Coal

Highlights Alternative energy is priced to deliver spectacular long-term earnings growth, but this will be a very tough ask. While alternative energy will take a greater share of the energy pie, the pie itself is shrinking, as is its price. At its current valuation, alternative energy does not meet the conditions to be in a long-term investment portfolio. As the Ethereum network becomes the ‘go to’ place to implement and execute smart contracts or decentralised finance, such services will have to be paid in ETH giving the token an economic value. ETH should certainly form a small part of a long-term investment portfolio. A near-term combination of valuation and technical constraints means that stocks will struggle to outperform ultra-long bonds. Fractal analysis: India versus China. Feature Chart of the WeekThe World Is Using Much Less Energy Per Unit Of Economic Output Alternative Energy Blues Alternative energy is the meme theme of the moment. Hardly a day passes without some exhortation to save the planet, by substituting fossil fuels with cleaner forms of energy. Yet this year, alternative energy stocks have performed dismally. Since January, the sector is down 30 percent in absolute terms, and almost 40 percent versus the broad market. Begging the question, how can one of the biggest themes of the moment be one of the worst investment performers? Last year, the forward earnings of the alternative energy sector rose by 35 percent, helped by post-pandemic stimulus measures that targeted the clean energy industry. But as investors fell in love with this meme theme, the bigger story was that the valuation paid for the sector skyrocketed from 13 times forward earnings to a nosebleed 42 times, an increase of 220 percent (Chart I-2 and Chart I-3). Chart I-2Alternative Energy Earnings Rose... Chart I-3...But The Valuation Skyrocketed To put the 42 into context, the peak multiple of the tech sector has reached ‘only’ 29 this cycle, meaning that alternative energy was trading at a near 50 percent premium even to the daddy of growth sectors! This year, as investors have pared back the nosebleed valuation, the alternative energy sector has underperformed. Nevertheless, it is still trading at a 25 percent premium to tech, meaning that its profits will have to deliver spectacular long-term growth to justify the sky-high valuation. Is this likely? We are not convinced. The world is using less energy per unit of economic output. A fundamental rule of long-term investment is that you shouldn’t own any sector whose sales are shrinking as a share of the economy. The problem for alternative energy is that it is, ultimately, energy (Chart I-4). And the world is using less energy per unit of economic output. Chart I-4Alternative Energy And Traditional Energy Show Similar Earnings Profiles In 1995, every $1000 of real GDP used 157 kilograms of oil equivalent energy. Today, that has plunged to 109 kilograms. Meaning that over the past 25 years, the world economy has reduced its energy intensity by 30 percent.1 And the downtrend persists (Chart I-1). Granted, over the past 25 years, the share of the energy pie taken by non-fossil fuels has increased from 13.4 to 16.9 percent, of which renewables have increased from 0.6 to 5.7 percent. But the marginal prices of wind, solar, and geothermal power generation are collapsing. As a recent report from the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) points out: Generation costs for onshore wind and solar photovoltaics (PV) have fallen between 3 percent and 16 percent yearly since 2010 – far faster than anything in our shopping baskets or household budgets… (and) auction results show these favourable cost trends continuing through the 2020s.2 Given that the alternative energy market is competitive rather than monopolistic or oligopolistic, a large part of these massive cost savings will be passed on to end-users. Constituting a long-term boon to consumers rather than to alternative energy profits. To repeat, with the alternative energy sector still trading at a 25 percent premium to tech, it must deliver spectacular long-term earnings growth. But this will be a very tough ask. Energy sector profits tightly track the value of energy produced, meaning volume times price (Chart I-5). The risk is that while alternative energy will take a greater share of the energy pie, the pie itself is shrinking, as is its price. Chart I-5Energy Sector Profits Tightly Track The Value Of Energy Produced (Volume Times Price) We conclude that with an ambiguous outlook for long-term earnings growth, alternative energy does not meet the conditions to be in a long-term investment portfolio at its still nosebleed valuation multiple of 32 times forward earnings.  Now let’s turn to an investment that you should have in a long-term investment portfolio. The London Hard Fork Is A Boon For The Ethereum Network The Ethereum network’s London hard fork – an event that passed under most radar screens – marks the shape of things to come for the blockchain and the cryptocurrency space. Crucially, it signals an ongoing sea-change that favours the Ethereum network’s users at the expense of its cryptocurrency miners. For those interested in the nerdy details, we direct you to Ethereum Improvement Protocol (EIP) 1559. But to cut to the chase, the fork has drastically reduced the profitability of Ethereum mining while “ensuring that only ETH can ever be used to pay for transactions on Ethereum, cementing the economic value of ETH within the Ethereum platform.” Only ETH can ever be used to pay for transactions on Ethereum, cementing the economic value of ETH within the Ethereum platform. The statements of intent address, and will ultimately alleviate, two of the biggest investment concerns about cryptocurrencies – first, that cryptocurrency mining is a prodigious user of energy, particularly dirty energy; and second, that as cryptocurrencies cannot be readily exchanged for goods and services, they have no value other than that from other investors believing they have value. Addressing the first concern, mining becomes irrelevant if the blockchain users employ the skin in the game ‘proof-of-stake’ protocol to validate transactions rather than the energy-intensive ‘proof-of-work’ protocol that relies on external miners. Which is where Ethereum is headed with the fully proof-of-stake Ethereum 2.0. Addressing the second concern, if the Ethereum network becomes the ‘go to’ place to implement and execute smart contracts or decentralised finance, then such services will have to be paid in ETH, giving the tokens an economic value. Hence, the key structural question is, which blockchain networks will become the go to places for decentralised intermediation? Ethereum is an excellent candidate. Note that the lending arm of the EU, the European Investment Bank, has effectively endorsed the Ethereum network by issuing a €100 million digital bond on it. And although the principal “is expected to be repaid in euros”, the intermediators get paid in ETH. Crucially, the token of a successful blockchain network will become the de-facto currency of the network, exchangeable for intermediation services on that network. With a value independent of speculative investments, investors can also justifiably own these tokens as a ‘digital gold.’ Clearly, cryptocurrencies experience a higher volatility than gold, but this can be adjusted through position sizing. To equalise drawdowns in digital gold versus gold, investors should own $1 of cryptocurrency for every $3 of gold (Chart I-6). On this relative risk basis, cryptocurrencies should constitute at least one quarter ($3.8 trillion) of the $15 trillion ‘anti-fiat’ market that gold currently dominates.  Chart I-6Cryptocurrency Drawdowns Are Becoming Less Severe Therefore, if Ethereum became the dominant cryptocurrency based on its network size, it would command a market capitalisation of at least $1.9 trillion, a more than five-fold increase from today. ETH should certainly form a small part of a long-term investment portfolio. Stocks Versus Bonds Face A Double Constraint Since mid-March the world stock market (MSCI All Country World Index) has rallied by 10 percent, but the ultra-long bond (30-year T-bond) has done even better, rallying by 14 percent. Hence stocks to bonds have drifted gently lower, for which there are two reasons. First, the valuation of the most highly-rated parts of the stock market have reached the limit that has held in the post-GFC era. Specifically, tech’s earnings yield premium versus the 10-year T-bond has reached its 2.5 percent lower bound (Chart I-7). Chart I-7Tech Reached Its Post-GFC Valuation Limit Versus Bond Yields Second, the groupthink in overweighting stocks versus bonds reached an extreme. All investors up to 260-day investment horizons are already in the trade, and this level of extreme groupthink correctly signalled stocks versus bonds major-tops in 2010 and 2013 (as well as major-bottoms in 2008 and 2020) (Chart I-8). Chart I-8The Groupthink In Overweighting Stocks Versus Bonds Reached An Extreme This near-term combination of valuation and technical constraints means that stocks will struggle to outperform ultra-long bonds. In the near term, stocks will struggle to outperform ultra-long bonds. Nevertheless, if bonds rally, it will support stocks. But if bonds sell off, it will undermine stocks. The implication of the above is that a bond sell-off – should it even occur – will be self-limiting. As we explained last week in Stocks, Not The Economy, Will Set The Upper Limit To Bond Yields, the upper limit to the 10-year T-bond yield is 1.8 percent. India Trading At A Precarious Premium This week’s fractal analysis highlights that the spectacular outperformance of India versus China has reached the limit of fragility on its 260-day fractal structure that marked previous major-tops in 2014, 2016, and 2019 (as well as major bottoms in 2015, 2018, and 2020) (Chart I-9). Chart I-9The Outperformance Of India Versus China Is Fragile In effect, as China’s tech sector has recently corrected, tech stocks in India are now trading at a precarious 60 percent premium to those in China (Chart I-10). Chart I-10India Is Trading At A Precarious Premium To China The recommended trade is to short India versus China (MSCI indexes), setting the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 19 percent. Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Source: World Bank, and BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2021 2 Source: Renewable Power Generation Costs In 2019, International Renewable Energy Agency 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 ##br##- Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- 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 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 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

Highlights US natural gas prices will remain well supported over the April-October injection season, as the global economic expansion gains traction, particularly in Europe, which also is refilling depleted storage levels. China's natgas demand is expected to rise more than 8% yoy, and EM Asia consumption also will be robust, which will revive US liquified natural gas (LNG) exports. Exports of US light-sweet crude into the North Sea Brent pricing pool – currently accounting for close to half the physical supply underpinning the global oil-price benchmark – also will increase over the course of the year, particularly in the summer, when maintenance will markedly reduce the physical supply of crudes making up the Brent index. At the margin, coal demand will increase in the US, as industrial natgas demand and LNG exports incentivize electric generators to favor coal. Higher-than-expected summer temperatures in the US also would boost coal demand.  This will be tempered somewhat in Europe, where carbon-emissions rights traded through €50/MT for the first time this week on the EU's Emission Trading System (ETA). We expect US LNG and oil exports to revive this year (Chart of the Week) and remain long natgas in 1Q22. Feature The importance of US LNG and crude oil exports out of the US Gulf to the global economy is only now becoming apparent. As demand for these fossil fuels grows and the supply side continues to confront a highly uncertain risk-reward tradeoff, their importance will only grow. In natgas markets, US LNG cargoes out of the US Gulf balanced demand coming from Asia and Europe this past winter, which was sharply colder than expected and stretched supply chains globally. As a widening economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic spurs industrial, residential and commercial demand, and inventories in Europe and Asia are re-built in preparation for next winter, US LNG exports will be called upon to meet increasing demand, particularly since they are priced attractively vs regional importing benchmarks, with differentials vs the US presently $4+/MMBtu vs Europe and $5+/MMBtu vs Asia (Chart 2).1 Chart of the WeekUS LNG, Oil Export Growth Will Rebound Chart 2Lower US Natgas Prices Encourage LNG Exports In oil markets, an ongoing kerfuffle in the pricing of Brent Blend brought about by falling North Sea crude oil production makes American light-sweet crude oil exports from the Gulf (i.e., WTI produced mostly in the Permian Basin) account for almost half of the physical supplies in this critical benchmark-pricing market.2 US LNG Exports Will Increase US natural gas prices will remain well supported as the global economic expansion gains traction, and the US and Europe open the April-October injection season well bid (Chart 3). US inventories are expected to end the Apr-Oct injection season at just over 3.7 TCF according to the EIA, very close to where they ended the 2020 injection season. Chart 3US, Europe Rebuild Storage Higher US LNG exports, industrial, commercial and residential demand will be offset by lower consumption from electric generators this year, netting to a slight decline in overall demand. The EIA expects generators to take advantage of lower generating costs to be had burning coal to produce electricity, a view we share given the current differentials in the forward curves for each fuel (Chart 4).3 On the supply side, the EIA's expecting output to remain unchanged from last year at just under 91.5 BCF/d in 2021. Higher LNG exports, even as generator demand is falling, pushes prices higher this year – averaging $3.04/MMBtu this year – which leads to a slight increase in output in 2022. For our part, we continue to expect higher prices during the November-March heating season than currently are clearing the market and remain long 1Q22 $3.50/MMBtu calls vs. short $3.75/MMbtu calls. As of Tuesday night, when we mark to market, this position was up 20.8% since inception on 8 April 2021. Chart 4Lower Prices Will Favour Increased Coal Demand Natgas demand could surprise on the upside during the injection season if air-conditioning demand comes in stronger than expected and production remains essentially unchanged this year. This could reduce LNG exports and slow the rate of inventory refill in the US, which could further advantage coal as a burner fuel for generators in the US. The US National Weather Service's Climate Prediction Center expects above-average temperatures for most of the US population centers this summer (Chart 5). This could become a semi-permanent feature of the market if current temperature trends persist (Chart 6). Based on analyses’ run by the NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information, 2021 "is very likely to rank among the ten warmest years on record," with lower (6%) odds of ranking in the top five hottest years on record.4 Chart 5Odds Of Hotter Summer Rising Chart 6Higher Global Temperatures Could Become A Recurring Phenomenon The Crude Kerfuffle As the Chart of the Week shows, US exports of light-sweet crude oil peaked at ~ 3.7mm b/d in February 2020, just before the COVID-19 pandemic hit the world full force. Exports out of the US Gulf – i.e., WTI priced against the Midland, TX, gathering hub – accounted for ~ 95% of these volumes. With exports currently running ~ 2.5mm b/d, more than 1mm b/d of readily available export capacity remains in place. Additional volumes will be developed as dredging of the Corpus Christi, TX, progresses. While the surge in US crude oil production has subsided in the wake of the pandemic, it most likely will revive as the markets return to normal operating procedure, additional dredging operations are completed, and storage facilities are built out.5 Existing and additional export capacity of the US's light-sweet crude could not arrive at a more opportune time for the Brent market, which remains in a state of uncertainty as to whether markets will have to adjust to CIF contracts or a work-around to the existing FOB pricing regime, which can be augmented to accommodate increasing WTI volumes.6 This will have to be sorted, as this is the future of the market's most important pricing index (Chart 7). The buildout in crude-oil exporting capacity – and natgas LNG exporting capacity, for that matter – ideally accommodates shale-oil- and -gas assets, which can be ramped up quickly to meet demand, and ramped down quickly as demand falters. The quick payback – 2 to 3 years – on these investments allow the producers to expand and contract output without the massive risks longer-lived conventional assets impose. As OPEC 2.0's spare capacity is returned to the market, this will be a welcome feature of a market that most likely will require oil and gas supplies for decades, despite the uncertainty attending oil-and-gas capex during the transition to a low-carbon energy future. Chart 7Permian Replaces North Sea Losses Bottom Line: As the future of hydrocarbons evolves, the LNG and crude oil exported from the US Gulf will occupy an increasingly important role in these markets. Oil and gas producers are making capex decisions under increasingly uncertain conditions, which favor exactly the type of resources that have propelled the US to the position of the world's largest producer of these fuels – i.e., shale-oil and -gas. Production from these resources can be ramped up and down quickly as prices dictate, and have quick paybacks (2-3 years), which means capital is not tied up for decades as a return is earned.7   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 OPEC 2.0 begins returning 2mm b/d to the market this month, expecting to be done by July. Half of these volumes are accounted for by Saudi Arabia, which voluntarily cut output by 1mm b/d earlier in the year to help balance the market. In line with our maintained hypothesis that OPEC 2.0 prefers prices inside the $60-$70/bbl price band, we expect the return of curtailed production to be front-loaded so as to bring prices down from current levels approaching $70/bbl for Brent (Chart 8). If, as we expect, demand recovers sooner than expected as Europe leans into its vaccination program, additional barrels will be returned to the market to get prices closer to a $60-$65/bbl range. Base Metals: Bullish The International Copper Study Group (ICSG) forecast copper mine production will increase by ~ 3.5% in 2021 and 3.7% in 2022, after adjusting for historical disruption factors. This forecasted increase – after three years of flat mined production growth – is due to a ramp-up of recently commissioned and new copper mines becoming operational in 2021. An improvement in the pandemic situation by 2022 will also boost mined copper production, according to the ICSG. 2020 production remained flat as recoveries in production in some countries due to constrained output in 2019 balanced the negative impacts of the pandemic in others. In Chile, the largest copper producer, state-owned Codelco and Collahuasi reported strong results in March. However, this was countered by a continued downturn at BHP’s Escondida. The world’s largest copper mine saw a drop in production for the eighth consecutive month. This mixed output resulted in a decline in total production of 1.2% year-on-year in March. Precious Metals: Bullish COMEX palladium touched a record high during intraday trading on Tuesday, reaching $3,019/oz due to continued tight market conditions (Chart 9). On the supply side, Nornickel is recovering from flooded mines, which occurred in February. By mid-April, one of the two affected mines was operating at 60% capacity; however, the company's other mine is only expected to come back online by early June. On the demand side, strength in US vehicle sales and a global economic recovery from the pandemic buoyed the metal used in catalytic converters. Palladium prices closed at $2,981.60/oz on Tuesday. Ags/Softs: Neutral Corn again traded above $7/bu earlier in the week on the back of drought-like dry weather conditions in Brazil's principal growing regions and surging US exports, according to Farm Futures. Chart 8 Chart 9   Footnotes 1     Stronger demand from China – where consumption is expected to rise more than 8% yoy – and EM Asia will continue to support LNG demand through the year.  S&P Global Platts Analytics expects Chinese natural gas demand to reach 12,713 Bcf in 2021, up 8.4% from the previous year.  Chinese national oil company Sinopec is slightly more conservative in its outlook, expecting gas demand of ~ 12,006-12,184 Bcf in 2021, up 6-8% from 2020.  China’s average annual increase in natural gas demand is expected to exceed 716 Bcf in the 14th FYP and reach 15,185 Bcf in 2025. 2     Please see CIF Brent Benchmark? published 3 March 2021 by the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies for a discussion. 3    In Chart 3, we plot a rough measure of coal- vs natgas-fired generation economics for these fuels based on their average operating heat rates published by the EIA. We would note that a carbon tax would erase much of the benefit accruing to coal at this point in time. 4    Please see NOAA's Global Climate Report - March 2021. 5    Please see Low Rider - Corpus Christi's Ship Channel Dredging Will Streamline Crude Oil Exports published by RBN Energy 3 May 2021. 6    The OIES analysis cited above concludes, "… the volumes of the FOB deliverable crudes are diminishing and some change, bolstering the contract is certainly needed. The most likely compromise is to retain the existing FOB Brent with an inclusion of CIF WTI Midland assessment, netted back to an FOB equivalent North Sea value."  We agree with this assessment.  Please see CIF Brent Benchmark? published 3 March 2021 by the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, p. 8. 7     Please see Is shale activity actually profitable? Size matters, says Rystad published 7 February 2019.   Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2021 Summary of Closed Trades

Highlights Rising CO2 emissions on the back of stronger global energy growth this year will keep energy markets focused on expanding ESG risks in the buildout of renewable generation via metals mining (Chart of the Week).   EM energy demand is expected to grow 3.4% this year vs. 2019 levels and will account for ~ 70% of global energy demand growth.  Demand in DM economies will fall 3% this year vs 2019 levels.  Overall, global demand is expected to recover all the ground lost to the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the IEA.  Rising energy demand will be met by higher fossil-fuel use, with coal demand increasing by more than total renewables generation this year and accounting for more than half of global energy demand growth. Demand for renewable power will increase by 8,300 TWh (8%) this year, the largest y/y increase recorded by the IEA.  As renewables generation is built out, demand for bulks (iron ore and steel) and base metals will increase.1  Building that new energy supply will contribute to rising CO2, particularly in the renewables' supply chains. Feature Energy demand will recover much of the ground lost to the COVID-19 pandemic last year, according to the IEA.2 Most of this is down to successful rollouts of vaccination programs in systemically important economies – e.g., China, the US and the UK – and the massive fiscal and monetary stimulus deployed to carry the global economy through the pandemic. The risk of further lockdowns and uncontrolled spread of variants of the virus remains high, but, at present, progress continues to be made and wider vaccine distribution can be expected. The IEA expects a global recovery in energy demand of 4.6% this year, which will put total demand at ~ 0.5% above 2019 levels. The global rebound will be led by EM economies, where demand is expected to grow 3.4% this year vs. 2019 levels and will account for ~ 70% of global energy demand growth. Energy demand in DM economies will fall 3% this year vs 2019 levels. Overall, global demand is expected to recover all the ground lost to the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the IEA. Chart of the WeekGlobal CO2 Emissions Will Rebound Post-COVID-19 Coal demand will lead the rebound in fossil-fuel use, which is expected to account for more than total renewables demand globally this year, covering more than half of global energy demand growth. This will push CO2 emissions up by 5% this year. Asia coal demand – led by China's and India's world-leading coal-plant buildout over the past 20 years – will account for 80% of world demand (Chart 2). Chart 2China, India Lead Coal-Fired Generation Buildout Demand for renewable power will post its biggest year-on-year gain on record, increasing by 8,300 TWh (8%) this year. This increase comes at the back of roughly a decade of an increasing share of electricity from renewables globally (Chart 3). As renewables generation is built out, demand for bulks (iron ore and steel) and base metals will increase.3 Building that new energy supply will contribute to rising CO2, particularly in the renewables' supply chains. Chart 3Share of Electricity From Renewables Has Been Increasing ESG Risks Increase With Renewables Buildout Governments have pledged to invest vast sums of money into the green energy transition, to reduce fossil fuels consumption and deforestation, thus curbing temperature increases. In addition, banks have pledged trillions will be made available to support the buildout of renewable technologies over the coming years. The World Bank, under the most ambitious scenarios considered (IEA ETP B2DS and IRENA REmap), projects that renewables, will make up approximately 90% of the installed electricity generation capacity up to 2050. This analysis excludes oil, biomass and tidal energy. (Chart 4). Building these renewable energy sources will be extremely mineral intensive (Chart 5). Chart 4Renewables Potential Is Huge … While we have highlighted issues such as a lack of mining capex and decreasing ore grades in past research – both of which can be addressed by higher metals and minerals prices – the environmental, social and governance (ESG) risks posed by mining are equally important factors for investors, policymakers and mining companies to consider.4 The mining industry generally uses three principal sources of energy for its operations – diesel fuel (mostly in moving mined ore down the supply chain for processing), grid electricity and explosives. Of these three, diesel and electricity consumption contributes substantially to mining’s GHG emissions. In the mining stage, land clearing, drilling, blasting, crushing and hauling require a considerable amount of energy, and hence emit the highest amounts of greenhouse gases (GHGs). Chart 5… As Are Its Mineral Requirements The Environmental Impact Of Mining Under the scenarios depicted in Chart 5, copper suppliers could be called on to produce approximately 21mm MT of the red metal annually between now and 2050, which is equivalent to a 7% annual increase of supplies vs. the 2017 reference year shown in the chart. Mining sufficient amounts of copper, a metal which is critical to the renewable energy buildout, both in terms of quantity and versatility, will test miners' and governments' ability to extract sufficient amounts of ore for further processing without massively damaging the environment or indigenous populations' habitats (Chart 6). Chart 6Copper Spans All Renewables Technologies A recent risk analysis of 308 undeveloped copper orebodies found that for 180 of the orebodies – roughly equivalent to 570mm MT of copper – ore-grade risk was characterized as moderate-to-high risk.5 High risk implies a lower concentration of metal in the ore deposits. Mining in ore bodies with lower copper grades will be more energy intensive, and thus will emit more greenhouse gases. Table 1 is a risk matrix of the 40 mines that have the most amount of copper tonnage in this analysis: 27 of these mines displayed in the matrix have a medium-to-high grade risk. Table 1Mining Risk Matrix Another analysis established a negative relationship between the ore-grade quality and energy consumption across mines for different metals and minerals.6 This paper found that, as ore grade depletes, the energy needed to extract it and send it along the supply chain for further processing is exponentially higher (Chart 7). Lastly, a recent examination found that in 2018, primary metals and mining accounted for approximately 10% of the total greenhouse gases. Using a case study of Chile, the world’s largest producer of the red metal, the researchers found that fuel consumption increased by 130% and electricity consumption per unit of mined copper increased by 32% from 2001 to 2017. This increase was primarily due to decreasing ore grades.7 As ore grades continue to fall, these exponential relationships likely will persist or become more significant. Chart 7Energy Use Rises As Ore Quality Falls Bottom Line: While technology can improve extraction, it cannot reduce the minimum energy required for the mining process. This increased energy use will contribute to the total amount of CO2 and other GHGs emitted in the process of extracting the ores required to realize a low-carbon future. Trade-Off Between CO2 Emissions And Economic Development A recent Reuters analysis highlights the gap between EM and DM from the perspective of their renewable energy transition priorities.8 Of the 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), “Taking action to combat climate change” takes precedence over the rest for DM economies. This is largely because they have already dealt with other energy and income intensive SDGs such as improvements in healthcare and poverty reduction. The large scale of unmet energy demand in developing countries poses a huge challenge to controlling CO2 emissions. The populations of these countries are growing fast and are projected to continue increasing over the next three decades. Rising populations, make the issue of a "green-energy transition" extremely dynamic – i.e., not only do EM economies need to replace existing fossil fuels, but they also need to add enough extra zero-emission fuel sources to meet the growth in energy demand. Bottom Line: Coupled with the increased amount of energy required to mine the same amount of metal (due to lower ore grades), rising energy demand resulting from a burgeoning population in EM economies - which use fossil fuels to meet their primary needs - will require more metals to be mined for the renewable energy transition. This will further increase the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions from mine activity, and increase the risk to indigenous populations living close-by to the sources of this new metals supply. ESG risks will increase as a result, presenting greater challenges to attracting funding to these efforts.   Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com   Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish OPEC 2.0 was expected to stick with its decision to return ~ 2mm b/d of supply to the market at its ministerial meeting Wednesday. Markets remain wary of demand slowing as COVID-19-induced lockdowns persist and case counts increase globally. The production being returned to market includes 1mm b/d of voluntary cuts by Saudi Arabia, which could, if needs be, keep barrels off the market if demand weakens. Base Metals: Bullish Front-month COMEX copper is holding above $4.50/lb, after breaching its 11-year high earlier this week. The proximate cause of the initial lift above that level was news of a strike by Chilean port workers on Monday protesting restrictions on early pension-fund drawdowns, according to mining.com. After a slight breather, prices returned to trading north of $4.50/lb by mid-week. Last week, we raised our Dec21 COMEX copper price forecast to $5.00/lb from $4.50/lb. Separately, high-grade iron ore (65% Fe) hit record highs, while the benchmark grade (62% Fe) traded above $190/MT earlier in the week on the back of lower-than-expected production by major suppliers and USD weakness. Steel futures on the Shanghai Futures Exchange hit another record as well, as strong demand and threats of mandated reductions in Chinese steel output to reduce pollution loom (Chart 8). Precious Metals: Bullish Rising COVID cases, especially in India, Brazil and Japan are increasing gold’s safe-haven appeal (Chart 9). The US CFTC, in its Commitment of Traders (COT) report for the week ending April 20, stated that speculators raised their COMEX gold bullish positions. At the end of the two-day FOMC meeting, the Fed decided against lifting interest rates and withdrawing support for the US economy. However, officials sounded more optimistic about the economy than they did in March. The decision did not give any sign interest rates would be lifted, or asset purchases would be tapered against the backdrop of a steadily improving economy.  Net, this could increase demand for gold, as inflationary pressures rise. As of Tuesday’s close, COMEX gold was trading at $1778/oz. Ags/Softs: Neutral Corn and bean futures settled down by mid-week after a sharp rally earlier. After rising to a new eight-year high just below $7/bushel due to cold weather in the US, and fears a lower harvest in Brazil will reduce global grain supplies, corn settled down to ~ $6.85/bu at mid-week trading. Beans traded above $15.50/bu earlier in the week, their highest since June 2014, and settled down to ~ $15.36/bu by mid-week. Attention remains focused on global supplies. The uptrend in grains and beans remains intact. Chart 8 Chart 9   Footnotes 1     Please see Renewables, China's FYP Underpin Metals Demand, published 26 November 2020, for further discussion.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2     Please see Global Energy Review 2021, the IEA's Flagship report for April 2021. 3    Please see Renewables, China's FYP Underpin Metals Demand, published 26 November 2020, for further discussion.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4    We discussed these capex issues in last week's research, Copper Headed Higher On Surge In Steel Prices, which is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 5    Please see Valenta et al.’s ‘Re-thinking complex orebodies: Consequences for the future world supply of copper’ published in 2019 for this analysis. 6    Please see Calvo et. al.’s ‘Decreasing Ore Grades in Global Metallic Mining: A Theoretical Issue or a Global Reality?’ published in 2016 for this analysis. 7     Please see Azadi et. al.’s ‘Transparency on greenhouse gas emissions from mining to enable climate change mitigation’ published in 2020 for this analysis. 8    Please see John Kemp's Column: CO2 emission limits and economic development published 19 April 2021 by reuters.com.   Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2021 Summary of Closed Trades

Highlights Continued upgrades to global economic growth – most recently by the IMF this week –will support higher natgas prices.  In our estimation, gas for delivery at Henry Hub, LA, in the coming withdrawal season (November – March) is undervalued at current levels at ~ $2.90/MMBtu. Inventory demand will remain strong during the current April-October injection season, following the blast of colder-than-normal weather in 1Q21 that pulled inventories lower in the US, Europe and Northeast Asia. The odds the US will succeed in halting completion of the final leg of the Russian Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline into Germany are higher than the consensus expectation.  Our odds the pipeline will not be completed this year stand at 50%, which translates into higher upside risk for natural gas prices.  We are getting long 1Q22 calls on CME/NYMEX Henry Hub-delivered natgas futures struck at $3.50/MMBtu vs. short 1Q22 $3.75/MMBtu calls at tonight's close.  The probability of Nord Stream 2 cancellation is underpriced, which means European TTF and Asian JKM prices will have to move higher to attract LNG cargoes next winter from the US, if the pipeline is cancelled (Chart of the Week). Feature As major forecasting agencies continue to upgrade global growth prospects, expectations for industrial-commodity demand – energy, bulks, and base metals – also are moving higher. This week, the IMF raised its growth expectations for this year and next to 6% and 4.4%, respectively, nearly a full percentage-point increase versus its January forecast update for 2021.1 This upgrade follows a similar move by the OECD last month.2 In the US, the EIA is expecting industrial demand for natural gas to rise 1.35 Bcf/d this year to 23.9 Bcf/d; versus 2019 levels, industrial demand will be 0.84 Bcf/d higher in 2021. For 2022, industrial demand is expected to be 24.2 Bcf/d. US industrial demand likely will recover faster than the EU's, given the expectation of a stronger recovery on the back of massive fiscal and monetary stimulus. Overall natgas demand in the US likely will move lower this year, given higher natgas prices expected this year and next will incentivize electricity generators to switch to coal at the margin, according to the EIA. Total demand is expected to be 82.9 Bcf/d in the US this year vs. 83.3 Bcf/d last year, owing to lower generator demand. Pipeline-quality gas output in the US – known as dry gas, since its liquids have been removed for other uses – is expected to average 91.4 Bcf/d this year, essentially unchanged. Lower consumption by the generators and flat production will allow US gas inventories to return to their five-year average levels of 3.7 Tcf by the end of October, in the EIA's estimation (Chart 2). Chart of the WeekUS-Russia Geopolitical Risk Underpriced Chart 2US Natgas Inventories Return To Five-Year Average US Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) exports are likely to expand, as Asian and European demand grows (Chart 3). Prior to the boost in US LNG demand from colder weather, exports set monthly records of 9.4 Bcf/d and 9.8 Bcf/d in November and December of last year, respectively, with Asia accounting for the largest share of exports (Chart 4). This also marked the first time LNG exports exceeded US pipeline exports to Mexico and Canada. The EIA is forecasting US LNG exports will be 8.5 bcf/d and 9.2 Bcf/d this year and next, versus pipeline exports of 8.8 Bcf/d and 8.9 Bcf/d in 2021 and 2022, respectively. Chart 3US LNG Exports Continue Growing Chart 4US LNG Exports Set Records In November And December 2020 US LNG exports – and export potential given the size of the resource base at just over 500 Tcf – now are of a sufficient magnitude to be a formidable force in global markets, particularly in Europe. This puts it in direct conflict with Russia, which has targeted Europe as a key market for its pipeline natural gas exports. US-Russia Standoff Looming Over Nord Stream 2 Given the size and distribution of global oil and gas production and consumption, it comes as no surprise national interests can, at times, become as important to pricing these commodities as supply-demand fundamentals. This is particularly true in oil, and increasingly is becoming the case in natural gas. That the same dramatis personae – the US and Russia – should feature in geopolitical contests in oil and gas markets also should not come as a surprise. In an attempt to circumvent transporting its natural gas through Ukraine, Russia is building a 1,230 km underwater pipeline from Narva Bay in the Kingisepp district of the Leningrad region of Russia to Lubmin, near Greifswald, in Germany (Map 1). The Biden administration, like the Trump administration and US Congress, is officially attempting to halt the final leg of the pipeline from being built, although Biden has not yet put America’s full weight into stopping it. Biden claims it will be up to the Europeans to decide what to do. At the same time, any major Russian or Russian-backed military operation in Ukraine could trigger an American action to halt the pipeline in retaliation. Map 1Nord Stream 2 Route In our estimation, there is a 50% chance that the Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline will not be completed this year or go into operation as planned given substantial geopolitical risks. The $11 billion pipeline would connect Russia directly to Germany with a capacity of about 55 billion cubic meters, which, combined with the existing Nord Stream One pipeline, would equal 110 BCM in offshore capacity, or 55% of Russia's natural gas exports to Europe in 2019. The pipeline’s construction is 94% complete, with the Russian ship Akademik Cherskiy entering Danish waters in late March to begin laying pipes to finish the final 138-kilometer stretch, according to Reuters. The pipeline could be finished in early August at the pace of 1 kilometer per day.3 The Russian and German governments are speeding up the project to finish it before US-Russia tensions, or the German elections in September, interrupt the construction process again. It is not too late for the US to try to halt the pipeline through sanctions. But for the Americans to succeed, the Biden administration would have to make an aggressive effort. Notably the Biden administration took office with a desire to sharpen US policy toward Russia.4 While Biden seeks Russian engagement on arms reduction treaties and the Iranian nuclear negotiations, he mainly aims to counter Russia, expand sanctions, provide weapons to Ukraine, and promote democracy in Russia’s sphere of influence. The result will almost inevitably be a new US-Russia confrontation, which is already taking shape over Russia’s buildup of troops on the border with Ukraine, where US and Russian meddling could cause civil war to reignite (Map 2). Map 2Russia’s Military Tensions With The West Escalate In Wake Of Biden’s Election And Ukraine’s Renewed Bid To Join NATO Tensions in Ukraine are directly tied to US military cooperation with Ukraine and any possibility that Ukraine will join the NATO military alliance, a red line for Putin. Nord Stream 2 is Russia’s way of bypassing Ukraine but a new US-Russia conflict, especially a Russian attack on Ukraine, would halt the pipeline. The pipeline’s completion would improve Russo-German strategic relations, undercut US liquefied natural gas exports to Germany and the EU, and reduce the US’s and eastern Europe’s leverage over Russia (and Germany). Biden says his administration is planning to impose new sanctions on firms that oversee, construct, or insure the pipeline, and such sanctions are required under American law.5 Yet Biden also wants a strong alliance with Germany, which favors the pipeline and does not want to escalate the conflict with Russia. The American laws against Nord Stream have big loopholes and give the president discretion regarding the use of sanctions, which means Biden would have to make a deliberate decision to override Germany and impose maximum sanctions if he truly wanted to halt construction.6 This would most likely occur if Russia committed a major new act of aggression in Ukraine or against other European democracies. The German policy, under the current ruling coalition led by Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union, is to finish the pipeline despite Russia’s conflicts with the West and political repression at home. Russia provides more than a third of Germany’s natural gas imports and this pipeline would bypass eastern Europe’s pipeline network and thus secure Germany’s (and Austria’s and the EU’s) natural gas supply whenever Russia cuts off the flow to Ukraine (through which roughly 40% of Russian natural gas still must pass to reach Europe). Germany's Election And Natgas Politics Germany wants to use natural gas as a bridge while it phases out nuclear energy and coal. Natural gas has grown 2.2 percentage points as a share of Germany’s total energy mix since the Fukushima disaster of 2011, and renewable energy has grown 7.7ppt, while coal has fallen 7.3ppt and nuclear has fallen 2.5ppt (Chart 5). The German federal election on September 26 complicates matters because Merkel and the Christian Democrats are likely to underperform their opinion polls and could even fall from power. They do not want to suffer a major foreign policy humiliation at the hands of the Americans or a strategic crisis with Russia right before the election. They will insist that Biden leave the pipeline alone and will offer other forms of cooperation against Russia in compensation. Therefore, the current German government could push through the pipeline and complete the project even in the face of US objections. But this outcome is not guaranteed. The German Greens are likely to gain influence in the Bundestag after the elections and could even lead the German government for the first time – and they are opposed to a new fossil fuel pipeline that increases Russia’s influence. Chart 5Germany Sees Nord Stream 2 Gas As Bridge To Low-Carbon Economy Hence there is a fair chance that the pipeline does not become operational: either Americans halt it out of strategic interest, or the German Greens halt it out of environmental and strategic interest, or both. True, there is a roughly equal chance that Merkel’s policy status quo survives in Germany, which would result in an operational pipeline. The best case for Germany might be that the current government completes the pipeline physically but the next government has optionality on whether to make it operational. But 50/50 odds of cancellation is a much higher risk than the consensus holds. The Russian policy is to finish Nord Stream 2 while also making an aggressive military stance against the West’s and NATO’s influence in Ukraine. This would expand Russian commodity and energy exports and undercut Ukraine’s natgas transit income. It would also increase Russian leverage over Germany – and it would divide Germany from the eastern Europeans and Americans. A preemptive American intervention would elicit Russian retaliation. The Russians could respond in the strategic sphere or the economic sphere. Economically they could react by cutting off natural gas to Europe, but that would undermine their diplomatic goals, so they would more likely respond by increasing production of natural gas or crude oil to steal American market share. In any scenario Russian retaliation would likely cause global price volatility in one or more energy markets, in addition to whatever volatility is induced by the cancellation of Nord Stream 2 itself. US-Russia tensions are likely to escalate but only Ukraine and Nord Stream 2, or the separate Iranian negotiations, have a direct impact on global energy supply. If Germany goes forward with the pipeline, then Russia would need to be countered by other means. The Americans, not the Germans, would provide these “other means,” such as military support to ensure the integrity of Ukraine and other nations’ borders. The Russians may gain a victory for their energy export strategy but they will never compromise on Ukraine and they will still need to focus on the broader global shift to renewable energy, which threatens their economic model and hence ultimately their regime stability. So, the risk of a market-moving US-Russia conflict can be delayed but probably not prevented (Chart 6). Chart 6US-Russia Conflit Likely Bottom Line: The Nord Stream 2 pipeline is not guaranteed to be completed this year as planned. The US is more likely to force a halt to the Nord Stream 2 pipeline than the consensus holds, especially if Russia attacks Ukraine. If the US fails to do so, then the German election will become the next signpost for whether the pipeline will become operational. If the Americans halt the pipeline, then US-Russian conflict either already erupted or will occur sooner rather than later and will likely impact global oil or natural gas prices. Investment Implications Our subjective assessment of 50% odds the US will succeed in halting completion of the final leg of Nord Stream 2 are higher than the consensus expectation. This translates directly into higher upside risk for natural gas prices in the US and Europe later this year and next. Given our view, we are getting long 1Q22 calls on CME/NYMEX Henry Hub-delivered natgas futures struck at $3.50/MMBtu vs. short 1Q22 $3.75/MMBtu calls at tonight's close. The probability of Nord Stream 2 cancellation is underpriced, which means the odds of higher prices in the LNG market are underpriced (Chart 7). The immediate implication of our view is European TTF prices will have to move higher to attract LNG cargoes next winter from the US, if the Nord Stream 2 pipeline's final leg is cancelled. This also would tighten the Asian markets, causing the JKM to move higher as well (Chart 8). Any indication of colder-than-normal weather in the US, Europe or Asian markets would mean a sharper move higher. Chart 7Natgas Tails Are Too Narrow For Next Winter Chart 8Nord Stream 2 Cancellation Would Boost JKM Prices   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish The US and Iran began indirect talks earlier this week in Vienna aimed at restoring the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), otherwise known as the "Iran nuclear deal." All of the other parties of the deal – Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia – are in favor of restoring the deal. BCA Research believes this is most likely to occur prior to the inauguration of a new president who is expected to be a hardliner willing to escalate Iran’s demands. US President Biden can unilaterally ease sanctions and bring the US into compliance with the deal, and Iran could then reciprocate. If a deal is not reached by August it could take years to resolve US-Iran tensions. China could offer to cooperate on sanctions and help to broker negotiations following the signing of its 25-year trade deal with Iran last week. Russia likely would demand the US not pressure its allies to cancel the Nord Stream 2 deal, in return for its assistance in brokering a deal. Base Metals: Bullish Iron ore prices continue to be supported by record steel prices in China, trading at more than $173/MT earlier this week. Even though steel production reportedly is falling in the top steel-producer in China, Tangshan, as a result of anti-pollution measures, for iron ore remains stout. As we have previously noted, we use steel prices as a leading indicator for copper prices. We remain long Dec21 copper and will be looking for a sell-off to get long Sep21 copper vs. short Sep21 copper if the market trades below $4/lb on the CME/COMEX futures market (Chart 9). Precious Metals: Bullish Gold held support ~ $1,680/oz at the end of March, following an earlier test in the month. We remain long the yellow metal, despite coming close to being stopped out last week (Chart 10). The earlier sell-off appeared to be caused by a need to raise liquidity to us. We continue to expect the Fed to hold firm to its stated intent to wait for actual inflation to become manifest before raising rates, and, therefore, continue to expect real rates to weaken. This will be supportive of gold and commodities generally (Chart 10). Ags/Softs: Neutral Corn continues to be well supported above $5.50/bu, following last week's USDA report showing farmers intend to increase acreage planted to just over 91mm acres, which is less than 1% above last year's level. Chart 9 Chart 10       Footnotes 1     Please see the Fund's April 2021 forecast Managing Divergent Recoveries. 2     We noted last week these higher growth expectations generally are bullish for industrial commodities – energy, metals, and bulks.  Please see Fundamentals Support Oil, Bulks, And Metals, which we published 1 April 2021.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3    For the rate of construction see Margarita Assenova, “Clouds Darkening Over Nord Stream Two Pipeline,” Eurasia Daily Monitor 18: 17 (February 1, 2021), Jamestown Foundation, jamestown.org. For the current status, see Robin Emmott, “At NATO, Blinken warns Germany over Nord Stream 2 pipeline,” Reuters, March 23, 2021, reuters.com. 4    The Democratic Party blames Russia for what it sees as a campaign to undermine the democratic West and recreate the Soviet sphere of influence. See for example the 2008 invasion of Georgia, the failure of the Obama administration’s 2009-11 diplomatic “reset,” the Edward Snowden affair, the seizure of Crimea and civil war in Ukraine, the survival of Syria’s dictator, and Russian interference in US elections in 2016 and 2020. 5    The Countering Russian Influence in Europe and Eurasia Act of 2017, and the Protecting Europe’s Energy Security Act of 2019/2020, contain provisions requiring sanctions on firms that have contributed in any way a minimum of $1 million to the project, or provide pipe-laying services or insurance. There are exceptions for services provided by the governments of the EU member states, Norway, Switzerland, or the UK. The president has discretion over the implementation of sanctions as usual. 6    The German state of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern is creating a shell foundation to enable the completion of the pipeline. It can shield companies from American sanctions aimed at private companies, not sovereigns.    Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Summary of Closed Trades

Highlights Yesterday we published a Special Report titled EM: Foreign Currency Debt Strains. We are upgrading our stance on EM local currency bonds from negative to neutral. Before upgrading to a bullish stance, we would first need to upgrade our stance on EM currencies. We recommend receiving long-term swap rates in Russia, Mexico, Colombia, China and India. EM central banks’ swap lines with the Fed could be used to fend off short-term speculative attacks on EM currencies. Nevertheless, they cannot prevent EM exchange rates from depreciation when fundamental pressures warrant weaker EM currencies. For the rampant expansion of US money supply to produce a lasting greenback depreciation, US dollars should be recycled abroad. This is not yet occurring. Domestic Bonds: A New Normal Chart I-1Performance Of EM Domestic Bonds In The Last Decade In recent years, our strategy has favored the US dollar and, by extension, US Treasurys over EM domestic bonds. Chart I-1 demonstrates that the EM GBI local currency bond total return index in US dollar terms is at the same level as it was in 2011, and has massively underperformed 5-year US Treasurys. We are now upgrading our stance on EM local currency bonds from negative to neutral. Consistently, we recommend investors seek longer duration in EM domestic bonds while remaining cautious on the majority of EM currencies. Before upgrading to a bullish stance on EM local bonds, we would first need to upgrade our stance on EM currencies. Still, long-term investors who can tolerate volatility should begin accumulating EM local bonds on any further currency weakness. Our upgrade is based on the following reasons: First, there has been a fundamental shift in EM central banks’ policies. In past global downturns, many EM central banks hiked interest rates to defend their currencies. Presently, they are cutting rates aggressively despite large currency depreciation. This is the right policy action to fight the epic deflationary shock that EM economies are presently facing. There has been a fundamental shift in EM central banks’ policies. They are cutting rates aggressively despite large currency depreciation. Historically, EM local bond yields were often negatively correlated with exchange rates (Chart I-2, top panel). Similarly, when EM currencies began plunging two months ago, EM local bond yields initially spiked. However, following the brief spike, bond yields have begun dropping, even though EM currencies have not rallied (Chart I-2, bottom panel). This represents a new normal, which we discussed in detail in our October 24 report. Overall, even if EM currencies continue to depreciate, EM domestic bond yields will drop as they price in lower EM policy rates. Second, the monetary policy transmission mechanism in many EMs was broken before the COVID-19 outbreak. Even though central banks in many developing countries were reducing their policy rates before the pandemic, commercial banks’ corresponding lending rates were not dropping much (Chart I-3, top panel). Chart II-2EM Local Bond Yields And EM Currencies Chart I-3EM ex-China: Monetary Transmission Has Been Impaired   Further, core inflation rates were at all time lows and prime lending rates in real terms were extremely high (Chart I-3, middle panels). Consequently, bank loan growth was slowing preceding the pandemic (Chart I-3, bottom panel). The reason was banks’ poor financial health. Saddled with a lot of NPLs, banks had been seeking wide interest rate margins to generate profit and recapitalize themselves. With the outburst of the pandemic and the sudden stop in domestic and global economic activity, EM banks’ willingness to lend has all but evaporated. Chart I-4 reveals EM ex-China bank stocks have plunged, despite considerable monetary policy easing in EM, which historically was bullish for bank share prices. This upholds the fact that the monetary policy transmission mechanism in EM is broken. Mounting bad loans due to the pandemic will only reinforce these dynamics. Swap lines with the Fed cannot prevent EM exchange rates from depreciation when fundamental pressures – global and domestic recessions – warrant weaker EM currencies. In brief, EM lower policy rates will not be transmitted to lower borrowing costs for companies and households anytime soon. Loan growth and domestic demand will remain in an air pocket for some time.    Consequently, EM policy rates will have to drop much lower to have a meaningful impact on growth. Third, there is value in EM local yields. The yield differential between EM GBI local currency bonds and 5-year US Treasurys shot up back to 500 basis points, the upper end of its historical range (Chart I-5). Chart I-4EM ex-China: Bank Stocks Plunged Despite Rate Cuts Chart I-5The EM Vs. US Yield Differential Is Attractive   Bottom Line: Odds favor further declines in EM local currency bond yields. Fixed-income investors should augment their duration exposure. We express this view by recommending receiving swap rates in the following markets: Russia, Mexico, Colombia, India and China. This is in addition to our existing receiver positions in Korean and Malaysian swap rates. For more detail, please refer to the Investment Recommendations section on page 8. Nevertheless, absolute-return investors should be cognizant of further EM currency depreciation. EM Currencies: At Mercy Of Global Growth Chart I-6EM Currencies Correlate With Commodities Prices The key driver of EM currencies has been and remains global growth. The latter will remain very depressed for some time, warranting patience before turning bullish on EM exchange rates. We have long argued that EM exchange rates are driven not by US interest rates but by global growth. Industrial metals prices offer a reasonable pulse on global growth. Chart I-6 illustrates their tight correlation with EM currencies. Even though the S&P 500 has rebounded sharply in recent weeks, there are no signs of a meaningful improvement in industrial metals prices. Various raw materials prices in China are also sliding (Chart I-7). In a separate section below we lay out the case as to why there is more downside in iron ore and steel as well as coal prices in China. Finally, the ADXY – the emerging Asia currency index against the US dollar – has broken down below its 2008, 2016 and 2018-19 lows (Chart I-8). This is a very bearish technical profile, suggesting more downside ahead. This fits with our fundamental assessment that a recovery in global economic activity is not yet imminent. Chart I-7China: Commodities Prices Are Sliding Chart I-8A Breakdown In Emerging Asian Currencies   What About The Fed’s Swap Lines? A pertinent question is whether EM central banks’ foreign currency reserves and the Federal Reserve’s swap lines with several of its EM counterparts are sufficient to prop up EM currencies prior to a pickup in global growth. The short answer is as follows: These swap lines will likely limit the downside but cannot preclude further depreciation. With the exception of Turkey and South Africa, virtually all mainstream EM banks have large foreign currency reserves. On top of this, several of them – Brazil, Mexico, South Korea and Singapore– have recently obtained access to Fed swap lines. Their own foreign exchange reserves and the swap lines with the Fed give them an option to defend their currencies from depreciation if they choose to do so. However, selling US dollars by EM central banks is not without cost. When central banks sell their FX reserves or dollars obtained from the Fed via swap lines, they withdraw local currency liquidity from the system. As a result, banking system liquidity shrinks, pushing up interbank rates. This is equivalent to hiking interest rates. The Fed’s outright money printing is the sole reason to buy EM risk assets and currencies at the moment. Yet, EM fundamentals – namely, its growth outlook – remain downbeat. Hence, the cost of defending the exchange rate by using FX reserves is both liquidity and credit tightening. In such a case, the currency could stabilize but the economy will take a beating. Since the currency depreciation was itself due to economic weakness, such a policy will in and of itself be self-defeating. The basis is that escalating domestic economic weakness will re-assert its dampening effect on the currency. Of course, EM central banks can offset such tightening by injecting new liquidity. However, this could also backfire and lead to renewed currency depreciation. Bottom Line: EM central banks’ swap lines with the Fed are primarily intended to instill confidence among investors in financial markets. They could be used to fend off short-term speculative attacks on EM currencies. Nevertheless, they cannot prevent EM exchange rates from depreciation when fundamental pressures – global and domestic recessions – warrant weaker EM currencies. What About The Fed’s Money Printing? Chart I-9The Fed Is Aggressively Printing Money The Fed is printing money and monetising not only public debt but also substantial amounts of private debt. This will ultimately be very bearish for the US dollar. Chart I-9 illustrates that the Fed is printing money much more aggressively than during its quantitative easing (QE) policies post 2008. The key difference between the Fed’s liquidity provisions now and during its previous QEs is as follows: When the Fed purchases securities from or lends to commercial banks, it creates new reserves (banking system liquidity) but it does not create money supply. Banks’ reserves at the Fed are not a part of broad money supply. This was generally the case during previous QEs when the Fed was buying bonds mostly – but not exclusively – from banks, therefore increasing reserves without raising money supply by much. When the Fed lends to or purchases securities from non-banks, it creates both excess reserves for the banking system and money supply (deposits at banks) out of thin air. The fact that US money supply (M2) growth is now much stronger than during the 2010s QEs suggests the recent surge in US money supply is due to the Fed’s asset purchases from and lending to non-banks, which creates money/deposits outright.  The rampant expansion of US money supply will eventually lead to the greenback’s depreciation. However, for the US dollar to depreciate against EM currencies, the following two conditions should be satisfied: 1. US imports should expand, reviving global growth, i.e., the US should send dollars to the rest of the world by buying goods and services. This is not yet happening as domestic demand in America has plunged and any demand recovery in the next three to six months will be tame and muted. 2. US investors should channel US dollars to EM to purchase EM financial assets. In recent weeks, foreign flows have been returning to EM due to the considerable improvement in EM asset valuations. However, the sustainability of these capital flows into EM remains questionable. The main reasons are two-fold: (A) there is huge uncertainty on how efficiently EM countries will be able handle the economic and health repercussions of the pandemic; and (B) global growth remains weak and, as we discussed above, it has historically been the main driver of EM risk assets and currencies.  Bottom Line: The Fed’s outright money printing is the sole reason to buy EM risk assets and currencies at the moment. Yet, EM fundamentals – namely, its growth outlook – remain downbeat. Overall, we recommend investors to stay put on EM risk assets and currencies in the near-term. Investment Recommendations Chart I-10China: Bet On Lower Long-Term Yields We have been recommending receiving rates in a few markets such as Korea and Malaysia. Now, we are widening this universe to include Russia, Mexico, Colombia, China, and India. In China, the long end of the yield curve offers value (Chart I-10, top panel). The People’s Bank of China has brought down short rates dramatically but the long end has so far lagged (Chart I-10, bottom panel). We recommend investors receive 10-year swap rates. Fixed-income investors could also bet on yield curve flattening. The recovery in China will be tame and the PBoC will keep interest rates lower for longer. Consequently, long-dated swap rates will gravitate toward short rates.  We are closing three fixed-income trades: In Mexico, we are booking profits on our trade of receiving 2-year / paying 10-year swap rates – a bet on a steeper yield curve. This position has generated a 152 basis-point gain since its initiation on April 12, 2018. In Colombia, our bet on yield curve flattening has produced a loss of 28 basis points since January 17, 2019. We are closing it. In Chile, we are closing our long 3-year bonds / short 3-year inflation-linked bonds position. This trade has returned 2.0% since we recommended it on October 3, 2019. For dedicated EM domestic bond portfolios, our overweights are Russia, Mexico, Peru, Colombia, Korea, Malaysia, Thailand, India, China, Pakistan and Ukraine. Our underweights are South Africa, Turkey, Brazil, Indonesia and the Philippines. The remaining markets warrant a neutral allocation. Regarding EM currencies, we continue to recommend shorting a basket of the following currencies versus the US dollar: BRL, CLP, ZAR, IDR, PHP and KRW. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Chinese Steel, Iron Ore And Coal Markets: Heading South Chart II-1Steel, Iron Ore And Coal Prices: More Downside Ahead? Odds are that iron ore, steel and coal prices will all continue heading south (Chart II-1). Lower prices will harm both Chinese and global producers of these commodities. Steel And Iron Ore The oversupplied conditions in the Chinese steel market will become even more aggravated over the next three to six months. First, Chinese output of steel products has not contracted even though demand plunged in the first three months of the year, creating oversupply. Despite falling steel prices and the demand breakdown resulting from the COVID-19 outbreak, Chinese crude steel output still grew at 1.5% and its steel products output only declined 0.6% between January and March from a year ago (Chart II-2). Chart II-2Steel Products Output In China: Still No Contraction The profit margin of Chinese steel producers has compressed but not enough to herald a sizable cut in mainland steel production. Despite oversupply, Chinese steel producers are reluctant to curtail output to prevent layoffs. This year, there will be 62 million tons of new steel production capacity while 82 million tons of obsolete capacity will be shut down. As the capacity-utilization rate (CUR) of the new advanced production capacity will be much higher than the CUR on those soon-to-be-removed capacities in previous years, this will help lift steel output.   Second, Chinese steel demand has plummeted, and any revival will be mild and gradual over the next three to six months. Construction accounts for about 55% of Chinese steel demand, with about 35% coming from the property market and 20% from infrastructure. Additionally, the automobile industry contributes about 10% of demand. All three sectors are currently in deep contraction (Chart II-3). Looking ahead, we expect that the demand for steel from property construction and automobile production will revive only gradually. Overall, it will continue contracting on a year-on-year basis, albeit at a diminishing rate than now. While we projected a 6-8% rise in Chinese infrastructure investment for this year, most of that will be back-loaded to the second half of the year. In addition, modest and gradual steel demand increases from this source will not be able to offset the loss of demand from the property and automobile sectors. The oversupplied conditions in the Chinese steel market will become even more aggravated over the next three to six months. Reflecting the disparity between weak demand and resilient supply, steel inventories in the hands of producers and traders are surging, which also warrants much lower prices (Chart II-4).   Chart II-3Deep Contraction In Steel Demand From Major Users Chart II-4Significant Build-Up In Steel Inventories   Chart II-5Chinese Iron Ore Imports Will Likely Decline In 2020 Regarding iron ore, mushrooming steel inventories in China and lower steel prices will eventually lead to steel output cutbacks in the country. This will be compounded by shrinking steel production outside of China, dampening global demand for iron ore. Besides, in China, scrap steel prices have fallen more sharply than iron ore prices have. This makes the use of scrap steel more appealing than iron ore in steel production. Chinese iron ore imports will likely drop this year (Chart II-5). Finally, the global output of iron ore is likely to increase in 2020. The top three producers (Vale, Rio Tinto and BHP) have all set their 2020 guidelines above their 2019 production levels. This will further weigh on iron ore prices. Coal Although Chinese coal prices will also face downward pressure, we believe that the downside will be much less than that for steel and iron ore prices. Coal prices have already declined nearly 27% from their 2019 peak. They recently declined below 500 RMB per ton – the lower end of a range that the government generally tries to maintain. Prices had not dropped below this level since September 2016. In the near term, prices could go down by another 5-10%, given that record-high domestic coal production and imports have overwhelmed the market (Chart II-6). Coal prices have already declined nearly 27% from their 2019 peak. They recently declined below 500 RMB per ton – the lower end of a range that the government generally tries to maintain. However, there are emerging supportive forces. China Coal Transport & Distribution Association (CCTD), the nation’s leading industry group, on April 18, called on the industry to slash production (of both thermal and coking coal) in May by 10%. It also proposed that the government should restrict imports. The CCTD stated that about 42% of the producers are losing money at current coal prices. The government had demanded producers make similar cuts for a much longer time duration in 2016, which pushed coal to sky-high prices.  The outlook for a revival in the consumption of electricity and, thereby, in the demand for coal is more certain than it is for steel and iron ore. About 60% of Chinese coal is used to generate thermal power. Finally, odds are rising that the government will temporarily impose restrictions on coal imports as it did last December – when coal imports to China fell by 70% as a result. Investment Implications Companies and countries producing these commodities will be hurt by the reduction of Chinese purchases. These include, but are not limited to, producers in Indonesia, Australia, Brazil and South Africa. Iron ore and coal make up 10% of total exports in Brazil, 6% in South Africa, 18% in Indonesia and 32% in Australia. Investors should avoid global steel and mining stocks (Chart II-7). Chart II-6Chinese Coal Output And Imports Are At Record Highs Chart II-7Avoid Global Steel And Mining Stocks For Now   We continue to recommend shorting BRL, ZAR and IDR versus the US dollar. Ellen JingYuan He Associate Vice President ellenj@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes   Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

Chart II-1Is Deflation In Steel And Coal Back? Unlike 2015 when steel, iron ore and coal prices collapsed, in the current downturn they have so far held up reasonably well. They have begun falling only recently (Chart II-1). Even though we do not anticipate a 2015-type Armageddon in steel, iron ore and coal prices, they will deflate further due to supply outpacing demand in China. For both steel and coal, the pace of “de-capacity” reforms in China has diminished considerably, with declining shutdowns of inefficient capacity and rising advanced capacity, as we argued in a couple of reports last year.  This has led to a faster growth in supply, while demand has been dwindling with weak economic growth. Lower steel, iron ore and coal prices will harm Chinese and global producers along with their respective countries.1 Steel And Iron Ore First, both crude steel and steel products output will likely grow at a pace of 5-7% (Chart II-2). As the 2016-2020 steel de-capacity target (150 million tons capacity reduction) was already achieved by the end of 2018, the scale of further shutdowns will be limited. In addition, collapsing graphite electrode prices reflect an increased supply of this material. This along with more availability of scrap steel will facilitate the continuing expansion of cleaner technology (electric furnace (EF)) steel capacity and their output in China. The newly added EF steel capacity is planned at about 21 million tons in 2019 (representing 1.8% of official aggregate steel production capacity), slightly lower than the 25 million tons in 2018. Second, we expect steel products demand to grow at 3-5%, slightly weaker than output. Construction accounts for about 55% of Chinese final steel demand, with about 35% stemming from the property market and 20% from infrastructure. The automotive sector contributes about 10% of final Chinese steel demand. All of these end markets are weak and do not yet show signs of revival (Chart II-3). Chart II-2Steel Production In China Chart II-3No Recovery In Chinese Demand   Concerning iron ore price, we expect more downside than in steel. Supply disruptions among Brazilian and Australian producers were the main cause for the significant rally in iron ore prices this year. Evidence is that these producers have already resumed their output recovery. Current iron ore prices are still well above marginal production costs of major global iron ore producers. Besides, ongoing large currency depreciation in commodity producing countries will push down their marginal production costs in U.S. dollars terms. This will encourage further supply.  As China has increased its use of scrap steel in its crude steel production, the country’s iron ore demand has not grown much. In fact, imports of this raw material have contracted (Chart II-4) As scrap steel prices are currently very low relative to the price of imported iron ore (Chart II-5), steel producers in China will continue to use scrap steel instead of iron ore. Chart II-4China's Imports Of Iron Ore Have Been Shrinking Chart II-5Scrap Steel Is A Cheap Substitute For Iron Ore   Coal Chart II-6Coal Output Is Rising, But Beijing's Goal To Reduce Its Usage Chinese coal prices will also be under downward pressure. First, coal output growth will likely slow but will still stand at 2-4% down from a current 6% level (Chart II-6, top panel). The government has set a production goal of 3900 million tons for 2020. Given last year’s output of 3680 million tons, this implies only a 2.9% annual growth rate this year and the next. Second, the demand for both thermal coal and coking coal will likely weaken. They account for 80% and 20% of total coal demand, respectively. About 60% of Chinese coal is used to generate thermal power. As the country continues to promote the use of clean energy, thermal power output growth will likely slow further. Increasing the nation’s reliance on clean energy is an imperative strategic objective for Beijing. Given that thermal coal still accounts for a whopping 70% of electricity production, China will maintain its effort on reducing coal in its energy mix (Chart II-6, bottom panel). In the same vein, the government will continue to replace coal with natural gas in home heating. Finally, Chinese coal import volumes are likely to decline as the nation is increasingly relying on its domestic sources. In particular, the strategic Menghua railway construction will be completed in October. It will be used to transport the commodity from large producers in the north to the coal-deficit provinces in the south. This will reduce the nation’s coal imports, as the transportation cost of shipping domestic coal to the southern power plants will become more competitive than imported coal. Macro And Investment Implications First, companies and economies producing these commodities will face deflationary pressures. These include - but are not limited to - Indonesia, Australia, Brazil and South Africa, as well as steel producers around the world. Second, the RMB depreciation will allow China to gain further market share in the global steel market. In fact, China’s share of global steel output has been rising (Chart II-7, top panel). The bottom panel of Chart II-7 shows that steel production in the world excluding China have actually come to a grinding halt at a time when mainland producers have enjoyed high output growth. Global steel stocks have broken down and global mining equities are heading into a breakdown (Chart II-8). Chart II-7China Has Been Gaining A Share In Global Steel Market Chart II-8Breakdown In Steel And Mining Stocks   Finally, we remain bearish on commodities and other global growth sensitive currencies. In particular, we continue shorting the following basket of EM currencies against the U.S. dollar: ZAR, CLP, COP, IDR, MYR and KRW. Ellen JingYuan He, Associate Vice President ellenj@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      This is BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategy view and is different from BCA’s house view.

Highlights The current global trade downtrend has primarily been due to a contraction in Chinese imports. The latter reflects weakness in China's domestic demand in general and capital spending in particular. The current global manufacturing and trade downturns will prove to be drawn out. Several important markets have already experienced technical breakdowns, and a few others are at risk of doing so. EM domestic bonds and EM credit markets could be the last shoe to drop in this EM selloff. Steel, iron ore and coal prices, will all deflate further due to supply outpacing demand in China. Feature In our report last week, we argued that the odds of a liquidation phase in EM are growing. This week’s report continues exploring this theme, offering additional rationale and evidence of a pending breakdown in EM. Trade Tariffs: The Wrong Focus? The media and many investors seem to be solely focused on the impact of U.S. tariffs against imports from China. Yet these tariffs have not been the primary cause of the ongoing global manufacturing and trade recessions. It appears that the headlines and many investors are looking at individual trees and ignoring the forest. Chart I-1Chinese Imports Are Worse Than Exports Global trade contraction and China’s growth slump are not solely due to the trade tariffs imposed by the U.S. but rather stem from weakening domestic demand in China. Chart I-1 illustrates that Chinese aggregate exports are faring much better than imports. If the imposed tariffs were the main culprit behind both weakness in Chinese growth and global trade, mainland exports would have registered a far-greater hit by now than imports. However, they have not yet done so. This entails that U.S. tariffs have so far not had a substantial impact on Chinese and global manufacturing. The key point we would like to emphasize is that the current global trade downtrend has primarily been due to a contraction in Chinese imports. In turn, the accelerating decline in mainland imports is a reflection of relapsing domestic demand in China. The latter has been instigated by lethargic money/credit impulses owing to the government’s 2017-2018 deleveraging campaign and its reluctance to undertake an economy-wide irrigation type stimulus. What’s more, the recent RMB depreciation will likely intensify the Chinese import contraction already underway, as the same amount of yuan will buy less goods priced in U.S. dollars than before (Chart I-2). Given the majority of goods and commodities procured by mainland companies are priced in dollars, suppliers will receive fewer dollars, and their revenue derived from sales to and in China will continue to shrink (Chart I-3). Chart I-2RMB Depreciation Will Depress China's Purchases From Rest Of The World Chart I-3China Is In A Recession From Perspective Of Its Suppliers   We do not deny that the trade war has prompted a deterioration in sentiment among Chinese businesses and consumers as well as multinational companies, which in turn has dented both their spending and global trade. We do not see these issues reversing anytime soon. If the imposed tariffs were the main culprit behind both weakness in Chinese growth and global trade, mainland exports would have registered a far-greater hit by now than imports. Chart I-4EM EPS Are Contracting Even though U.S. President Donald Trump is flip-flopping on tariffs and their implementation, barring a major deal between the U.S. and China, business sentiment worldwide will not improve on a dime. In brief, delaying some import tariffs from September to December is unlikely to promote an imminent global trade recovery. The confrontation between the U.S. and China is profoundly not about trade: it is a geopolitical confrontation for global hegemony that will last years if not decades. Businesses in China and CEOs of multinational companies realize this, and they will not change their investment plans on Trump’s latest tweet delaying some tariffs. For now, we do not detect signs of an impending growth turnaround in China’s domestic demand and global trade. Therefore, China-related risk assets, commodities and global cyclicals are at risk of breaking down. Economic Rationale The global trade and manufacturing recession will linger for a while longer, and a recovery is not in the offing: The business cycle in EM/China continues to downshift. Consistently, corporate earnings are already or soon will be contracting in EM, China and the rest of emerging Asia (Chart I-4). EM corporate EPS contraction is broad-based (Chart I-5A and I-5B). The recent declines in oil and base metals prices entail earnings shrinkage for energy and materials companies (Chart I-5B, bottom two panels). Chart I-5AEM EPS Contraction Is Broad Based Chart I-5BEM EPS Contraction Is Broad Based   China’s monetary and fiscal stimulus has not yet been sufficient to revive capital spending in general and construction activity in particular (Chart I-6). Chinese household spending is also exhibiting little signs of recovery (Chart I-7). Chart I-6China: Building Construction Is Dwindling Chart I-7China: Consumer Spending Has Not Yet Recovered   Domestic demand continues to deteriorate, not only in China but also in other emerging economies, as we documented in our July 25 report. In EM ex-China, imports of capital goods and auto sales are contracting (Chart I-8). High-frequency freight data point to ongoing weakness in shipments in both the U.S. and China (Chart I-9). Chart I-8EM Ex-China: Domestic Demand Is Depressed Bottom Line: The current global manufacturing and trade downturns will prove to be drawn out, and investors should be wary of betting on an impending recovery. This is BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategy view and is different from BCA’s house view which is anticipating an imminent global business cycle recovery. Chart I-9Global Freight Does Not Signal Recovery   Breakdown Watch Financial market segments sensitive to the global business cycle have been splintering at the edges. These cracks appear to be proliferating to the center and will render considerable damage to aggregate equity indexes. EM corporate EPS contraction is broad-based. We explained our rationale behind using long-term moving averages to identify significant breakouts and breakdowns in last week’s report. We also highlighted the numerous breakdowns that have already transpired. Today, we supplement the list: EM equity relative performance versus DM has fallen below its previous lows (Chart I-10, top panel). Crucially, emerging Asian stocks’ relative performance versus DM has clearly breached its 2015-2016 lows (Chart I-10, bottom panel). The KOSPI and Chinese H-share indexes have broken below their three-year moving averages (Chart I-11, top two panels). Chart I-10EM Equities Relative Performance Has Broken Down Chinese bank stocks in particular have been responsible for dragging China’s H-share index lower (Chart I-11, bottom panel). In addition, Chinese small-cap stocks dropped below their December low, as have copper prices and our Risk-On versus Safe-Haven currency ratio1 (Chart I-12). Finally, German chemical and industrial share prices such as BASF, Siemens and ThyssenKrupp have decisively broken down (Chart I-13). Chart I-11Breakdowns In Korea And China...   Chart I-12...In Commodities Space As Well Chart I-13German Manufacturing Stocks Are In Free Fall   This implies that Germany’s manufacturing slowdown is not limited to the auto sector but rather is pervasive. Besides, these companies are greatly exposed to China/EM demand, and their share prices simply reflect the ongoing slump in China/EM capital spending. There are several other market signals that are at a critical technical juncture, and their move lower will confirm our downbeat view on global growth and cyclical markets. In particular: The global stocks-to-U.S. Treasurys ratio has dropped to a critical technical line (Chart I-14, top panel). Failure to hold this defense line would signal considerable downside in global cyclical assets. Similarly, the Chinese stock-to-bond ratio – calculated using total returns of both the MSCI China All-Share index and domestic government bonds – has plunged. The path of least resistance for this ratio might be to the downside (Chart I-14, bottom panel). Given China is the epicenter of the global slowdown, this ratio is of vital importance. The lack of recovery in this ratio signifies lingering downside growth risks. Finally, global cyclical sectors’ relative performance versus defensive ones is sitting on its three-year moving average (Chart I-15). A move lower will qualify as a major breakdown and confirm the absence of a global manufacturing and trade recovery. Chart I-14Global Stocks-To-Bonds Ratio: Sitting On Edge Chart I-15Global Cyclicals Versus Defensives: At A Critical Juncture   Bottom Line: Several important markets have already experienced technical breakdowns, and a few others are at risk of doing so. All in all, these provide us with confidence in maintaining our downbeat stance on EM risk assets and currencies. EM Bonds: The Last Shoe To Drop? Although EM share prices are back to their December lows, EM local currency and U.S. dollar bonds have done well this year, benefiting from the indiscriminate global bond market rally. However, there are limits to how far and for how long the performance of EM domestic and U.S. dollar bonds can diverge from EM stocks, currencies and commodities prices (Chart I-16). EM domestic bond yields have plunged close to the 2013 lows they touched prior to the Federal Reserve’s ‘Taper Tantrum’ selloff (Chart I-17, top panel). That said, on a total return basis in common currency terms, the GBI EM domestic bond index has not outperformed U.S. Treasurys, as shown in the bottom panel of Chart I-17. Chart I-16Which Way These Gaps Will Close? Chart I-17EM Domestic Bonds: Poor Risk-Reward Profile   Looking forward, EM exchange rates remain critical to the returns of this asset class. With the GBI EM local currency bond index’s yield spread over five-year U.S. Treasurys at about 400 basis points, EM currencies have very little room to depreciate before foreign investors begin experiencing losses. We believe that further RMB depreciation, commodities prices deflation and EM exports contraction all bode ill for EM exchange rates. Consequently, we expect EM local bonds to underperform U.S. Treasurys of similar duration over the next several months. German chemical and industrial share prices such as BASF, Siemens and ThyssenKrupp have decisively broken down. Finally, the euro has begun rapid appreciation versus EM currencies. This will erode EM local bonds’ returns to European investors and trigger a period of outflows. Within this asset class, our overweights are Mexico, Russia, Central Europe, Chile, Korea and Thailand, while we continue to recommend underweight positions in the Philippines, Indonesia, Turkey, South Africa, Brazil, Argentina and Peru within an EM local currency bond portfolio. As to EM credit space (hard currency bonds), these markets are overbought, and investors positioning is heavy. EM currency depreciation and lower commodities prices typically herald widening spreads. Argentina has a large weight in the EM credit indexes, and the crash in Argentine markets could be a trigger for outflows from this asset class. Technically speaking, there are already several negative signposts. The excess returns on EM sovereign and corporate bonds seem to have rolled over, having failed to surpass their early 2018 highs (Chart I-18). Besides, EM sovereign CDS spreads are breaking out (Chart I-19, top panel). Chart I-18EM Credit Markets Is Toppy Chart I-19EM Credit Space Is Entering Selloff   Finally, there are noticeable cracks in the emerging Asian corporate credit market. The price index of China’s high-yield property bonds – that account for a very large portion not only of the Chinese but also the emerging Asian corporate bond universes – has petered out at an important technical resistance level (Chart I-19, bottom panel). Further, the relative total return of emerging Asia’s investment-grade corporate bonds against their high-yield peers is correlated with Asia corporate spreads, and presently points to wider spreads (Chart I-20). The rationale is that periods when safer parts of the credit universe outperform the riskier ones are usually associated with widening credit spreads. China’s property market remains vulnerable as the central authorities in Beijing have not provided much housing-related stimulus in the current downtrend. Furthermore, companies in this space are overleveraged, generate poor cash flow and have limited access to credit. The euro has begun rapid appreciation versus EM currencies. This will erode EM local bonds’ returns to European investors and trigger a period of outflows. Overall, Chinese property developers will affect the EM credit space in two ways. First, their credit spreads will likely continue to shoot up, generating investor anxiety and outflows from this asset class. Second, reduced investment by debt-laden and cash-strapped property developers will inflict pain on industrial and materials companies in Asia and beyond. We discuss the outlook for steel, iron ore and coal, which are very exposed to Chinese construction, in the section below. Bottom Line: For asset allocators, we recommend underweighting EM sovereign and corporate credit versus U.S. investment grade, a strategy we have been advocating since August 16, 2017 (Chart I-21). For dedicated portfolios, the list of our overweights and underweights, as always, is presented at the end of the report (page 21). Chart I-20Emerging Asian Corporate Spreads Will Widen Chart I-21Favor U.S. Investment Grade Versus EM Overall Credit   As for EM domestic bonds, we continue to recommend betting on yield declines in select countries without taking on currency risk. These include Korea, Chile, Mexico and Russia. We will warm up to this asset class in general when we alter our negative EM currency view. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Chinese Steel, Iron Ore And Coal Markets: Renewed Deflation Chart II-1Is Deflation In Steel And Coal Back? Unlike 2015 when steel, iron ore and coal prices collapsed, in the current downturn they have so far held up reasonably well. They have begun falling only recently (Chart II-1). Even though we do not anticipate a 2015-type Armageddon in steel, iron ore and coal prices, they will deflate further due to supply outpacing demand in China. For both steel and coal, the pace of “de-capacity” reforms in China has diminished considerably, with declining shutdowns of inefficient capacity and rising advanced capacity, as we argued in a couple of reports last year.  This has led to a faster growth in supply, while demand has been dwindling with weak economic growth. Lower steel, iron ore and coal prices will harm Chinese and global producers along with their respective countries.2 Steel And Iron Ore First, both crude steel and steel products output will likely grow at a pace of 5-7% (Chart II-2). As the 2016-2020 steel de-capacity target (150 million tons capacity reduction) was already achieved by the end of 2018, the scale of further shutdowns will be limited. In addition, collapsing graphite electrode prices reflect an increased supply of this material. This along with more availability of scrap steel will facilitate the continuing expansion of cleaner technology (electric furnace (EF)) steel capacity and their output in China. The newly added EF steel capacity is planned at about 21 million tons in 2019 (representing 1.8% of official aggregate steel production capacity), slightly lower than the 25 million tons in 2018. Second, we expect steel products demand to grow at 3-5%, slightly weaker than output. Construction accounts for about 55% of Chinese final steel demand, with about 35% stemming from the property market and 20% from infrastructure. The automotive sector contributes about 10% of final Chinese steel demand. All of these end markets are weak and do not yet show signs of revival (Chart II-3). Chart II-2Steel Production In China Chart II-3No Recovery In Chinese Demand   Concerning iron ore price, we expect more downside than in steel. Supply disruptions among Brazilian and Australian producers were the main cause for the significant rally in iron ore prices this year. Evidence is that these producers have already resumed their output recovery. Current iron ore prices are still well above marginal production costs of major global iron ore producers. Besides, ongoing large currency depreciation in commodity producing countries will push down their marginal production costs in U.S. dollars terms. This will encourage further supply.  As China has increased its use of scrap steel in its crude steel production, the country’s iron ore demand has not grown much. In fact, imports of this raw material have contracted (Chart II-4) As scrap steel prices are currently very low relative to the price of imported iron ore (Chart II-5), steel producers in China will continue to use scrap steel instead of iron ore. Chart II-4China's Imports Of Iron Ore Have Been Shrinking Chart II-5Scrap Steel Is A Cheap Substitute For Iron Ore   Coal Chart II-6Coal Output Is Rising, But Beijing's Goal To Reduce Its Usage Chinese coal prices will also be under downward pressure. First, coal output growth will likely slow but will still stand at 2-4% down from a current 6% level (Chart II-6, top panel). The government has set a production goal of 3900 million tons for 2020. Given last year’s output of 3680 million tons, this implies only a 2.9% annual growth rate this year and the next. Second, the demand for both thermal coal and coking coal will likely weaken. They account for 80% and 20% of total coal demand, respectively. About 60% of Chinese coal is used to generate thermal power. As the country continues to promote the use of clean energy, thermal power output growth will likely slow further. Increasing the nation’s reliance on clean energy is an imperative strategic objective for Beijing. Given that thermal coal still accounts for a whopping 70% of electricity production, China will maintain its effort on reducing coal in its energy mix (Chart II-6, bottom panel). In the same vein, the government will continue to replace coal with natural gas in home heating. Finally, Chinese coal import volumes are likely to decline as the nation is increasingly relying on its domestic sources. In particular, the strategic Menghua railway construction will be completed in October. It will be used to transport the commodity from large producers in the north to the coal-deficit provinces in the south. This will reduce the nation’s coal imports, as the transportation cost of shipping domestic coal to the southern power plants will become more competitive than imported coal. Macro And Investment Implications First, companies and economies producing these commodities will face deflationary pressures. These include - but are not limited to - Indonesia, Australia, Brazil and South Africa, as well as steel producers around the world. Second, the RMB depreciation will allow China to gain further market share in the global steel market. In fact, China’s share of global steel output has been rising (Chart II-7, top panel). The bottom panel of Chart II-7 shows that steel production in the world excluding China have actually come to a grinding halt at a time when mainland producers have enjoyed high output growth. Global steel stocks have broken down and global mining equities are heading into a breakdown (Chart II-8). Chart II-7China Has Been Gaining A Share In Global Steel Market Chart II-8Breakdown In Steel And Mining Stocks   Finally, we remain bearish on commodities and other global growth sensitive currencies. In particular, we continue shorting the following basket of EM currencies against the U.S. dollar: ZAR, CLP, COP, IDR, MYR and KRW. Ellen JingYuan He, Associate Vice President ellenj@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1          Average of CAD, AUD, NZD, BRL, CLP & ZAR total return (including carry) indices relative to average of JPY & CHF total returns. 2      This is BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategy view and is different from BCA’s house view. Equities Recommendations Currencies, Fixed-Income And Credit Recommendations