as discoveries dwindle — S&P study published by mining.com 20 May 2021. 3 Please see Net Zero by 2050 – A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector, published by the IEA. 4 Please see China’s climate goal: Overhauling its electricity grid, published by Aljazeera. 5 We discuss this in detail in Surging Metals Prices And The Case For Carbon-Capture published 13 May 2021, and Renewables ESG Risks Grow With Demand, which was published 29 April 2021. Both are available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see A game of chicken is clouding tax debate in top copper nation, Fujimori looks to speed up projects to tap copper riches in Peru and Codelco says 40% of its copper output at risk if glacier bill passes published by mining.com 24, 23 and 20 May 2021, respectively. Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2021 Summary of Closed Trades
Dear client, In addition to this weekly report, we also sent you a Special Report on cryptocurrencies, authored by my colleagues Guy Russell and Matt Gertken. The conclusion is that government authorities are likely to lean against the proliferation of cryptocurrencies, something we suspected in our most recent report on the topic. Regards, Chester Highlights Net foreign inflows into US assets probably peaked in March. Meanwhile, there are strong reasons to believe outflows from US securities will accelerate in the coming months. As such, the 12-18-month outlook for the US dollar remains negative. Cryptocurrencies are correcting sharply amidst a crackdown in China, a risk we warned investors about in our Special Report last month. We are increasingly favoring the yen. Lower the limit-sell on USD/JPY to 109. Hold long CHF/NZD positions recommended last week. Feature Chart I-1Current Account Deficit = Capital Account Surplus The US runs a sizeable trade deficit. As such, it must import capital to finance this deficit (Chart I-1). Over the last year, this has been driven by equity and agency bond purchases by foreigners. However, we might be at the apex of a shift, where foreign appetite for US securities starts a meaningful decline. Financing The US Deficit TIC data is usually a lagging indicator for FX markets, but still holds valuable insights into foreign appetite for US assets. On this front, the March data was particularly instructive: There were strong inflows into US Treasury notes and bonds, to the tune of almost $120 bn. This was the greatest driver of monthly inflows. This was also the largest monthly increase since the global financial crisis. Net inflows into US equities stood at $32.2 bn in March. This is on par with the three-month average, but a sharp deceleration from December inflows of $78.3 bn. Corporate bonds commanded particularly strong inflows in March to the tune of $43.1 bn. It appears that foreign private concerns swapped their agency bond purchases with corporate bonds. US residents repatriated $54.1 bn back home in March. Official concerns were big buyers of long-term US Treasury bonds, but this was offset by a large sale of US T-bills. Net foreign official purchases of overall US securities were just $6.5 bn. With the dollar down since March, it is a fair assumption that the strong inflows we saw since then have somewhat reversed. The question going forward is whether there has been a regime shift in US purchases, specifically the purchase of equities (and agency bonds). And if so, can the purchase of US Treasurys pick up the slack (Chart I-2). Foreign inflows into the US equity market tend to be driven by expected rates of return, either from an expected rerating of the multiple or from profit growth. A rerating of the US equity multiple, relative to the rest of the world, has inversely tracked interest rates (Chart I-3). This is due to the higher weighting of defensive sectors in the US equity market. Concurrently, we showed in a recent report that profit growth on an aggregate level also tends to move in sync with relative economic momentum.1 Chart I-2Equity Inflows Have Financed ##br##The US Deficit Chart I-3Rising Bond Yields Would Curtail Equity Inflows If growth is rotating away from the US, and global bond yields still have upside, this will curtail foreign appetite for US equities. This appears to be the story since March, as non-US bourses have outperformed (Chart I-4). Chart I-4ANon-US Markets Are Bottoming Chart I-4BNon-US Markets Are Bottoming In terms of fixed income flows, the rise in US bond yields towards a peak of circa 180bps in March undoubtedly triggered strong inflows into the US Treasury market. Since then, yields outside the US have been moving somewhat higher, especially in Germany. This should curtail bond inflows, and also fits with a growth rotation away from the US. While foreign central banks were net buyers of US Treasurys in March, the “other reportables” category from the CFTC data show a huge short position in US 10-year futures. Foreign central banks are usually grouped in this category. This will suggest the accumulation of Treasurys should reverse in the coming months (Chart I-5). Chart I-5Did Central Banks Hedge Their March Purchases? A rotation of growth from the US towards other parts of the world would also make it more difficult to finance the US current account deficit. This is because it will compress real interest rate spreads between the US and the rest of the world. From a historical perspective, inflows into US Treasury assets only tend to accelerate when real rates in the US are at least 50-100 bps above that in other G10 economies (Chart I-6). That could explain why despite a positive Treasury-JGB spread of 165 basis points, Japanese investors were very much absent buyers in March (Chart I-7). Chart I-6Real Rate Differentials And Bond Capital Flows Chart I-7The Big Boys Did Not Buy Much Treasurys In March Critical to this view is the outlook for US inflation. On this front, we note the following: First, the output gap in the US should close faster than most other economies, at least according to the OECD (Chart I-8). Ceteris paribus, US inflation should outpace that in other countries in the near term and put downward pressure on real rates. Chart I-8The US Should Generate Higher Inflation Fiscal spending has been more pronounced in the US compared to other countries, which will further fan the inflationary flames. The Fed is the only central bank in the G10 committed to an inflation overshoot. In a nutshell, there is compelling evidence to suggest US inflows peaked in March from both foreign equity and bond investors. Upside surprises in inflation are more likely in the US in the very near term compared to other economies, which will depress real rates. Meanwhile, higher global yields are also a negative for the US equity market. There Is No Alternative Chart I-9A Deep And Liquid Pool Of Treasurys My colleague, Mathieu Savary, has made the case that there is no alternative to US Treasurys. The treasury market is the most liquid and the deepest safe haven pool in the capital market universe (Chart I-9). Ergo, a flight to safety will always bid up Treasurys, as we saw in March 2020. We do agree that Treasurys will continue to act as the world’s safe haven benchmark for now. However, that privilege is fraying at the edges, and it is the marginal changes that matter for dollar investors. Competition for safe haven assets continues to intensify as the narrative switches from 40 years of disinflationary forces to the rising prospect of an inflation overshoot. Inflation is anathema to fiat currencies, including the dollar. For investors, precious metals have been a preferred habitat for anti-fiat holdings. That said, cryptocurrencies are also rising in the ranks as an alternative. In our Special Report2 released a month ago, we suggested government regulation was a huge risk for cryptocurrencies. But more specifically, the degree to which cryptocurrencies can benefit from a shift away from dollars will depend on whether private investors or central banks drive the outflows. Since the peak in the DXY index in 2020, the biggest sellers of US Treasurys have been private investors. Cryptocurrencies benefited from this diversification. That has changed since March, which partly explains the big drawdown in crypto prices. In general, you always want to align yourself with strong buyers who are price indiscriminate. Foreign central banks (the biggest holders of US Treasurys) prefer gold as their anti-dollar asset. This puts an solid footing under gold prices, compared to cryptocurrencies or other anti-fiat assets. It is worth noting that competition between the dollar and gold often run in long cycles. In the 1970s, as inflation took hold in the US, the dollar depreciated and gold soared. In the 1980s, the dollar took off and gold fell sharply, as the Federal Reserve was able to bring down inflation. The 1990s were relatively disinflationary, which supported the dollar (Chart I-10). A whiff of rising inflation in the early 2000s hurt the dollar, while the 2010s were characterized by very low inflation, supporting the dollar. More recently, the dollar is weakening as inflationary trends accelerate faster in the US (Chart I-11). Chart I-10The Dollar And Inflation Move Opposite Ways (1) Chart I-11The Dollar And Inflation Move Opposite Ways (2) One of our favorite indicators for gauging ultimate downside in the dollar is the bond-to-gold ratio. The rationale is that the bond-to-gold ratio should capture investor preference at the margin for either US Treasurys or gold. This in turn has been a good measure of investor confidence in the greenback. On this basis, the bond-to-gold ratio (TLT-to-GLD ETF) is breaking down to fresh cycle lows (Chart I-12). This has historically pointed towards a lower US dollar. Chart I-12The Dollar And The Bond-To-Gold Ratio Within precious metals, we like gold but love silver. As such, we are short the gold-to-silver ratio since an entry point of 68. Our bias is that initial support for this ratio is 60. Meanwhile, we also like platinum, and will go long versus palladium at current levels. A Few Other Indicators A few other market developments are pointing to a lower dollar in the coming months. The dollar tends to decline in the second half of the year. This has been true since the 1970s (Chart I-13). Importantly, even during the Paul Volcker years in the 80s when the dollar staged a meaningful rally, it often fell in the second half of the year. The winner in the second half of the year has usually been the Swiss franc and the Japanese yen (Chart I-14). Chart I-13The Dollar Usually Strengthens In H1 Chart I-14The Dollar Usually Weakens In H2 The OECD leading economic indicators still suggest US growth remains robust relative to the rest of the G10. However, our expectation is that this gap will decrease sharply in the second half of this year. That said, the current reading is a risk to our dollar bearish view (Chart I-15). Chart I-15US Exceptionalism Is A Risk For Dollar Bears Lumber has started to underperform Dr. Copper. Lumber benefits from solid US housing activity, while copper is more tied to global growth and the emerging investment in green technology. As a counter-cyclical currency, the dollar also tends to underperform higher beta currencies when lumber is underperforming copper (Chart I-16). The copper-to-gold ratio has also bottomed, suggesting ample liquidity is now fueling growth (Chart I-17). We suggested last week that the velocity of money across countries was a key variable to watch in getting the dollar call right. So far, the collapse in money velocity is least acute in China, explaining the rise in the copper-to-gold ratio and the improvement in non-US yields compared to the US. Chart I-16Lumber/Copper Prices And The Dollar Chart I-17Copper/Gold Prices And Bond Yields In summary, many cyclical indicators still point to a lower dollar. The key risk to this view is an equity market correction, and/or persistent relative strength in US growth. Chester Ntonifor Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Report, "Trading Currencies Using Equity Signals," dated May 7, 2021. 2 Please see Foreign Exchange Special Report, "Will Cryptocurrencies Displace Fiat," dated April 23, 2021. Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Limit Orders Closed Trades
Highlights The drubbing that cryptocurrencies have received over the past two weeks is just a taste of things to come. Crypto markets will continue to face tighter regulation, as this week’s announcements from China and the US Treasury underscore. The hope that cryptocurrencies can ever truly “go green” is wishful thinking. Given their decentralized nature, cryptocurrencies require real resources to be expended to permit secure transactions to take place. In addition to their technical limitations, cryptocurrencies face a fundamental constraint, which we dub the “Crypto Impossibility Theorem.” The Crypto Impossibility Theorem states that cryptocurrencies will be viable only if they offer a higher return than equities. The assumption that cryptos can generate a return in excess of equities is almost certain to be false since it would require that cryptocurrency holdings rise more quickly than income in perpetuity. In the near term, the pain in crypto markets could drag down other speculative assets such as tech stocks. In the long term, diminished investor interest in cryptos will benefit the stock market, as investor attention focuses back on equities. Cryptos: Can’t Have It All Investors who track the cryptocurrency market might be aware of the “blockchain trilemma.” It posits that cryptocurrencies can possess only two of the following three attributes: decentralization, security, and scalability. Bitcoin is both highly decentralized and reasonably secure. However, because control of the Bitcoin blockchain is distributed across thousands of individual computer nodes, it is also very slow. The Bitcoin network can barely process five transactions per second, compared to over 20,000 for the Visa network (Chart 1). The average fee for a Bitcoin transaction is around $30, a number that has risen over the past few years (Chart 2). Chart 1Speed Of Transactions, Or Lack Thereof Chart 2Rising Cost Per Transaction The elaborate puzzles that the Bitcoin algorithm must solve to verify transactions are extremely energy intensive. Bitcoin mining consumes more energy than entire countries such as Sweden, Argentina, and Pakistan (Chart 3). About two-thirds of Bitcoin mining currently takes place in China, often using electricity generated by burning coal. Chart 3Bitcoin And Ethereum: How Dare You! Some claim that Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are shifting to renewable energy sources, a trend that will continue in the years ahead. However, this argument misses the point, which is that the “proof of work” mechanism that underpins Bitcoin requires that real resources be expended. Suppose that all Bitcoin mining could be performed entirely for free using solar energy. This would reduce the cost of running a “mining rig,” incentivizing more mining. The Bitcoin algorithm operates in such a way that the difficulty of mining coins increases as the total computational power of all miners grows. In this computational rat race, miners would need to purchase more servers with ever more powerful specifications to keep up with their competitors. And semiconductors do not grow on trees. It takes real resources to produce them. As this recent Bloomberg article pointed out, Taiwan Semiconductor generates almost 50% more greenhouse emissions than General Motors. Like Bitcoin, Ethereum uses the “proof of work” mechanism to verify transactions. There have been active discussions to shift Ethereum to a “proof of stake” mechanism, which would greatly expedite transactions.1 However, some have argued that a proof of stake system would degrade security, allowing for “double-spend attacks” where someone transfers coins to someone else but then spends the coins before the transaction is completed. The Crypto Impossibility Theorem We will not delve any further into the technical nature of the blockchain trilemma other than to note that it poses a serious challenge to the entire cryptocurrency project. Instead, let us highlight another obstacle that has received less attention – one that could be even more damaging for the prospects of cryptocurrencies in the long run. Let us hyperbolically call it the “Crypto Impossibility Theorem.” The Crypto Impossibility Theorem states that a cryptocurrency will be viable only if it offers a higher return than equities. As we discuss below, the assumption that cryptos can generate a return in excess of equities is almost certain to be false since it would require that cryptocurrency holdings rise more quickly than income in perpetuity. This implies that the value that investors currently attach to cryptos will turn out to be illusory. To see the theorem in action, recall that money serves three functions: As a unit of account, as a medium of exchange, and as a store of value. It is doubtful that anyone seriously thinks that the price tag on a box of cereal will ever be displayed in units of Bitcoin, ether, or any of the various dog coins currently in vogue. Thus, we can scratch “unit of account” off the list of possible crypto uses. What about medium of exchange? One can imagine a scenario where the prices of goods and services are still listed in dollars, but one may transfer the equivalent in cryptocurrencies to purchase them. However, this raises an obvious question: Why would anyone choose to hold a cryptocurrency if wages and prices are denominated in fiat currencies such as US dollars or euros? The only possible answer is that people must see cryptocurrencies as fulfilling the third function of money, namely being a store of value. Would people be willing to hold cryptocurrencies if their prices generally moved sideways? It is doubtful. Cryptocurrencies are risky. Cryptocurrency accounts are not subject to deposit insurance. Crypto prices are also extremely volatile. During the pandemic, the S&P 500 fell by 34%, but the price of Bitcoin sank by an even greater 53%. Other cryptocurrencies fared even worse. In contrast, the trade-weighted US dollar strengthened by about 4% while gold prices only fell marginally (Chart 4). Thus, to incentivize people to hold cryptos, the prospective capital gain has to be large enough to offset the inherent volatility in owning these currencies. Chart 4Cryptocurrencies Fared Badly During Last Year’s Equity Sell-Off This is where the Crypto Impossibility Theorem comes in. Unlike dividend-paying stocks, cryptocurrencies do not provide any income to their holders. Thus, even if cryptos were just as risky as stocks, the price of cryptos would still need to rise more than the price of stocks in order to ensure that investors remain indifferent between the two asset classes. In practice, as the experience of the pandemic demonstrates, cryptos are even riskier than stocks. Thus, the expected return on cryptos has to exceed the expected increase in stock prices by more than the dividend yield. The problem for crypto holders is that this is not mathematically possible. Even if one controls for the rise in price-earnings multiples over time, equity returns have generally exceeded nominal GDP growth (Table 1). Hence, if cryptos need to offer superior returns to equities, and if the return on equities is at least equal to nominal GDP growth, then the market capitalization of cryptocurrencies will not only end up rising faster than for stocks, it will rise faster than aggregate national income. In a digital world where people need ever-less money to facilitate transactions, there is no good reason to expect this to happen. Table 1Equity Returns And GDP Growth A Fashion Choice Crypto-optimists might argue that the required rate of return to holding cryptos will decline as the market matures. This is wishful thinking. Equities derive their value from the fundamentals of a company’s business. In contrast, cryptocurrencies have no intrinsic value. Their value is whatever others are willing to pay for them. Not only does this make cryptocurrencies inherently more risky than equities, it also makes them highly susceptible to fashion trends. It is not surprising that many upstart cryptocurrencies have crafted ties with celebrities and other “influencers.” The whole point is to get enough people interested in a cryptocurrency to generate a feedback loop of wider adoption, thus allowing the currency’s early backers to cash out. The drubbing that cryptocurrencies have received over the past two weeks is just a taste of things to come. In this sense, cryptocurrencies are even more vulnerable to affinity scams than other assets such as precious metals. While apocalyptic warnings of “currency debasement” have long been used to sell bullion, at least with gold and silver, you truly do get something that is in short supply. In the case of cryptocurrencies, while the supply of any individual cryptocurrency may be limited, the overall supply is unbounded. This means that the average price of each currency is likely to rise much less than the aggregate value of all cryptocurrencies, making the entire asset class even less viable over time. Cryptogeddon The drubbing that cryptocurrencies have received over the past two weeks is just a taste of things to come. As Matt Gertken and Guy Russell discuss in this week’s Geopolitical Strategy report, crypto markets will continue to face tighter regulation (Table 2). Just this week, China reiterated its ban on financial companies offering cryptocurrency services. As part of its broader effort to crack down on tax evasion, the US Treasury Department also announced that it will require any cryptocurrency transfer worth $10,000 or more to be reported to the IRS. Table 2Regulation Of Cryptos: What Can And Cannot Be Done The blockchain trilemma will make it impossible for cryptos to overcome ESG concerns, while the Crypto Impossibility Theorem will prevent cryptocurrencies from ever being stable stores of value. In the meantime, an ebbing of input price inflation will take some of the wind out of the sails from the argument that cryptos are an indispensable hedge against the “inevitable” debasement of fiat monies. Chart 5 shows that DRAM prices have rolled over. Lumber prices have dropped 11% so far this week. Corn, soybean, and steel prices have also backed off their highs. Cryptos are like sharks; they need to move forward or they will sink. Back when they were unknown to most investors, a speculative case could have been made for buying cryptos. However, that case vanished earlier this year when the aggregate value of cryptocurrencies briefly surpassed the entire stock of US dollars in circulation (Chart 6). Even with the recent correction, there are 17 cryptocurrencies with market capitalizations above $10 billion (Table 3). Chart 5To The Moon And Back? Chart 6Aggregate Value Of Cryptos Briefly Surpassed The Entire Stock Of US Dollars In Circulation Table 3Close To 20 Cryptos Have A Market Cap In Excess Of US$10bn What will the ongoing crypto collapse mean for the broader investment landscape? In the near term, the pain in crypto markets could drag down other speculative assets such as tech stocks. In the long term, diminished investor interest in cryptos will benefit the stock market, as investor attention focuses back on equities. For the broader economy, the impact of a crypto bear market will be limited. The banking system has very little exposure to cryptos. There will be a modest adverse wealth effect from falling crypto prices. However, the inability of a few laser-eyed crypto traders to buy their Lambos is hardly going to matter much against the backdrop of strong stimulus-fueled consumption growth in the US and a number of other economies. Investors should continue to overweight stocks in a global asset portfolio, favoring value over growth, cyclicals over defensives, and non-US stocks over their US peers. Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist pberezin@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Proof of Work (PoW) and Proof of Stake (PoS) are two methods used to ensure the integrity of a coin’s ledger or record of transactions. PoW achieves this by requiring miners (those who add transactions to the ledger) to solve a time-consuming mathematical puzzle. PoS achieves this through a different mechanism, where anyone who stakes their own coin can be randomly selected to add new transactions to the ledger. Those holding or “staking” more coin have a higher probability of being selected. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores
Highlights Global oil markets will remain balanced this year with OPEC 2.0's production-management strategy geared toward maintaining the level of supply just below demand. This will keep inventories on a downward trajectory, despite short-term upticks due to COVID-19-induced demand hits in EM economies and marginal supply additions from Iran and Libya over the near term. Our 2021 oil demand growth is lower – ~ 5.3mm b/d y/y, down ~ 800k from last month's estimate – given persistent weakness in realized consumption. We have lifted our demand expectation for 2022 and 2023, however, expecting wider global vaccine distribution and increased travel toward year-end. The next few months are critical for OPEC 2.0: The trajectory for EM demand recovery will remain uncertain until vaccines are more widely distributed, and supply from Iran and Libya likely will increase this year. This will lead to a slight bump in inventories this year, incentivizing KSA and Russia to maintain the status quo on the supply side. We are raising our 2021 Brent forecast back to $63/bbl from $60/bbl, and lifting our 2022 and 2023 forecasts to $75 and $78/bbl, respectively, given our expectation for a wider global recovery (Chart of the Week). Feature A number of evolving fundamental factors on both sides of the oil market – i.e., lingering uncertainty over the return of Iranian and Libyan exports and the strength of the global demand recovery – will test what we believe to be OPEC 2.0's production-management strategy in the next few months. Briefly, our maintained hypothesis views OPEC 2.0 as the dominant supplier in the global oil market. This is due to the low-cost production of its core members (i.e., those states able to attract capital and grow production), and its overwhelming advantage in spare capacity, which we reckon will average in excess of 7mm b/d this year, owing to the massive production cuts undertaken to drain inventories during the COVID-19 pandemic. Formidable storage assets globally – positioned in or near refining centers – and well-developed transportation infrastructures also support this position. We estimate core OPEC 2.0 production will average 26.58mm b/d this year and 29.43mm b/d in 2022 (Chart 2). Chart of the WeekBrent Prices Likely Correct Then Move Higher in 2022-23 Chart 2OPEC 2.0 Will Maintain Status Quo The putative leaders of the OPEC 2.0 coalition – the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia – have distinctly different goals. KSA's preference is for higher prices – ~ $70-$75/bbl (basis Brent) to the end of 2022. Higher prices are needed to fund the Kingdom's diversification away from oil. Russia's goal is to keep prices closer to the marginal cost of the US shale-oil producers, who we characterize as the exemplar of the price-taking cohort outside OPEC 2.0, which produces whatever the market allows. This range is ~ $50-$55/bbl. The sweet spot that accommodates these divergent goals is on either side of $65/bbl for this year. OPEC 2.0 June 1 Meeting Will Maintain Status Quo With Brent trading close to $70/bbl, discussions in the run-up to OPEC 2.0's June 1 meeting likely are focused on the necessity to increase the 2.1mm b/d being returned to the market over the May-July period. At present, we do not believe this will be necessary: Iran likely will be returning to the market beginning in 3Q21, and will top up its production from ~ 2.4mm b/d in April to ~ 3.85mm b/d by year-end, in our estimation. Any volumes returned to the market by core OPEC 2.0 in excess of what's already been agreed going into the June 1 meeting likely will come out of storage on an as-needed basis. Libya will likely lift its current production of ~ 1.3mm b/d close to 1.5mm b/d by year end as well. We are expecting the price-taking cohort ex-OPEC 2.0 to increase production from 53.78mm b/d in April to 53.86mm b/d in December, led by a 860k b/d increase in US output, which will take average Lower 48 output in the US (ex-GOM) to 9.15mm b/d by the end of this year (Chart 3). When we model shale output, our expectation is driven by the level of prompt WTI prices and the shape of the forward curve. The backwardation in the WTI forward curve will limit hedged revenues at the margin, which will limit the volume growth of the marginal producer. We expect global production to slowly increase next year, and the year after that, with supply averaging 101.07mm b/d in 2022 and 103mm b/d in 2023. Chart 3US Crude Output Recovers, Then Tapers in 2023 Demand Should Lift, But Uncertainties Persist We expect the slowdown in realized DM demand to reverse in 2H21, and for oil demand to continue to recover in 2H21 as the US and EU re-open and travel picks up. This can be seen in our expectation for DM demand, which we proxy with OECD oil consumption (Chart 4). EM demand – proxied by non-OECD oil consumption – is expected to revive over 2022-23 as vaccine distribution globally picks up. As a result, demand growth shifts to EM, while DM levels off. China's refinery throughput in April came within 100k b/d of the record 14.2mm b/d posted in November 2020 (Chart 5). The marginal draw in April stockpiles could also signify that as crude prices have risen higher, the world’s largest oil importer may have hit the brakes on bringing oil in. In the chart, oil stored or drawn is calculated as the difference between what is imported and produced with what is processed in refineries. With refinery maintenance in high gear until the end of this month, we expect product-stock draws to remain strong on the back of domestic and export demand. This will draw inventories while maintenance continues. Chart 4EM Demand Will Recovery Accelerates in 2022-23 Chart 8China Refinery Runs Remain Strong COVID-19-induced demand destruction remains a persistent risk, particularly in India, Brazil and Japan. This is visible in the continued shortfall in realized demand vs our expectation so far this year. We lowered our 2021 oil demand growth estimate to ~ 5.3mm b/d y/y, which is down ~ 800k from last month's estimate, given persistent weakness in realized consumption. Our demand forecast for 2022 and 2023 is higher, however, based on our expectation for stronger GDP growth in EM economies, following the DM's outperformance this year, on the back of wider global vaccine distribution year-end (Table 1). Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) Our supply-demand estimates continue to point to a balanced market this year and into 2022-23 (Chart 6). Given our expectation OPEC 2.0's production-management strategy will remain effective, we expect inventories to continue to draw (Chart 7). Chart 6Markets Remained Balanced Chart 7Inventories Continue To Draw CAPEX Cuts Bite In 2023 In 2023, we are expecting Brent to end the year closer to $80/bbl than not, which will put prices outside the current range we believe OPEC 2.0 is managing its production around (Chart 8). We have noted in the past continued weakness in capex over the 2015-2022 period threatens to leave the global market exposed to higher prices (Chart 9). Over time, a reluctance to invest in oil and gas exploration and production prices in 2024 and beyond could begin to take off as demand – which does not have to grow more than 1% p.a. – continues to expand and supply remains flat or declines. Chart 8By 2023 Brent Trades to /bbl Chart 9Low Capex Likely Results In Higher Prices After 2023 Bottom Line: We are raising our 2021 forecast back to an average of $63/bbl, and our forecasts for 2022 and 2023 to $75 and $78/bbl. We expect DM demand to lead the recovery this year, and for EM to take over next year, and resume its role as the growth engine for oil demand. Longer term, parsimonious capex allocations likely result in tighter supply meeting slowly growing demand. At present, markets appear to be placing a large bet on the buildout of renewable electricity generation and electric vehicles (EVs). If this does not occur along the trajectory of rapid expansion apparently being priced by markets – i.e., the demand for oil continues to expand, however slowly – oil prices likely would push through $80/bbl in 2024 and beyond. Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish The Colonial Pipeline outage pushed average retail gasoline prices in the US to $3.03/gal earlier this week, according to the EIA. This was the highest level for regular-grade gasoline in the US since 27 October 2014. According to reuters.com, the cyberattack that shut down the 5,500-mile pipeline was the most disruptive on record, shutting down thousands of retail service stations in the US southeast. Millions of barrels of refined products – gasoline, diesel and jet fuel – were unable to flow between the US Gulf and the NY Harbor because of the attack, which was launched 7 May 2021 (Chart 10). While most of the system is up and running, problems with the pipeline's scheduling system earlier this week prevented a return to full operation. Base Metals: Bullish Spot copper prices remained on either side of $4.55/lb (~ $10,000/MT) by mid-week following a dip from the $4.80/lb level (Chart 11). We remain bullish copper, particularly as political risk in Chile rises going into a constitutional convention. According to press reports, the country's constitution will be re-written, a process that likely will pave the way for higher taxes and royalties on copper producers.1 In addition, unions in BHP mines rejected a proposed labor agreement, with close to 100% of members voting to strike. In Peru, a socialist presidential candidate is campaigning on a platform to raise taxes and royalties. Precious Metals: Bullish According to the World Platinum Investment Council, platinum is expected to run a deficit for the third consecutive year in 2021, which will amount to 158k oz, on the back of strong demand. Refined production is projected to increase this year, with South Africa driving this growth as mines return to full operational capacity after COVID-19 related shutdowns. Automotive demand is leading the charge in higher metal consumption, as car makers switch out more expensive palladium for platinum to make autocatalysts in internal-combustion vehicles. Ags/Softs: Neutral Corn prices continued to be better-offered following last week's WASDE report, which contained the department's first look at the 2021-22 crop year. Corn production is expected to be up close to 6% over the 2020-21 crop year, at just under 15 billion bushels. On the week, corn prices are down ~ 15.3%. Chart 10 Chart 11 Footnotes 1 Please see Copper price rises as Chile fuels long-term supply concerns published 18 May 2021 by mining.com. Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2021 Summary of Closed Trades
Highlights The reason to own stocks is not profit growth. The combination of unspectacular sales growth and down-trending profit margins means that global profit growth will be lacklustre, at best. The reason to own stocks is that the ultimate low in the T-bond yield is yet to come. This ultimate low in the T-bond yield will define the ultimate high in the global stock market’s valuation and the end of the structural bull market in stocks. Until that ultimate low in bond yields, long-term investors should own stocks… …and tilt towards long-duration growth sectors and growth-heavy stock markets such as the S&P500 that will benefit most from the final collapse in yields. The correction in DRAM, corn, and lumber prices suggests that the recent mania in inflation expectations is about to end. Fractal trade shortlist: copper and tin are fragile, go long T-bonds versus TIPS. Feature Chart of the WeekGlobal Profits Surged During The Credit Boom, But Have Gone Nowhere Since The main reason to own stocks is not what you think. The usual long-term argument to own stocks is based on profit growth – specifically, that an uptrend in profits drives up stock prices. Except that since 2008, this is not true (Chart of the Week and Chart I-2). Profits have barely grown, yet the global stock market has doubled.1 Chart I-2Since The Credit Boom Ended, Global Profits Have Barely Grown As profits have barely grown since 2008, the main reason that the global stock market has doubled is that the valuation paid for those profits has surged. Looking ahead, we expect this to remain the main reason to own stocks. The Reason To Own Stocks Is Not Profit Growth Profits are the product of sales and the profit margin on those sales. During the credit boom of the nineties and noughties, the strong tailwind of credit creation supercharged sales growth. At the same time, the profit margin on those sales trended higher (Chart I-3). Chart I-3Since The Credit Boom Ended, Sales Growth Has Slowed And Profit Margins Have Trended Lower Hence, in the decade leading up to 2008, global stock market profits surged, outstripping both sales and world GDP. Then the credit boom ended, and profits languished, because: Absent the tailwind from the credit boom, sales growth moderated. The profit margin trended lower. In the post-pandemic years, we expect both trends to persist. The credit boom is not coming back. Furthermore, as the pandemic recession was not protracted, sales are not at a depressed level from which they can play a sharp catch-up, as they did after the 2008 recession and the 2015 emerging markets recession. The structural downtrend in the profit margin will continue. Meanwhile, the structural downtrend in the profit margin will continue. Governments are desperate to mitigate – or at least, contain – the ballooning deficits that have paid for their pandemic stimuluses. Raising corporate taxes from structurally depressed levels is an easy and politically expedient response, as we have already seen from both the Biden administration in the US, and the Johnson administration in the UK. Higher corporate taxes will weigh on structural profit margins (Chart I-4). Chart I-4Corporate Taxes Will Rise From Structurally Depressed Levels The combination of unspectacular sales growth and down-trending profit margins means that global profit growth will continue to be lacklustre, at best. The Reason To Own Stocks Is That The Ultimate High In Valuations Is Yet To Come To repeat, the main reason that the global stock market has doubled since 2008 is that its valuation has surged (Chart I-5). Chart I-5The Main Driver Of The Stock Market Has Been Valuation Expansion In turn, the stock market’s valuation has surged because bond yields have plummeted. Empirically, the valuation of the global stock market is tightly connected with the simple average of the (inverted) yields on the safest sovereign bond, the US T-bond, and the riskier sovereign bond, the Italian BTP. The main reason that the global stock market has doubled since 2008 is that its valuation has surged. Through 2012-13, the decline in the Italian BTP yield, by signifying the fading of euro break-up risk, boosted stock valuations. In more recent years though, it has been the US T-bond yield that has been more influential in driving the global stock market’s valuation (Chart I-6). Chart I-6The Stock Market's Valuation Expansion Is Due To Lower Bond Yields But the crucial point to grasp is that the relationship between the declining bond yield and stock market valuation becomes exponential. This is because as bond yields approach their lower bound, bond prices have less additional upside but considerably more downside. This extra riskiness of bonds means that investors demand a diminishing risk premium on equities versus bonds. So, as bond yields decline, the required return on equities – which equals the bond yield plus the risk premium – collapses. And as valuation is just the inverse of required return, valuations soar. Chart I-7 and Chart I-8 demonstrate this exponential relationship in practice. Note that the bond yield is on the logarithmic left scale while the stock market’s valuation is on the linear right scale. The logarithmic versus linear scale visually demonstrates that at a lower bond yield, a given change in the bond yield has a much greater impact on the stock market’s valuation. Chart I-7The Relationship Between Lower Bond Yields And Stock Market Valuation Expansion Is Exponential Chart I-8When Bond Yields Reach Their Ultimate Low, Stock Market Valuations Will Surge Specifically, if the 30-year yield in the US reached the recent low achieved in the UK, it would boost the stock market’s valuation by nearly 50 percent. We fully expect this to happen at some point in the coming years because of The Shock Theory Of Bond Yields which we introduced in last week’s report. In a nutshell, the shock theory of bond yields states that each successive deflationary shock takes the bond yield to a lower structural level, until it can go no lower. Although it is impossible to predict the timing and nature of individual shocks such as the pandemic, it is easy to predict the statistical distribution of shocks. On this basis, the likelihood of a net deflationary shock is 50 percent within the next three years, and 81 percent within the next five years. Whatever that deflationary shock is, and whenever it arrives, it will mark the ultimate low in the 30-year T-bond yield – at a level close to the recent low in the UK. This ultimate low in the T-bond yield will also define the ultimate high in the global stock market’s valuation and the end of the structural bull market in stocks. Until that ultimate low in bond yields, long-term investors should own stocks. And tilt towards long-duration growth sectors that will benefit most from the final collapse in yields. Growth sectors and growth-heavy stock markets such as the S&P500 will continue to outperform, as they have done consistently since 2008. The Inflation Bubble Is Bursting The last couple of months has seen a mania in inflation expectations. As industries reconfigured for the end of lockdowns, supply bottlenecks in some commodities led to understandable spikes in their prices. These commodity price increases then unleashed fears about inflation. As investors sought inflation hedges, it drove up commodity prices more broadly … which added to the inflation fears…which added further fuel to the mania in inflation expectations. And so, the indiscriminate rally in commodities continued. The inflation bubble is bursting. But now it seems that the indiscriminate rally is over. DRAM prices have rolled over, belying the thesis that there is widespread shortage in semiconductors (Chart I-9). More spectacularly in the past week, the corn price has tumbled by 12 percent while the lumber price has slumped by 25 percent (Chart I-10). Chart I-9DRAM Prices Have ##br##Rolled Over Chart I-10Lumber Prices Are Correcting, Will Other Commodities Follow? Given that the commodity rally was indiscriminate, there is a danger that any correction will spread into other commodities like the industrial metals, copper and tin – especially as their fractal structures are at a level of fragility that has identified previous turning points in 2008, 2011, 2015, 2017 and 2020 (Chart I-11 and Chart I-12). Chart I-11Copper's Fractal Structure Is Fragile Chart I-12Tin's Fractal Structure Is Fragile In any case, the mania in inflation expectations is about to end. An excellent way to play this is to expect compression in the market implied inflation rate in T-bond yields versus TIPS yields (Chart I-13). Chart I-13The Mania In Inflation Expectations Is About To End Hence, this week’s recommended trade is to go long the 10-year T-bond versus the 10-year TIPS, setting a profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 3.6 percent. Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 To clarify, Chart 2 shows world stock market earnings per share, both 12-month forward and 12-month trailing. Whereas Charts 1 and 3 show sales and net profits (not per share). Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Equity Market Performance Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations
Highlights Global stocks are very vulnerable to a correction. But cyclically the Fed is committed to an inflation overshoot and the global economy is recovering. China’s fiscal-and-credit impulse fell sharply, which leaves global cyclical stocks and commodities exposed to a pullback. Beyond the near term, China’s need for political stability should prevent excessive policy tightening. The risk is frontloaded. China’s population census underscores one of our mega-themes: China’s domestic politics are unstable and can bring negative surprises. India’s state elections, held amid a massive COVID-19 wave, suggest that the ruling party is still favored in 2024. This implies policy continuity. Stick with a bullish cyclical bias but be prepared to shift if China commits a policy mistake. Feature Chart 1Inflation Rears Its Head Global markets shuddered this week in the face of a strong core inflation print in the US as well as broader fears as inflation rears its head after a long slumber (Chart 1). Cyclically we still expect investors to rotate away from US stocks into international stocks and for the US dollar to fall as the global economy recovers (Chart 2). However, this view also entails that emerging market stocks should start outperforming their developed market peers, which has not panned out so far this year. Emerging markets are not only technology-heavy and vulnerable to rising US bond yields but also further challenged now by China’s stimulus having peaked. Chart 2Equity Market Trembles Chart 3Global Economy And Sentiment Recovering Chart 4Global Cyclicals Versus Defensives Wavering The one thing we can rely on is that the COVID-19 vaccine rollout will continue to enable a global growth recovery (Chart 3). The US dollar is signaling as much. The greenback bounced in the first quarter on US relative growth outperformance but it has since fallen back. A falling dollar is positive for cyclical stocks relative to defensives, although cyclicals are flagging that the reflation trade is overdone in the near term (Chart 4). China’s growth now becomes the critical focal point. A policy mistake in China would upset the bullish cyclical view. China’s tightening of monetary and fiscal policy is a major global policy risk that we have highlighted this year and it is now materializing. However, we have also highlighted the constraints to tightening. At present China is standing right on the threshold of overtightening according to our benchmarks. If China tightens further, we will take a fundamentally more defensive view. Also in this report we will review the results of China’s population census and the implications of India’s recent state elections in the face of the latest big wave of COVID-19 infections. We are not making any changes to our bullish view on India yet but we are putting it on watch. China: The Overtightening Risk China’s troubles stem from the ongoing change of its economic model from reliance on foreign trade to reliance on domestic demand. This was a strategic decision that the Communist Party made prior to the rise of President Xi Jinping. Xi also has come to embody it and reinforce it through his strategic vision and confrontation with the United States. Beijing’s goal was to manage a smooth and stable transition. The financial turmoil of 2015 and the trade war of 2018-19 jeopardized that goal but policymakers ultimately prevailed. Then COVID-19 broke out and caused the first real economic contraction since the 1970s. While China contained the virus and bounced back with another massive round of stimulus (13.8% of GDP from the onset of the trade war to the 2021 peak), it now faces an even more difficult transition. Chart 5China's Rising Propensity To Save The need to improve quality of life is more urgent given that potential GDP has slowed. The need to contain systemic financial risk is more urgent given the big new increase in debt. And the need to diversify the economy is more urgent given that the US is now creating a coalition of democracies to confront China over a range of policies. The spike in the “marginal propensity to save” among Chinese people and corporations – as measured by the ratio of long-term cash deposits to short-term deposits – is an indication that the country is beset by troubles and animal spirits are depressed (Chart 5). China’s fiscal-and-credit impulse is turning down after the large expansion in 2018-21. Policymakers have signaled since last year that they would withdraw emergency stimulus and now the impact is apparent in the hard data. China’s money, credit, and combined credit-and-fiscal impulses all correlate with economic growth after a six-to-nine-month lag. This is true regardless of which indicators one uses for China’s money and credit cycles and economic activity (Charts 6A and 6B). China’s economic momentum is peaking and will become a headwind for the global economy later this year and in 2022, even though the world is otherwise enjoying the tailwinds of vaccination and economic reopening. Chart 6AChina’s Fiscal-And-Credit Impulse Falls Sharply … Chart 6B… As Do Money-And-Credit Impulses The downshift in the fiscal-and-credit impulse portends a slowdown in demand for commodities, materials, and other goods that China imports, especially for domestic consumption. (Chinese imports of parts and inputs that go into its manufacturing exports to the rest of the world look healthier as the rest of the world recovers.) This shift will make it hard for high-flying metals prices and other China plays, such as Swedish stocks, to continue rising without a correction (Chart 7). Speculative positioning is heavily in favor of commodities at the moment. The divergence between China and the metals markets that it dominates looks untenable in the short run (Chart 8). Chart 7China Reflation Trades Near Peaks Chart 8Money Cycle And Commodity Prices Clash The global shift to green or renewable energy systems (i.e. de-carbonization) is bullish for metals, especially copper, but will not be able to make up for the fall in Chinese demand in the short run, as our Emerging Markets Strategy has shown. China’s domestic uses of copper for construction and industry make up about 56.5% of global copper demand while the green energy race – namely the production of solar panels, windmills, electric cars – makes up only about 3.5% of global demand. This number somewhat understates the green program since re-gearing and retrofitting existing systems and structures is also projected, such as with electricity grids. But the point is that a drop in China’s copper consumption will work against the big increase in American and European consumption – especially given that the US infrastructure program will not kick in until 2022 at the earliest. Hence global copper demand will slow over the next 12 months in response to China even though the rest of the world’s demand is rising. Chinese policymakers have not yet signaled that they are worried about overtightening policy or that they will ease policy anew. The Politburo meeting at the end of April did not contain a major policy change from the Central Economic Work Conference in December or the Government Work Report in March (Table 1). But if there was a significant difference, it lay in reducing last year’s sense of emergency further while projecting some kind of scheme to hold local government officials accountable for hidden debt. The implication is continued tight policy – and hence the risk of overtightening remains substantial. Table 1China’s Recent Macroeconomic Policy Statements: Removing Stimulus Chart 9Benchmarks For China's Policy Tightening True, the tea leaves of the April meeting can be read in various ways. The April statement left out phrases about “maintaining necessary policy support” from the overarching macroeconomic policy guidance, which would imply less support for the economy. But it also left out the goal of keeping money supply (M2) and credit growth (total social financing) in line with nominal GDP growth, which could be seen as enabling a new uptick in credit growth. However, the People’s Bank of China did maintain this credit goal in its first quarter monetary policy report, so one cannot be sure. Notice that according to this rubric, China is right on the threshold of “overtightening” policy that we have utilized to measure the risk (Chart 9). Based on Chinese policymaking over the past two decades, we would expect any major inflection point to be announced at the July Politburo meeting, not the April one. We do not consider April a major change from the preceding meetings – nor does our China Investment Strategy. Therefore excessive policy tightening remains a genuine risk for the Chinese and global economy over the next 12 months. Our checklist for excessive tightening underscores this point (Table 2). Table 2Checklist For Chinese Policy Tightening China’s fiscal-and-credit downshift is occurring in advance of the twentieth national party congress, which will take place throughout 2022 and culminate with the rotation of the top leadership (the Politburo Standing Committee) in the autumn. The economy is sufficiently stimulated for the Communist Party’s hundredth birthday on July 1 of this year, so policymakers are focused on preventing excesses. Financial risk prevention, anti-monopoly regulation, and tamping down on the property bubble are the orders of the day. The increase in corporate and government bond defaults and bankruptcies underscore the leadership’s willingness to push forward with economic restructuring and reform, which is well-attested in recent years (Chart 10). Chart 10Creative Destruction In China Investors cannot assume that the party congress in 2022 is a reason for the leadership to ease policy. The contrary occurred in the lead-up to the 2017 party congress. However, investors also cannot assume that China will overtighten and sink its own economy ahead of such an important event. Stability will be the goal – as was the case in 2017 and previous party congresses – and this means that policy easing will occur at some point if the current round of tightening becomes too painful financially and economically. China-linked assets are vulnerable in the short run until policymakers reach their inflection point. Incidentally, the approach of the twentieth national party congress will be a magnet for political intrigue and shocking events. The top leader normally sacks a prominent rival ahead of a party congress as a show of force in the process of promoting his faction. The government also tightens media controls and cracks down on dissidents, who may speak up or protest around the event. But in 2022 the stakes are higher. President Xi was originally expected to step down in 2022 but now he will not, which will arouse at least some opposition. Moreover, under Xi, China has undertaken three historic policy revolutions: it is adopting a strongman leadership model, to the detriment of the collective leadership model under the two previous presidents; it is emphasizing economic self-sufficiency, at the expense of liberalization and openness; and it is emphasizing great power status, at the expense of cooperation with the United States and its allies. Bottom Line: Global equities, commodities, and “China plays” stand at risk of a substantial correction as a result of China’s policy tightening. Our base case is that China will avoid overtightening but the latest money and credit numbers run up against our threshold for changing that view. Another sharp drop in these indicators will necessitate a change. China’s Disappearing Workforce Ultimately one of the constraints on overtightening policy is the decline in China’s potential GDP growth as a result of its shrinking working-age population. China’s seventh population census came out this week and underscored the deep structural changes affecting the country and its economy. Population growth over the past ten years slowed to 5.4%, the lowest rate since the first census in 1953. The fertility rate fell to 1.3 in 2020, lower than the 2.1 replacement rate and the 1.8 target set when Chinese authorities relaxed the one-child policy in 2016. The fertility rate is also lower than the World Bank’s estimates (1.7 in 2019) and even Japan’s rate. The birthrate (births per 1,000 people) also fell, with the number of newborns in 2020 at the lowest point since 1961, the year of the Great Famine. The birth rate has converged to that of high-income countries, implying that economic development is having the same effect of discouraging childbearing in China, although China is less developed than these countries. Chart 11China’s Working Population Falling Faster Than Japan’s In 1990s The youngest cohort rose from 16.6% to 17.95% of the population, the oldest cohort rose 8.9% in 2010 to 13.5% today, while the working-age cohort fell from 75.3% to 68.6%. The working-age population peaked in 2010 and fell by 6.79 percentage points over the past ten years. By contrast, Japan’s working-age population peaked in 1992 and fell 2.18 percentage points in the subsequent decade (Chart 11). In other words China is experiencing the demographic transition that hit Japan in the early 1990s – but China’s working-age population might fall even faster. The country is experiencing this tectonic socioeconomic shift at a lower level of per capita wealth than Japan had attained. The demographic challenge will put pressure on China’s socioeconomic and political system. The China miracle, like other Asian miracles, was premised on the use of export-manufacturing to generate large piles of savings that could be repurposed for national development. The decline in China’s working-age population coincides with economic development and a likely decline in the saving rate over the long run. This is shown in Chart 12, which shows two different pictures of China’s working population alongside the gross national saving rate. As China’s dependency ratio rises the saving rate will fall and fewer funds will be available for repurposing. The cost of capital will rise and economic restructuring will accelerate. In the case of Japan, the demographic shift coincided with the 1990 financial crisis and then a nationwide shift in economic behavior. The saving rate fell as the economy evolved but the savings that were generated still exceeded investment due to the shortfall in private demand and the pressure of large debt burdens. Companies focused on paying down debt rather than expanding investment and production (Chart 13). All of this occurred when the external environment was benign, whereas China faces a similar demographic challenge in the context of rising economic pressure due to geopolitical tensions. Chart 12Chinese Workers Getting Scarcer Chart 13High Savings Enable Debt Splurge Until Debt Overwhelms China has so far avoided a debilitating financial crisis and collapse in real estate prices that would saddle the country with a traumatizing liquidity trap. The Chinese authorities are painfully aware of the danger of the property bubble and are therefore eager to prevent financial excesses and curb bubble-like activity. This is what makes the risk of overtightening significant. But a mistake in either direction can lead to a slide into deflation. The Xi administration has stimulated the economy whenever activity slowed too much or financial instability threatened to get out of hand, as noted above, but this is a difficult balancing act, which is why we monitor the risk of excessive tightening so closely. A few other notable takeaways from China’s population census include: The two-child policy is not succeeding so far. COVID-19 might have had a negative effect on fertility but it could not have affected births very much due to the timing. So the trends cannot be distorted too much by the pandemic. Rapid urbanization continues, with the rate hitting 64% of the population, up 14 percentage points from 2010. Policy discussions are emphasizing lifting the retirement age; providing financial incentives for having babies; a range of price controls to make it more affordable to have babies, most notably by suppressing the property bubble; and measures to ensure that property prices do not fall too rapidly in smaller cities as migration from the country continues. China’s ethnic minority population, which consists of 9% of the total population, grew much faster (10% rate) over the past decade than the Han majority, which makes up 91% of the population (growing at a 5% rate). Minorities are exempt from the one-child (and two-child) policy. Yet ethnic tensions have arisen, particularly in autonomous regions like Xinjiang, prompting greater international scrutiny of China’s policies toward minorities. China’s demographic challenge is widely known but the latest census reinforces the magnitude of the challenge. China’s potential growth is falling while the rising dependency ratio underscores social changes that will make greater demands of government. Greater fiscal and social spending needs will require difficult economic tradeoffs and unpopular political decisions. Economic change and the movement of people will also deepen regional and wealth disparities. All of these points underscore one of our consistent Geopolitical Strategy mega-themes: China’s domestic political risks are underrated. Bottom Line: China’s 2020 census reinforces the demographic decline that lies at the root of China’s rising socioeconomic and political challenges. While China has a strong central government with power consolidated under a single ruling party, and a track record of managing its various challenges successfully in recent decades, nevertheless the magnitude of the changes happening are overwhelming and will bring negative economic and political surprises. India: State Elections Not A Turning Point Against Modi At the height of the second COVID-19 wave in India, elections were held in five Indian states. Results for the state of West Bengal were most important. West Bengal is a large state, accounting for nearly a-tenth of legislators at India’s national assembly, and the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) of Prime Minister Narendra Modi had declared that it would win nearly 70% of the 294 seats there. In the event West Bengal delivered a landslide victory for the All India Trinamool Congress (AITMC), a regional party. Despite the fact that the AITMC was facing a two term anti-incumbency, the AITMC seat count hit an all-time high. Few had seen this coming as evinced by the fact that AITMC’s performance exceeded forecasts made by most pollsters. What should investors make of the BJP’s loss in this key state? Was it a backlash against Modi’s handling of the pandemic? Does it portend a change of government and national policy in the general elections in 2024? Not really. Here we highlight three key takeaways: Takeaway #1: The BJP’s performance was noteworthy Chart 14India: BJP Gets Foot In Door In West Bengal Whilst the BJP fell short of its goals in West Bengal, the state is not a BJP stronghold. The BJP is known to have natural traction in Hindi-speaking regions of India and West Bengal is a non-Hindi speaking state where the BJP was traditionally seen as an outsider. Also, this state is known to be unusually unwilling to accept change. For instance, before AITMC, the Left was in power for a record spell of 34 years in this state. In such a setting, the BJP’s performance in 2021 in West Bengal is noteworthy: the party increased its seat count to 77 seats, compared to only 3 seats in 2016 (Chart 14). This performance now catapults the BJP into becoming the key opposition party in West Bengal. It also indicates that the BJP may take time but has what it takes to build traction in states that are not traditional strongholds. Given that it achieved this feat in a state where it has little historic strength, its performance is noteworthy as a sign that the BJP remains a force to be reckoned with. Takeaway #2: The BJP’s popularity slipped but it is still favored to retain power in 2024 Whilst discontent against the BJP is rising on account of its poor handling of COVID-19 and the accompanying economic distress, there remains no viable alternative to the BJP at the national level. The recent state elections, not only in West Bengal, confirm that the opposition Indian National Congress (INC) is yet to get its act in order. The Congress party collapsed from 44 seats in Bengal to 0 seats. More importantly, the Congress is yet to resolve two critical issues, i.e. the need to appoint or elect an internal leader with mass appeal, and the need to develop an identifiable policy agenda. The weakness of the Congress means that while the BJP’s seat count could diminish as against its 2019 peak performance, nevertheless our base-case scenario for 2024 remains that of a BJP-led government maintaining power in India. Policy continuity and the chance of some structural reform are still the base case. Takeaway #3: The rise and rise of India’s regional parties The rise of the BJP over the last decade has coincided with losses in seats by both the Congress party and India’s regional parties. However, the most recent round of state elections signals that the BJP cannot compress regional parties’ seat share drastically. For instance, in West Bengal, it managed to win 77 seats by itself but this was not at the expense of the AITMC, which is the dominant player in this state. In another large state where elections were held earlier this month, i.e. Tamil Nadu, control continues to fluctuate between two well-entrenched regional parties. Chart 15India: BJP Peaked In 2019 But Still Favored 2024 The 2019 general elections saw the share of regional parties (defined as all parties excluding the BJP and Congress) fall to 35% from the near 40% levels seen at the general elections of 2014 (Chart 15). The 2024 elections could in fact see regional parties’ seat share move up a notch as the BJP’s peak seat count could diminish from the highs of 2019. The coming rise of India’s regional parties is a trend rooted in a simple dynamic. With the BJP as a two-term incumbent in the 2024 elections, voters could choose to gratify regional parties at the margin, in the absence of any alternative to the BJP at the national level. The BJP remains in a position to be the single largest party in India in 2024 with a seat count in excess of the half-way mark. But could a situation arise where the ruling party pulls in a regional party to stay ahead of the half-way mark with a large buffer? Absolutely. But of course 2024 is a long way away. Managing COVID-19 and its economic fallout will make it harder than otherwise for the BJP to beat its 2019 performance. The next bout of key state elections in India are due in February 2022 and India’s largest state, Uttar Pradesh, will see elections. With the BJP currently in power in this Hindi-speaking state, the February 2022 elections will shed more light on BJP’s ability to mitigate the anti-incumbency effect of the pandemic and economic shock. Bottom-Line: BJP’s popularity in India has been shaken but not dramatically so. The BJP remains firmly in a position to be the single largest party in India with a seat count that should cross the half-way mark in 2024. So government stability is not a concern in this emerging market for now. In light of China’s domestic political risks, and India’s political continuity, we will maintain our India trades for the time being (Charts 16A and 16B). However, we are undertaking a review of India as a whole and will update clients with our conclusions in a forthcoming special report. Chart 16AStay Long Indian Bonds Versus EM Chart 16BStick To Long India / Short China Investment Takeaways Maintain near-term safe-haven trades. Close long natural gas futures for a 19.8% gain. Maintain cyclical (12-month) bullish positioning with a preference for value over growth stocks. Maintain long positions in commodities, including rare earth metals, and emerging markets. But be prepared to cut these trades if China overtightens policy according to our benchmarks. For now, continue to overweight Indian local currency bonds relative to emerging market peers and Indian stocks relative to Chinese stocks. But we are reviewing our bullish stance on India. Chart 17Cyber Security Stocks Perk Up Amid Tech Rout Stay long cyber security stocks – though continue to prefer aerospace and defense over cyber security as a geopolitical “back to work” trade. Cyber security stocks perked up relative to the tech sector during the general tech selloff over the past week. The large-scale Colonial Pipeline ransomware cyber attack in the US temporarily shuttered a major network that supplies about 45% of the East Coast’s fuel (Chart 17). Nevertheless the attack on critical infrastructure highlights that cyber security is a secular theme and investors should maintain exposure. Cyber stocks have outperformed tech in general since the vaccine discovery (Chart 18). Chart 18Cyber Security Is A Secular Theme Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Yushu Ma Research Associate yushu.ma@bcaresearch.com Ritika Mankar, CFA Editor/Strategist Ritika.Mankar@bcaresearch.com
Highlights Over the 2021-22 period, renewable capacity will account for 90% of global electricity-generation additions, per the IEA's latest forecast. This will follow the 45% surge (y/y) in renewable generation capacity added last year, which occurred despite the COVID-19 pandemic (Chart of the Week). Continued investment in renewables and EVs – along with a global economic rebound – are pushing forecasts at banks and trading companies to a $13k - $20k/MT range for copper, vs. ~ $10.6k/Mt (~ $4.80/lb) at present. Should these stronger metals forecasts prove out, investments that extend low-carbon use of fossil fuels via carbon-capture and circular-use technologies will become more attractive. Investment in these technologies has been limited because there is no explicit global reference price to assess investments against. A carbon market or tax would provide such a bogey and accelerate investment. It could be monitored via a Carbon Market Club, which would limit trade to states posting and collecting the tax.1 Feature At almost 280GW, renewable energy capacity additions last year increased 45% y/y, the most since 1999, according to the IEA's most recent update on renewable energy.2 For this year and next, renewables are expected to account for 90% of capacity additions, led by solar PV investment increasing ~ 50% to 162GW. Wind capacity grew 90% last year, increasing to 114GW, and is expected to increase ~ 50% to end-2022. As renewables generation – and EV investment – continues to grow, demand for bulks (steel and iron ore) and base metals, led by copper, will pull prices higher. This is occurring against a backdrop of flat supply growth and physical deficits over the four years ended 2020 (Chart 2). According to the IEA, a 40% increase in steel and copper prices over the September 2020 to March 2021 period played a role in higher solar PV module prices. Chart of the WeekRenewables Capacity Surges The supply side of the copper market will remain in deficit this year and next, in our assessment, and may continue on that trajectory if, as Wood Mackenzie expects, demand grows at a 2% p.a. rate over the next 20 years and miners remain reluctant to commit to the capex required to keep up with demand.3 Chart 2Physical Deficits Will Draw Copper Stocks... ESG risk for copper – and other metals required to build the generation and infrastructure required in the renewables buildout – will increase as prices rise, which also will add to cost.4 Cost increases coupled with increasing ESG risks in this buildout will increase the attractiveness of carbon-capture and circular-economy technology investment, in our view. This would extend the use of low-carbon fossil fuels if the technology can move the world closer to a net-zero carbon future. However, unless and until policy catalyzes this investment, – e.g., via a global carbon trading price or tax – investment in these technologies likely will continue to languish. Carbon-Capture Tech's Unfulfilled Promise The history of Carbon Capture, Utilization and Storage (CCUS) has been one of high hopes and unmet expectations. It is generally recognized as a route to mitigate climate change; however, its deployment has been slower than expected. Low-carbon technology requires more critical metals than its fossil-fuel counterpart (Chart 3). Apart from the issue of cost, the ESG risks of mining metals for the renewable energy transition will increase as more metals are demanded, which we discussed in previous research.5 According to Wood Mackenzie, mining companies will need to invest nearly $1.7 trillion in the next 15 years to help supply enough metals to transition to a low carbon world.6 Chart 3Low-Carbon Tech Is Metals Intensive Given these looming physical requirements for metals, fossil fuels most likely will need to be used for longer than markets currently anticipate, as a bridge to the low-carbon future, or as part of that future, depending on how successfully carbon is removed from the hydrocarbons used to power modern society. If so, using fossil fuels while mitigating their environmental impact will require highly focused technology to lower CO2 and other green-house gas (GHG) emissions during the transition to a low-carbon future. Enter CCUS technology: This technology traps CO2 from sources that use fossil fuels or biomass to make the energy required to run modern societies. In the current iterations of this technology, CO2 can either be compressed and transported, or stored in geological or oceanic reservoirs. This can then be used for Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) to extract harder-to-reach oil by injecting CO2 into the reservoirs holding the hydrocarbons.7 The Scope For CCUS Investment CCUS investment spending is increasing, as are the number of planned facilities using or demonstrating this technology. In the 2020 edition of its Energy Technology Perspectives, the IEA noted 30 new integrated CCUS facilities have been announced since 2017, mostly in advanced economies such as US and Europe, but also in some EM nations. As of 2020, projects at advanced stages of planning represented a total of $27 billion, more than double the investment planned in 2017 (Chart 4). Among its many goals, the Paris Agreement seeks a balance between emissions by man-made sources and removal by greenhouse gas (GHGs) sinks (absorption of the gases) in the second half of the 21st century. Practically, many countries – especially EM economies – will still need to use fossil fuels to develop during this period (Chart 5).8 Chart 4Carbon-Capture Projects To Date Chart 5EM Development Will Require Fossil-Fuel Energy CCUS In The Energy Sector As a fuel that emits fewer GHGs than coal – i.e., half the CO2 of coal – natural gas can be used effectively as a bridge to green-power generation (Chart 6). Chart 6Natural Gas Will Remain Attractive As A Bridge Fuel The CO2 in natgas needs to be removed before dry gas is sold as pipeline-quality gas or LNG. This CO2 is normally vented to the atmosphere; however, by using CCUS technology, it can be reinjected into geological formations and used for EOR. For this reason, LNG companies in the US, the world’s largest LNG exporter, have been looking into investing in CCUS technology in a bid to become greener.9 CCUS can also be used to produce low-cost hydrogen – so-called blue hydrogen – using natural gas and coal, as opposed to the more expensive electrolysis process, which uses renewables-based electricity to produce "green" hydrogen. The lower blue-hydrogen costs will make clean hydrogen more accessible to emerging nations, opening new avenues for the world to use the energy carrier in its decarbonization effort. The Value Of Ccus In Other Industries CCUS technology can be retrofitted to existing power and industrial plants, which, according to the IEA, could otherwise still emit 8 billion tons of CO2 in 2050, around one-quarter of annual energy-sector emissions in 2020. Of the fossil fuel generators, coal-fired power generation presents the biggest CO2 challenge, with most of the emissions coming from China and other EM Asia nations, where the average plant age is less than 20 years. Since the average age of a coal fired power plant is 40 years, according to the US National Association of Regulatory Commissioners, this implies that these plants have a long remaining life and could still be operating until 2050. CCUS is the only alternative to retiring or repurposing existing power and industrial plants. The IEA believes that CCUS is imperative to reach net-zero carbon emissions. In its Sustainable Development Scenario - in which global CO2 emissions from the energy sector decline to net-zero by 2070 – CCUS accounts for 15% of the cumulative reduction in emissions. If the world needs to reach net-zero by 2050 instead, it will need almost 50% more CCUS deployment.10 Properly implemented and scaled, CCUS can allow industries to continue using oil, gas and coal and to attain net-zero carbon emission targets, boosting demand for fossil fuels in the medium term. This is especially important to EM development. Why Aren’t We Further Along In CCUS? What Can Be Done? The main reason CCUS isn’t used more widely is because of its cost. Currently, the cost of capturing carbon varies, based on the amount of CO2 concentration, with Direct Air Capture being most expensive (Chart 7). Given the prohibitive costs, CCUS has not been commercially viable. However, the same argument could have been used against implementing renewable sources of energy. While at one point the Levelized Cost of Energy from renewable sources was high, as these sources have been scaled up – aided in no small part by government subsidies – costs have fallen, following something akin to a Moore’s Law cost-decay curve. A Levelized Cost of Energy for solar generation reported by Lazard Ltd., which allows for comparisons across technologies (e.g., fossil-fuel vs renewable), shows generation costs fell by 89% to $40/MWh from $359/MWh from 2009-2019 (Chart 8). This learning curve was able to take place because of government subsidies, which promoted the deployment of solar technology. Chart 7CCUS Can Be Expensive Chart 8Subsides Could Support CCUS, Just As Was Done For Solar The cost of CCUS technology is falling. For example, in 2019 the Global CCS Institute reported it cost $100/ton to capture carbon from the Canada-based Boundary Dam using a CCS unit built in 2014. The cost of carbon captured at the US-based Petra Nova plant – built three years later – using improved technology was $65/ton. Both are coal-powered electricity plants. The report also noted coal-fired power plants planning to commence operations in 2024-28 using the same CCS technology as those at Boundary Dam and Petra Nova expect carbon costs to be ~ $43/ton, due to steeper learning curves, research, lower capital costs due to economies of scale, and digitalization. One commonality amongst these sources of cost reductions is that companies need to invest more into CCUS and familiarize themselves with this technology. As was the case with renewables, government subsidies would reduce the prohibitive costs of operating CCUS technology, and draw more participation to refining this technology. Early, first-of-its-kind CCUS will be expensive, however subsidies in the form of capital support or tax credits will increase CCUS implementation and research. Boundary Dam and Petra Nova are examples of facilities that benefitted from government subsidies. The facilities received $170 million and $200 million respectively from Canadian and US Government agencies at the time of the CCS units’ construction. The US has also implemented a 45Q tax credit system which pays facilities $50/ton of CO2 stored and $35/ton of CO2 if it is used in applications like Enhanced Oil Recovery. According to the Global CCS Institute, in late-2019, of the eight new CCUS projects that were added in the US, four cited the presence of 45Q as the key driver. Putting Carbon Markets And Taxes To Work The EU’s Emissions Trading System (ETS) market, which was implemented in 2005, is an example of innovative policy which incentivizes companies to curb emissions, using market forces. The price of carbon measured in these markets puts a tangible value on a negative externality, which before this went unrecorded. The downside of this ETS is its reliance on the EU's environmental policy implementation, which is subject to policy changes that complicate supply-demand analysis for longer-term planning – e.g., the recent increase in its emissions target to a minimum of 55% net reduction in GHG emissions by 2030. An alternative to policy-driven trading of emissions rights is a per-ton tax on emissions, which governments would impose and collect. This would raise costs of technologies using fossil fuels – including those used in the mining industry to increase supply of critical bulks and base metals needed for the renewables transition. At the same time, such a tax would give firms supplying and using technologies that raise CO2 levels an incentive to lower CO2 output using CCUS technologies. ETS markets and governments imposing CO2 taxes could form Carbon Market Clubs – a technology developed by William Nordhaus, the 2018 Nobel Laureate in Economics – that restrict trading to states that can demonstrate their participation and support of actual carbon-reduction detailed in the Paris Agreement via trading or tax schemes.11 As the green energy transition gains traction and governments implement more net-zero emissions policies, the price of carbon will rise. As the price of carbon rises, the price tag associated with companies’ carbon emissions will increase with it. With market participants expecting the price of carbon to continue to rise after hitting record values, the incentive for companies operating in the EU to use CCUS technology will rise, as would the incentive for firms facing a carbon tax.12 Bottom Line: Given the meteoric price rise of green metals, underfunded capex, and the ESG risks associated with mining metals for the low carbon future, we expect fossil fuels to play a larger role in the transition to a low-carbon society than markets are currently expecting. For countries to be able to use fossil fuels while ensuring they achieve their climate goals, the use of CCUS technology is important. To increase CCUS uptake, governments will need to subsidize this technology until demand for it gains traction, just like in the case of renewables. Encouraging ETS and carbon-tax schemes also will be required to catalyze action. Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish Brent prices were knocking against the $70/bbl door going to press, following the IEA's assessment of a robust demand recovery in 2H21 (Chart 9). The IEA took its 1H21 demand growth down 270k b/d, owing to COVID-19-induced demand destruction in India, OECD Americas and Europe, but left its 2H21 estimate intact, making overall demand growth for this year 5.4mm b/d. The EIA also expects 5.4mm b/d demand growth for this year, and growth of 3.7mm b/d next year. OPEC left its full-year 2021 demand growth estimate at 6mm b/d. OPEC 2.0 meets again on June 1 and will look to return more of its sidelined production to the market, in our estimation. We will be updating our supply-demand balances and price forecasts in next week's report. Base Metals: Bullish Spot copper prices traded on either side of $4.80/lb on the CME/COMEX market this week as we went to press. Threats of a tax increase in Chile, where a bill calling for such a measure is making its way through Congress; a potential strike by mine workers; and a shortage of sulfuric acid used in the extraction of ore brought about, according to Bloomberg, by reduced global sulfur supplies due to lower refinery runs during the pandemic all are keeping copper well bid. Our target for Dec21 COMEX copper remains $5/lb (~ $11k/ton on the LME). We remain long calendar 2022 COMEX copper vs short 2023 COMEX copper expecting physical supply deficits to continue to force storage draws, which will backwardate the metal's forward curve. Precious Metals: Bullish US CPI data on Wednesday showed that headline inflation rose by 4.2% for the month of April compared to the previous year. While this increase is the highest since 2008, this jump could also be fueled by a low base effect – Inflation levels were falling this time last year as the pandemic picked up. While rising prices increases demand for gold as an inflation hedge, if the Federal Reserve increases interest rates on the back of this data, the US dollar will rise, negatively affecting gold prices (Chart 10). However, we do not expect the Fed to abruptly change its guidance on this report, and therefore expect the central bank will treat this blip as transitory. As of yesterday’s close, COMEX gold was trading at $1,835.9/oz. Ags/Softs: Neutral Going to press, the Chicago soybean market was surging ahead of the scheduled World Agriculture Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE) report due out later Wednesday. Front-month beans were trading ~ $16.70/bu, up 2% on the day. This month's WASDE will contain the USDA's first estimate for demand in ag markets for the 2021/22 crop year. Markets are expecting supplies to tighten as demand strengthens. Chart 9 Chart 10 Footnotes 1 Please see Carbon Market Clubs and the New Paris Regime published by the World Bank in July 2016. The intellectual and computational framework for such technology was developed by William Nordhaus, the 2018 Nobel Laureate in Economics. 2 Please see Renewable Energy Market Update, Outlook for 2021 and 2022.pdf, published by the IEA this week. 3 WoodMac notes, "without additional substantial investment, production will decline from 2024 onwards. Coupled with demand growth, this decline in output will lead to a theoretical shortfall of around 16 Mt by 2040." The consultancy estimates an additional $325 - $500+ billion will be needed to meet copper demand over this period. Please see Will a lack of supply growth come back to bite the copper industry? Published 23 March 2021 by woodmac.com. 4 Please see Renewables ESG Risks Grow With Demand, which we published 29 April 2021. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 5 Refer to footnote 4. 6 Please see Low carbon world needs $1.7 trillion in mining investment, published by Reuters. 7 This method is used to increase oil production. It changes the properties of the hydrocarbons, restores formation pressure and enhances oil displacement in the reservoir. Using EOR, oil companies can recover 30% to 60% of the original oil level in the reservoir. Please see Enhanced Oil Recovery published by the US Department of Energy. 8 Please see the Reuter’s column CO2 emission limits and economic development. 9 Please see World Oil’s U.S. LNG players tout carbon capture in bid to boost green image. 10 Please see IEA’s Special Report on Carbon Capture Utilisation and Storage, published as a part of the Energy Technology Perspective 2020. 11 See footnote 1 above. 12 Please see Cost of polluting in EU soars as carbon price hits record €50 by the Financial Times. Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2021 Summary of Closed Trades