Technological Advances
Highlights US growth has likely peaked. Economic momentum will slow over the coming quarters as the tailwind from stimulus fades and the vaccination campaign winds down. Historically, a slowdown in US growth, as proxied by a decline in the ISM manufacturing index, has been associated with lower overall equity returns, the outperformance of defensive stocks over cyclicals, large caps over small caps, and US equities over their overseas peers. A falling ISM has also been associated with a strengthening dollar, lower Treasury yields, wider credit spreads, a decline in the US Treasury/German bund spreads, falling oil prices, and an increase in the gold-to-copper price ratio. Compared to past episodes, there are three reasons to expect the coming US slowdown to be relatively benign: First, growth is slowing from exceptionally strong levels; second, growth in many other parts of the world is still speeding up; and third, monetary policy will remain highly accommodative in the face of what is likely to be a transitory increase in inflation. We continue to maintain a positive 12-month view on global equities. Nevertheless, with global growth momentum likely to slow later this year, investors who are maximally overweight risk should pare back cyclical exposure. Crypto update: We warned that “Bitcoin is on a collision course with ESG” two weeks ago. Elon Musk’s flip-flop on allowing customers to pay for Teslas in Bitcoin is yet another piece of evidence that ESG concerns will win out. With that in mind, we are going short Bitcoin. Beware The Second Derivative US growth has likely peaked. Economic momentum will slow over the coming quarters as the tailwind from fiscal stimulus fades and the vaccination campaign winds down. According to the Brookings Institution, fiscal easing contributed nearly seven percentage points to US growth in the first quarter (Chart 1). However, fiscal policy is set to detract from growth in the remainder of the year, reflecting the one-off nature of some of the stimulus measures. Chart 1After A Strong Boost, Fiscal Thrust Is Turning Negative On the pandemic front, the number of new cases continues to trend lower in the US, thanks mainly to a successful vaccination campaign. A falling infection rate has allowed states to dismantle lockdown measures. Conceptually, it is the change in social distancing measures that correlates with economic growth. While some restrictions remain in place (especially in the educational sector), we are now well past the point of maximum loosening. How have financial markets performed during episodes of slowing US economic growth? To answer this question, we looked at the performance of various assets during periods when the ISM manufacturing index was falling and when it was rising. To add a bit more granularity to the analysis, we also looked at cases when the ISM was trending up and above 50, trending down and above 50, trending down and below 50, and trending up and below 50. As summarized in Table 1 and the Appendix Charts, the key results are as follows: Stocks tend to do best when the ISM is rising. Since 1950, the S&P 500 has risen on average by 1.51% during months when the ISM was trending higher, compared to 0.49% during months when the ISM was trending lower. The results were virtually the same if one restricts the sample to the post-1995 period. While the change in the ISM generally matters more for the S&P 500, absolute levels matter too. Since 1995, the best period for the S&P 500 was when the ISM was below 50 but trending higher (S&P 500 up 2.07%), while the worst period was when the ISM was below 50 and trending lower (S&P 500 up 0.03%). This suggests that swings in the ISM have a bigger effect on the stock market during periods of economic contraction. During periods where the ISM was falling but still above 50, the S&P 500 has delivered a positive – though far from stellar – monthly return of 0.69%. US defensively-geared equities outperformed cyclicals when the ISM was trending lower. During periods when the ISM was falling but still above 50, defensives beat cyclicals by 0.45%. Defensives outperformed cyclicals by 0.84% during periods when the ISM was below 50 and trending lower. US small caps underperformed large caps during periods when the ISM was falling. Non-US stocks also underperformed their US counterparts in a falling ISM environment. The relationship between the ISM and value/growth performance is more ambiguous. To the extent that there is one, value generally outperforms growth when the ISM is below 50. Treasury yields tend to increase, while the yield curve tends to steepen, when the ISM is trending higher. Reflecting the higher beta that Treasuries have to the global business cycle, Treasury yields generally rise more than Germany bund yields when the ISM is on the upswing. Corporate credit spreads tend to widen when the ISM is falling. Spreads narrow the most when the ISM is below 50 but rising. As a countercyclical currency, the US dollar tends to weaken when the ISM is rising and strengthen when the ISM is falling. The prices of cyclically-sensitive commodities such as oil and copper normally decline when the ISM is trending lower, although in general, the bulk of the decline in commodity prices usually occurs only when the ISM has dipped below 50. There is not much of a relationship between gold prices and the ISM. Table 1The Economic Cycle And Financial Assets Implications For Today Assuming that the ISM has peaked but remains above 50, the analysis above suggests that the S&P 500 will rise modestly over the coming months; US stocks will edge out non-US stocks; defensives will outperform cyclicals; and large caps will perform slightly better than small caps. The analysis also suggests that Treasury yields will move lower; the Treasury-bund spread will narrow; corporate credit spreads will be flat-to-wider; the dollar will strengthen modestly; and commodities will move broadly sideways. Our own 12-month view is more pro-risk than implied by the ISM analysis. There are three reasons for this: First, US growth is slowing from exceptionally strong levels; second, growth in many other parts of the world is still accelerating; and third, monetary policy remains highly accommodative. Let’s examine each assumption in turn. Reason #1: US growth is slowing from exceptionally strong levels While payroll growth surprised sharply on the downside in April, we suspect this was mainly due to pandemic-induced distortions to the seasonal adjustment mechanism used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Seasonally unadjusted payrolls rose by 1.1 million in April, which is broadly consistent with the strong pace of GDP growth tracking estimates. The Atlanta Fed GDPNow model points to growth of 11% in Q2. Bloomberg consensus estimates have US real GDP rising by 8.1% in the second quarter. Growth will decline to 7% in Q3 and 4.7% in Q4, but still average 4% in 2022 (Table 2). Table 2Growth Is Peaking, But At A Very High Level Chart 2Firms Will Need To Rebuild Inventories US households were sitting on $2.2 trillion in excess savings as of the end of April. This is money they would not have had in absence of the pandemic. Slightly less than half of that stockpile can be attributed to transfer payments, mainly in the form of stimulus checks and unemployment benefits. The rest stems from decreased spending during the pandemic. Not all of this money will be spent immediately. However, given the large sums involved – $2.2 trillion is equivalent to 15% of annual personal consumption – even a partial depletion of these excess savings will be enough to power consumption for the foreseeable future. Meanwhile, firms will have to boost production in order to restore depleted inventories. The inventory-to-sales ratio stands at record low levels (Chart 2). The decline in inventories pushed up the ISM new orders-to-inventory ratio in April, even as the overall ISM index slid from 64.7 in March to 60.7. The new orders-to-inventory ratio tends to lead the ISM index, which suggests that any decline in the ISM index over the coming months will be gradual. An easing of supply-side constraints should also support growth. Even though overall employment was still 5.2% below pre-pandemic levels in April, a record share of small firms surveyed by the NFIB reported difficulty in filling vacant positions (Chart 3). Enhanced unemployment benefits have eroded the incentive to find work. In addition, many schools remain partially shuttered. Chart 4 shows that mothers with young children have seen a much larger decline in labor force participation than other groups. Chart 3Firms Are Struggling To Find Workers Chart 4Mothers With Children Had To Leave The Labor Force Enhanced unemployment benefits will expire in September. As schools resume normal operations, more workers will flow back into the labor market. At the same time, some of the bottlenecks currently gripping the global supply chain should abate, allowing for increased output. Reason #2: Growth in many other parts of the world is still accelerating Chart 5Over 40% Of S&P 500 Revenues Come From Abroad Chart 6Euro Area Data Has Surprised On The Upside S&P 500 constituent firms derive 43% of their revenues from abroad (Chart 5). While Bloomberg estimates suggest that US growth will peak in the second quarter, growth in the euro area is not expected to peak until the third quarter. Mathieu Savary, who heads BCA’s European Investment Strategy service, sees upside risks to European growth estimates for the second half of this year. Consistent with Mathieu’s observations, recent economic data has been surprising to the upside in the euro area (Chart 6). Just this week, economic expectations for both Germany and the wider euro area leaped to the highest level in more than 20 years, according to the ZEW economic research institute. Growth in Japan should also pick up in the remainder of the year. Japan’s vaccination campaign has gotten off to a very slow start, with less than 3% of the population being inoculated to date. The government imposed its third state of emergency on April 25 in response to rising viral case counts. It subsequently extended those restrictions on May 11. The authorities intend to vaccinate the country’s 36 million elderly people by July, when the Olympics are set to begin. This should permit some easing in lockdown measures. Investors are worried that the Chinese economy will slow this year. The Chinese PMIs peaked in November 2020, about the same time as the combined credit/fiscal impulse reached an apex (Chart 7). Jing Sima, BCA’s chief China strategist, expects the general government budget deficit to remain at a still-ample 8% of GDP this year, similar to where it was last year. She expects credit growth to slow by 2%-to-3%, converging towards the pace of nominal GDP growth. Keep in mind that China’s credit-to-GDP ratio stands at 270%. Thus, if credit grows in line with nominal GDP growth of about 10%, this would still leave the stock of credit roughly 27% of GDP higher at the end of 2021 compared to the end of 2020. This hardly constitutes “deleveraging”. A resilient Chinese economy should buoy other emerging markets. Progress on the pandemic front should also help. The UN estimates that as many as 15 billion vaccine doses could be produced by the second half of 2021, enough to inoculate most of the world’s population (Chart 8). The shortages of vaccines in emerging markets could turn into a surfeit by the end of this year, something that market participants do not seem to fully appreciate. Chart 7China: Peak Stimulus And Peak Growth The rotation in growth momentum from the US to the rest of the world should put downward pressure on the US dollar. A weaker dollar, in turn, has usually coincided with the outperformance of non-US stock markets (Chart 9). Chart 8Vaccine Production Set To Ramp Up Further Chart 9A Weaker Dollar Has Coincided With The Outperformance Of Non-US Stock Markets Reason #3: Monetary policy remains highly accommodative The slowdown in US growth is coming at a time when inflation is rising. The core CPI increased by 0.9% month-over-month in April. This was the biggest monthly jump since August 1981. The year-over-year rate climbed to 3.0%, the highest in 25 years. The “whiff of stagflation” helped push the S&P 500 down this week. As we discussed last week, we are very much in the camp that expects inflation to rise significantly over the long haul. Over the next one or two years, however, we would fade inflationary fears. As the example of the 1960s illustrates, a long period of overheating is often necessary to push up inflation in a sustained manner. The US unemployment rate reached its full employment level in 1962. However, it was not until 1966 – when the unemployment rate was two full percentage points below equilibrium – that inflation finally took off (Chart 10). The official core CPI likely overstates underlying inflationary pressures. The pandemic threw all sorts of prices out of whack. Stripping out volatile food and energy prices from inflation is not enough. One needs more refined measures of inflation. Luckily, they exist. Chart 11 shows that median CPI, trimmed-mean CPI, and sticky price CPI all remain well contained. Similarly, relatively clean measures of wage growth, such as the Atlanta Fed Wage Tracker, do not point to an imminent wage-price spiral (Chart 12). Chart 10Inflation Started Accelerating Quickly Only When Unemployment Reached Very Low Levels In The 1960s Chart 11Cleaner Measures Of Inflation Are Telling A Different Story Chart 12Wage Growth Is Still Lackluster All this means that the Fed can afford to sustain exceptionally easy monetary policy. That should keep growth at an above-trend pace and continue to support to equity valuations. Investment Conclusions My “golden rule” for investing is to stay bullish on stocks unless one thinks there is a recession around the corner (Chart 13). Seeing around the corner is not easy, of course, but it is not impossible either. Chart 13Recessions And Bear Markets Tend To Overlap Last year’s recession was caused by a true exogenous shock – the pandemic. Most recessions are endogenous in nature, however. They result from growing imbalances that are usually laid bare by tighter monetary policy. One can debate the extent to which the global economy is plagued by imbalances of one form or another. But one thing is clear, monetary policy is unlikely to turn contractionary any time soon. In this environment, one should remain positive on equities and other risk assets over a 12-month horizon. Nevertheless, with global growth momentum likely to slow later this year, investors who are maximally overweight risk should pare back cyclical exposure. Go Short Bitcoin We warned that “Bitcoin is on a collision course with ESG” two weeks ago in a report entitled “How To Short Bitcoin, Or Anything Else, Without Losing Your Shorts.” Elon Musk’s flip-flop on allowing Tesla customers to pay for Teslas in Bitcoin is yet another piece of evidence that ESG concerns will win out. News that Colonial Pipeline paid hackers 75 bitcoin (nearly $5 million) in ransom further cements Bitcoin’s status as the currency of choice for criminals around the world. With all that in mind, we are going short Bitcoin as of midnight Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) using the shorting technique described in that report. The technique flips the usual risk-reward from shorting on its head. Normally, when you short a stock, your gain is capped at 100% of the initial position whereas your potential loss is unlimited. With our shorting technique, your potential loss is capped at 100% while your potential gain is unlimited. This makes shorting as an investment strategy a lot safer. APPENDIX The Economic Cycle And Financial Assets APPENDIX CHART 1A APPENDIX CHART 1B Appendix Chart 1C Appendix Chart 1D Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist pberezin@bcaresearch.com Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores
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
Dear Client, In addition to our regular report, this week we are sending a Special Report written by my colleague Lucas Laskey from BCA Research’s Equity Analyzer service titled “Is The Reopening Trade Closed?”. The report discusses the state of the reopening trade through the lens of Equity Analyzer's factor model. I hope you find the report insightful. Additionally, please join us next week on Friday, May 7, 2021 at 10am EDT as I moderate a debate between my colleagues Arthur Budaghyan, BCA Research’s Chief Emerging Market Strategist, and Robert Ryan, Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist. Titled “A Debate On Commodities,” Arthur and Bob will discuss the outlook for commodities, touching on the trajectory both DM and China/EM growth will follow, the path for the US dollar, and other cyclical and structural forces currently shaping commodity markets. During the webcast, Arthur and Bob will highlight the areas they disagree on and the reasons behind their differing views. Best regards, Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist Highlights Bitcoin is on a collision course with ESG. ESG interests will win out. Widespread adoption of cryptocurrencies, if it were to happen, would erode the purchasing power of traditional money, while robbing governments of billions of dollars in seigniorage revenue. Governments have already begun to take steps to thwart such an outcome. Restrictions on the use of cryptocurrencies will only increase over the coming years. The rollout of Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) represents an existential threat not only to cryptos, but potentially to credit card companies and online payment processors such as PayPal, Square, Venmo, WeChat Pay, and Alipay. Shorting cryptocurrencies, meme stocks, or any other high-flying asset is risky business. Fortunately, there is a way to flip the usual risk-reward from going short on its head. Rather than facing unlimited losses and a maximum gain of only 100% of the initial position, we outline a shorting strategy that caps the loss at 100% but allows for unlimited gains. Bitcoin’s Questionable ESG Record Crypto critics have often blamed cryptocurrencies for facilitating illicit transactions and enlarging the world’s carbon footprint. There is some truth to both claims. Motivated to avoid detection, online scammers, smugglers, and terrorists have been drawn to cryptocurrencies. Cryptos have also been used to evade capital controls and conceal wealth from the tax authorities. On the environmental side, Bitcoin mining now consumes more energy than entire countries such as Sweden, Argentina, and Pakistan (Chart 1). Moreover, about 70% of Bitcoin mining currently takes place in China, mainly using electricity generated by burning coal. A lot of the remaining mining occurs in countries such as Russia and Iran with questionable governance records. Chart 1How Dare You, Bitcoin Cryptos And Inequality One criticism of Bitcoin that is less frequently mentioned is its role in exacerbating wealth inequality. We are not just talking about the small number of “whales” who amassed huge fortunes by buying or mining Bitcoin shortly after it was created. If these whales sell their coins at today’s prices and the price of Bitcoin eventually crashes, those early investors will have ended up profiting at the expense of smaller investors who bought at the top. While such a transfer of income may be unsavory, it is not much different from what happens when someone sells a high-flying stock to the proverbial bagholder just as the stock is peaking. The more interesting question is what happens if Bitcoin prices do not crash. It might be tempting to think that in such a scenario, no one would be worse off. But that is incorrect. There would still be losers, and importantly, these losers would consist of people who never bought or sold Bitcoin in their lives. To see why, ask yourself who suffers from counterfeit currency. One possibility is shopkeepers who inadvertently accept counterfeit cash and find themselves stuck with worthless money. But even if the counterfeit money is never detected, there would still be losers: Fake money dilutes the value of genuine money, making everyone who holds the genuine money worse off. Crypto evangelists like to argue that cryptocurrencies offer protection against the “debasement of fiat money.” Ironically, the widespread adoption of cryptocurrencies could produce a self-fulfilling cycle that leads to just such an inflationary outcome. If enough people decide to swap fiat currencies for cryptos, the dollar and other fiat monies could become “hot potatoes.” The price of cryptos would rise in relation to dollars. Feeling more wealthy, crypto holders would spend some of their wealth on goods and services. As long as the economy is operating below potential, this would not be such a bad thing since increased spending would generate more output and employment. However, once the output gap disappears, more spending would result in higher inflation. The purchasing power of fiat currencies would decline. The Empire Strikes Back Will governments allow such a massive transfer of wealth from holders of fiat currencies to holders of crypto currencies to occur? It seems highly unlikely. In order to entice people to hold on to their fiat currency bank deposits, central banks would have to raise interest rates. Debt-strapped governments would not like that. Governments also generate significant revenue from their ability to print currency and then exchange it for goods and services. For the US, this “seigniorage revenue” is around $100 billion per year (Chart 2). No government will want to part with this revenue. A financial system where loans and deposits are denominated in cryptocurrencies would be highly unstable. Even if the supply of each individual cryptocurrency were capped, the rise and fall of competing cryptocurrencies could still result in large shifts in the aggregate cryptocurrency money supply. Moreover, wild swings in cryptocurrency prices, both versus fiat currencies and one another, could destroy any semblance of price stability. The value of bank loans made in Bitcoin or other cryptos would experience great fluctuations. Powerless to issue cryptocurrencies themselves, central banks would not be able to provide unlimited liquidity support to commercial banks as they do now. The situation would resemble the US in the late 19th century when myriad currencies competed with one another and the financial system veered from one crisis to another (Chart 3). Chart 2Governments Will Not Part With Seigniorage Revenue Chart 3An Inelastic Money Supply Historically Led To More Banking Crises What Is It Good For? One might argue that the ultimate aim of cryptocurrencies is not to displace fiat money. Okay, but if Bitcoin can never truly function as a medium of exchange or a unit of account, what exactly underpins its utility as a store of value? At least with gold, you get an extremely rare metal, forged in the collision of neutron stars billions of years ago, that has great aesthetic value. With cryptos, you get fairy dust. In past reports, we referred to Bitcoin as a “solution in search of a problem.” In retrospect, that characterization was much too charitable. Bitcoin is a problem in search of a problem. Whereas the Visa network can process over 20,000 transactions per second, the Bitcoin network can barely process five (Chart 4). Bitcoin transactions take 10 minutes-to-an hour to complete compared to just a few seconds for most debit or credit card transactions. The average fee for a Bitcoin transaction is around $30. This fee has been rising, not falling, over the past few years (Chart 5). Chart 4Bitcoin: The Speed Of Transactions, Or Lack Of It Chart 5Bitcoin: The Cost Per Transaction Is Rising Look Out Below Table 1A Growing List Of Cryptocurrency Bans Cryptos are heading for a world of pain. ESG concerns will force companies to step back from their newfound infatuation with these magic beans. Meanwhile, governments will tighten the screws on cryptocurrencies while rolling out their own digital monies. As my colleague Chester Ntonifor pointed out last week, a growing list of countries have already moved to ban Bitcoin transactions (Table 1). In addition, most G10 central banks have outlined their own digital currency plans (Map 1). Not only will Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) squeeze out decentralised cryptocurrencies, they will also pose an existential risk to credit card companies and online payment processors such as PayPal, Square, Venmo, WeChat Pay, and Alipay. Map 1Many Central Banks Are Planning A Digital Currency The Risk Of Shorting Bitcoin These days, there is no shortage of ways to short Bitcoin. Many cryptocurrency platforms permit short selling. In addition, one can bet against Bitcoin through the futures market. To the extent that the fortunes of companies such as Coinbase are tied to the crypto market, one can also express a short view on cryptos through listed equities. Yet, shorting cryptos is a risky strategy. Cryptocurrencies do not have any intrinsic value. What you think a Bitcoin is worth depends on what others think it is worth and vice versa. At present, the value of all Bitcoins that have ever been issued is about $1 trillion. Eighteen cryptocurrencies have valuations exceeding $10 billion (Table 2). The market capitalization of all cryptocurrencies in circulation stands at $2 trillion. In contrast, the value of all the gold that has ever been mined is around $10 trillion (Chart 6). It is certainly possible that euphoric investors will push up the value of cryptocurrencies to the point that they are collectively worth more than all the gold in the world. Table 2Close To 20 Cryptos Have A Market Cap In Excess Of US$10bn Chart 6Gold Versus Cryptocurrencies To guard against this risk, one needs a prudent strategy for shorting not just high-flying cryptocurrencies, but any security whose price can rise significantly. Luckily, such a strategy exists. How To Short Without Losing Your Shorts Clients sometimes ask me what I invest my money in. The answer is that most of my liquid wealth is held in publicly traded US small cap stocks. I have been investing in this space for over two decades (prior to joining Goldman, I even wrote a blog about it). I used my knowledge of stock picking to develop an early version of BCA’s Equity Analyzer. David Boucher and his team have since transformed it into a powerful, state-of-the-art stock selection service. Table 3Don’t Be Like Melvin Shorting small cap stocks is risky business. To limit the risk, I have employed a strategy that flips the usual risk-reward from shorting on its head. Normally, when you short a stock, your gain is capped at 100% of the initial position whereas your potential loss is unlimited. With my shorting technique, your potential loss is capped at 100% while your potential gain is unlimited. To illustrate how the strategy works, let us consider shorting one particular overpriced “meme” stock that has been in the news a lot this year. I won’t single out the name of the company, other than to note that it begins with “G” and ends with “stop.” At the time of writing, this mystery stock was trading at $180 per share. Suppose you shorted 1,000 shares at that price. The basic idea is to then short 2% more shares if the price falls by 1% and cover 2% of your shares if the price rises by 1%. So, in this case, you would increase your short position to 1020 shares if the price were to fall to around $178 but cover 20 shares (leaving you with 980 shares short) if the price were to rise to $182. Table 3 shows the number of shares you would need to be short for any given price between $5 and $360. If the price of the shares were to fall to $10 (double what it was last August), the strategy would generate roughly $3,060,000 in profits.1 In contrast, if the price were to rise to $360 per share, the strategy would incur a loss of $90,000. Even if the price went to infinity, the most you would lose is $180,000. There are a number of challenges to implementing this strategy: 1) It requires frequent trading; 2) gap downs and gap ups in the price could meaningfully hurt the results; 3) it is not always possible to short a stock and even when it is, the borrowing costs could be high, etc. Nevertheless, as a “rule of thumb,” I have found this strategy to be extremely effective in mitigating risk. Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist pberezin@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Notice that the profit of $3,060,000 from going short 1,000 shares in the case where the price of the stock falls from $180 to $10 is equal to 17 times the initial short position of $180,000 (i.e., $3,060,000 divided by 180,000 is 17). This is exactly the same return that one would earn if one went long the stock and the price rose from $10 to $180. In this case, the profit would also be equal to 17 times the initial investment (i.e., $1,800,000-$100,000 divided by $100,000 is 17). Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores
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 Higher copper prices will follow in the wake of China's surge in steel demand, which lifted Shanghai steel futures to an all-time high just under 5,200 RMB/MT earlier this month, as building and infrastructure projects are completed this year (Chart of the Week). Copper will register physical deficits this year and next, which will pull inventories even lower and will push demand for copper scrap up in China and globally. High and rising copper prices could prompt government officials to release some of China's massive state holdings of copper – believed to total some 2mm MT – if the current round of market jawboning fails to restrain demand and price increases. Strong steel margins and another round of environmental restraints on mills are boosting demand for high-grade iron ore (65% Fe), which hit a record high of just under $223/MT earlier this week. Benchmark iron ore prices (62% Fe) traded at 10-year highs this week, just a touch below $190/MT. We are lifting our copper price forecast for December 2021 to $5.00/lb from $4.50/lb. In addition, we are getting long 2022 CME/COMEX copper vs short 2023 CME/COMEX copper at tonight's close, expecting steeper backwardation. Feature Government-mandated reductions of up to 30% in steel mill operations for the rest of the year in China's Tangshan steel hub to reduce pollution will tighten an already-tight market responding to a construction and infrastructure boom (Chart 2). This boom triggered a surge in steel prices, and, perforce, in iron ore prices (Chart 3). As it has in the past, this sets the stage for the next leg of copper's bull run. Chart of the WeekSurging Steel Presages Stronger Copper Prices In our modeling, we have found a strong relationship between steel prices, particularly for reinforcing bar (rebar), and copper prices, as can be seen in the Chart of the Week. Steel goes into building and infrastructure projects at the front end (in the concrete that is reinforced by steel and in rolled coil products), and then copper goes into the completed project (in the form of wires or pipes). Chart 2Copper Bull Market Will Continue In addition to the building and construction boom, continued gains in manufacturing will provide a tailwind for copper prices, which will be augmented by the global recovery in activity 2H21. Chart 4 shows the relationship between nominal GDP levels and copper prices. What's important here is economic growth in Asia (including China) and ex-Asia is, unsurprisingly, cointegrated with copper prices – i.e., economic growth and industrial commodities share a long-term equilibrium, which explains their co-movement. Chart 3Steel Boom Lifts Iron Ore Prices Media reports tend to focus on the effects of Chinese government spending as a share of GDP – e.g., total social financing relative to GDP – to the exclusion of the economic, particularly when trying to explain commodity price movements. To the extent the Chinese government is successful in further expanding the private sector – on the goods and services sides – organic economic growth will become even more important in explaining Chinese commodity demand. Chart 4Global Economic Grwoth Will Boost Copper Prices In our copper modeling, we find copper prices to be cointegrated with nominal Chinese GDP, EM Asian GDP and EM ex-Asian GDP, along with steel and iron ore prices, which, from a pure economics point of view, is what would be expected. On the other hand, there is no cointegration – i.e., no economic co-movement or a shared trend – between these industrial commodity prices and total social financing as a percent of nominal China GDP. These models allow us to avoid spurious relationships, which offer no help in explaining or forecasting these copper prices. Chart 5Iron Ore, Copper Demand Will Lift With The "Green Energy" Buildout Chart 6Renewables Dominate Incremental New Generation Longer term, as we have written in past research reports, the transition to a low-carbon energy mix favoring distributed renewable electricity generation, more resilient grids and electric vehicles (EVs) will be a major source of demand growth for bulks like iron ore and steel, and base metals, particularly copper (Chart 5).1 Already, renewable generation represents the highest-growth segment of incremental power generation being added to the global grid (Chart 6). Copper Supply Growth Requires Higher Prices Copper supply will have a difficult time accommodating demand in the short term (to end-2022) when, for the most part, the buildout in renewables and EVs will only be getting started. This means that over the medium (to end-2025) and the long terms (2050) significant new supply will have to be developed to meet demand. In the short term, the supply side of refined copper – particularly the semi-refined form of the metal smelters purify into a useable input for manufactured products (condensates) – is running extremely low, as can be seen in the longer-term collapse of Treatment Charges and Refining Charges (TC/RC) at Chinese smelters (Chart 7). At ~ $22/MT last week, these charges were the lowest since the benchmark TC/RC index tracking these charges in China was launched in 2013, according to reuters.com.2 Chart 7Copper TCRCs Fall As Supplies Fall, Pushing Prices Higher The copper supply story also can be seen in Chart 8, which converts annual supply and demand into balances, which will be mediated by the storage market. The International Copper Study Group (ICSG) estimates mine output again registered flat year-on-year growth last year, while refined copper supplies were up a scant 1.5% y/y. Chart 8Physical Deficits Will Draw Copper Stocks... Consumption was up 2.2%, according to the ICSG's estimates, which expects a physical deficit this year of 456k MT, after adjusting for Chinese bonded warehouse stocks. This will mark the fourth year in a row the copper market has been in a physical deficit, which, since 2017, has averaged 414k MT. The net result of this means inventories will once again be relied on to fill in supply gaps, and global stockpiles, which are down ~25% y/y, and will continue to fall (Chart 9). With mining capex weak and copper ore quality falling, higher prices will be required to incentivize significant new investment in production (Chart 10). However, the lead time on these projects is five years in the best of circumstances, which means miners have to get projects sanctioned with final investment decisions made in the near future (Chart 11). Chart 9...Which After Four Years Of Physical Deficits Are Low Chart 10Higher Copper Prices Required To Reverse Weak Capex, Falling Ore Quality Chart 11Falling Lead Times To Bring New Mines Online, But Time Is Short Investment Implications Our focus on copper is driven by the simple fact that it spans all renewable technologies and will be critical for EVs as well, particularly if there is widespread adoption of this technology (Chart 12). We continue to expect copper supply challenges across the short-, medium- and long-term investment horizons. To cover the short term, we recommended going long December 2021 copper on 10 September 2020, and this position is up 39.2%. To cover the longer term, we are long the S&P Global GSCI commodity index and the iShares GSCI Commodity Dynamic Roll Strategy ETF (COMT), recommended 7 December 2017 and 12 March 2021 , respectively, which are down 2.3% and 0.8%. Chart 12Widespread EV Uptake Will Create All New Copper Demand At tonight's close, we will cover the medium-term opportunity of the copper supply-demand story developed above by getting long the 2022 CME/COMEX copper futures strip and short 2023 CME/COMEX copper futures strip, given our expectation the continued tightening of the market will force inventories to draw, leading to a steeper backwardation in the copper forward curve. The principal risks to our short-, medium- and long-term positions above are a global failure to contain the COVID-19 pandemic, which, we believe is a short-term risk. Second among the risks to these positions is a large release of strategic copper concentrate reserves held by China's State Reserve Bureau (aka, the State Bureau of Minerial Reserves). In the case of the latter risk, the actual holdings of the Bureau are unknown, but are believed to be in the neighborhood of 2mm MT.3 Bottom Line: We remain bullish industrial commodities, particularly copper. Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish Texas is expected to add 10 GW of utility-scale solar power by the end of 2022, according to the US EIA. Texas entered the solar market in a big way in 2020, installing 2.5 GW of capacity. The EIA expects The Great State to add ~ 5GW per year in the next two years, which would take total solar capacity to just under 15 GW. Roughly 30% of this new capacity is expected to be built in the Permian Basin, home to the most prolific oil field in the US. By comparison, the leading producer of solar power in the US, California, will add 3.2 GW of new solar capacity, according to the EIA (Chart 13). To end-2022, roughly one-third of total new solar generation in the will be added in Texas, which already is the leading wind-powered generator in the country. Wind availability is highest during the nighttime hours, while solar is most abundant during the mid-day period. Precious Metals: Bullish Palladium prices, trading ~ $2,876/oz on Wednesday, surpassed their previous record of $2,875.50/oz set in February 2020 and are closing in on $3,000/oz, as supply expectations continue to be lowered by Russian metals producer Nornickel, the largest palladium producer in the world (Chart 14). Earlier this week, the company updated earlier guidance and now expects mine output to be down as much as 20% this year in its copper, nickel and palladium operations, due to flooding in its mines. Palladium is used as a catalyst in gasoline-powered automobiles, sales of which are expected to rebound as the world emerges from COVID-19-induced demand destruction and a computer-chip shortage that has limited new automobile supply. In addition, production of platinum-group metals (PGMs) is being hampered by unreliable power supply in South Africa, which has forced the national utility suppling most of the state's power (> 90%) to revert to load-shedding schemes to conserve power. We remain long palladium, after recommending a long position in the metal 23 April 2020; the position is up 35.6%. Chart 13 Chart 14 Footnotes 1 Please see, e.g., Renewables, China's FYP Underpin Metals Demand, which we published 26 November 2020. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see RPT-COLUMN-Copper smelter terms at rock bottom as mine squeeze hits: Andy Home published by reuters.com 14 April 2021. The report notes direct transactions between miners and smelters were reported as low as $10/MT, in a sign of just how tight the physical supply side of the copper market is at present. 3 Please see Column: Supercycle or China cycle? Funds wait for Dr Copper's call, published by reuters.com 20 April 2021. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2021 Summary of Closed Trades
Highlights The Biden administration is combining Trumpian nationalism with a renewed push for US innovation in a major infrastructure bill that is highly likely to become law. Populism and Great Power struggle with China and Russia are structural forces that give enormous momentum to this effort. Don’t bet against it. President Biden’s $2.4 trillion infrastructure and green energy plan has a subjective 80% chance of passing into law by the end of the year, as infrastructure is popular and Democrats control Congress. The net deficit increase will range from $700 billion to $1.3 trillion depending on the size of corporate tax hikes in the final bill. The second part of Biden’s plan, the roughly $2 trillion American Families Plan, has a much lower chance of passage – at best 50/50 – as the 2022 midterm elections will loom and fiscal fatigue will set in. While the US infrastructure package is a positive cyclical catalyst, it was largely expected, and the Biden administration still faces early stress-tests on China/Taiwan, Russia, Iran, and even North Korea. Game theory helps explain why financial markets cannot ignore the 60% chance of a crisis in the Taiwan Strait. A full-fledged war is still low-probability but Taiwan remains the world’s preeminent geopolitical risk. In emerging markets, stay short Russian and Brazilian currency and assets – and continue favoring Indian stocks over Chinese. Feature The “arsenal of democracy” is a phrase that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt used to describe the full might of US government, industry, and labor in assisting the western allies in World War II. The US is reviving this combination of productive forces today, with President Joe Biden’s $4 trillion-plus American Jobs and Families Plan unveiled in Pittsburgh on March 31. The context is once again a global struggle among the Great Powers, albeit not world war (at least not yet … more on that below). The US is reviving its post-WWII pursuit of global liberal hegemony – symbolized by its role, growing once again, as the world’s chief consumer and chief warrior (Chart 1). Biden promoted his plan to build up the US’s infrastructure and social safety net explicitly as a historic and strategic investment – “in 50 years, people are going to look back and say this was the moment that American won the future.”1 It is critical for investors to realize that they are not witnessing another round of COVID-19 fiscal relief. That task is already completed with the Republican spending of 2020 and Biden’s own $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), which together with the vaccine rollout are delivering a jolt to growth (Chart 2). Chart 1America Pursues Hegemony Anew Chart 2Consensus Expects 6.5% US GDP Growth After American Rescue Plan Our own back-of-the-envelope estimates of growth suggest that there is considerable upside risk even under current law (Chart 3). The output gap is also guesstimated here, and it will tighten faster than expected, especially as the service sector revives on economic reopening. Chart 3Back-Of-Envelope: US GDP And Output Gap Show Upside Risk After American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) A growth overshoot is even more likely considering that the first part of Biden’s proposal, the $2.4 trillion American Jobs Plan consisting mostly of infrastructure and green energy, is highly likely to pass Congress (by July at earliest and December at latest, most likely late fall). Our revised estimates for the US budget deficit show that this bill will add considerably to the deficit in the coming years, peaking in three or four years, thus averting the “fiscal cliff” in 2022-23 and adding to aggregate demand in the years after the short-term COVID-era cash handouts dry up (Chart 4). The net deficit increase will be $700 billion if Biden gets all of his tax hikes and $1.3 trillion if he only gets half of them, according to our sister US Political Strategy. Chart 4US Budget Deficit Will Remain Fat In Coming Years We give Biden’s $2.4 trillion American Jobs Plan an 80% chance of passing through Congress by the end of the year. Infrastructure is broadly popular – as President Trump’s own $2 trillion infrastructure campaign proposal revealed – and Democrats have just enough votes to push it through the Senate via budget reconciliation, which requires zero votes from Republicans. Biden’s political capital is still strong given that his approval rating will stay above 50% as long as Trump is the obvious alternative and the Republicans are deeply divided over their own future (Chart 5).2 The second part of his plan, the $1.95 trillion American Families Plan, is much less likely to pass before the 2022 midterm elections – we would say 50/50 odds at best, if the infrastructure deal passes quickly. Chart 5Biden’s Political Capital Is Sufficient To Pass Another Major Law Of course there are very important differences between Biden’s $2.4 trillion infrastructure plan and the similarly sized proposal that Trump would have unveiled this month had he been re-elected: Biden’s proposal is probably heavier on innovation and research and development, and certainly heavier on unionization and labor regulation, than Trump’s would have been. Biden’s plan integrates infrastructure with sustainability, renewable energy, and climate change initiatives that will help the US catch up with Europe and China on the green front. The plan will consist of direct government spending – rather than government seed money to promote private investment. It will be partially offset by repealing the corporate tax cuts in Trump’s signature Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Most importantly – from a geopolitical point of view – Biden is making a bid for the US to resume its post-WWII quest for global liberal hegemony. He argued that the US stands at the crossroads of a global choice between “democracies and autocracies” and that rebuilding US infrastructure is ultimately about proving that democracies can create consensus and “deliver for their people.” Autocratic regimes, fairly or not, routinely call attention to the divisiveness of modern party politics in the West and the resulting policy gridlock which produces bad outcomes for many citizens, resulting in greater domestic dysfunction and “chaos.” It is important to note that this bid for hegemony will be more, not less, destabilizing for global politics as it will make the US economy more self-sufficient and insulated from the world. It will intensify the US-China and US-Russia strategic competition while making it more difficult for Biden to conduct bilateral diplomacy with these states given their differences in moral values and frequent human rights violations. What is happening now is the culmination of political shifts that pre-date the pandemic, but were galvanized by the pandemic, and it is of global, geopolitical significance for the coming decade and beyond.3 Biden and the establishment Democrats – embattled by populism on their right and left flanks – are shamelessly coopting President Trump’s “Make America Great Again” nationalism with a larger-than-life, infrastructure-and-manufacturing initiative that emphasizes productivity as well as “Buy American” protectionism. Biden explicitly argued that Americans need to boost innovation to “put us in a position to win the global competition with China in the upcoming years.” At Biden’s first press conference on March 25, he made a similar point about China: So I see stiff competition with China. China has an overall goal, and I don’t criticize them for the goal, but they have an overall goal to become the leading country in the world, the wealthiest country in the world, and the most powerful country in the world. That’s not going to happen on my watch because the United States are going to continue to grow and expand.4 The US trade deficit is set to widen a lot further under this massive domestic buildout. It aims to be the largest government investment program since Dwight Eisenhower’s building of the highways or the Kennedy-Johnson-Nixon space race. But it explicitly aims to diminish China’s role as a supplier of US goods and materials and the US trade deficit already shows evidence of economic divorce (Chart 6). The US is bound to have a larger trade deficit due to its own savings-and-investment imbalances but it has a powerful interest in redistributing this trade deficit to its allies and reducing over-dependency on China, which is itself pursuing strategic self-sufficiency and military modernization in anticipation of an ongoing rivalry this century. Chart 6Biden's Coopts Trump's Trade And Manufacturing Agenda Bottom Line: Biden’s $2.4 trillion American Jobs Plan has an 80% chance of passing Congress later this year with a net increase to the fiscal thrust of between $700 billion and $1.3 trillion, depending on how many and how high the corporate tax hikes. The other $2 trillion social spending part of Biden’s plan has only a 50/50 chance of passage. The infrastructure and green energy rebuild should be understood as a return of Big Government motivated by populism and Great Power competition – it is a geopolitical theme with enormous momentum. The result will be faster US growth and higher inflation expectations, with the upside risk of a productivity boom (or boomlet) from the combination of public and private sector innovation. Investors should not bet against the cyclical bull market even though any increase in long-term potential GDP is speculative. A Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis And The Cuban Missile Crisis Biden’s American Jobs Plan reserves $50 billion for US semiconductor manufacturing, a vast sum, larger than expectations and far larger than the relatively small public investments that helped revolutionize the US chip industry in the 1980s. But it will take a long time for these investments to pay off in the form of secure and redundant supply chains, while a semiconductor shortage is raging today that is already entangled with the US-China rivalry and tensions over the Taiwan Strait. The risk of a diplomatic or military incident is urgent because the chip shortage exacerbates China’s vulnerabilities at a time when the Biden administration is about to make critical decisions regarding the tightness of new export controls that cut off China’s access to US semiconductor chips, equipment, and parts. If the Biden administration appears to pursue a full-fledged tech blockade, as the Trump administration seemed bent on doing, then China will retaliate economically or militarily. Before going further we should point out that there are still areas of potential US-China cooperation under the Biden administration that could reduce tensions this year (though not over the long run). Biden and Xi Jinping might meet virtually as early as this month to discuss carbon emission reduction targets. Meanwhile China is positioning itself to serve as power-broker on two major foreign policy challenges – Iran and North Korea. Biden expressly seeks Chinese and Russian assistance based on the mutual interest in nuclear non-proliferation. Notably, Beijing’s renewed strategic dealings with Iran over the past month highlight its confidence that Biden does not have the appetite to stick with Trump’s “maximum pressure” but rather will seek to reduce sanctions and restore the 2015 nuclear deal. Hence China will seek to parlay influence over Tehran in exchange for reduced US pressure on its trade and economy (Chart 7). Beijing is making a similar offer on North Korea. Chart 7China Holds The Key To Iran, As With North Korea? Ironically both Iranian and North Korean geopolitical tensions should skyrocket in the short term since high-stakes negotiations are beginning, even though they are ultimately more manageable risks than the mega-risk of US-China conflict over Taiwan. China cannot gain the advanced technology it needs to achieve a strategic breakthrough if the US should impose a total tech blockade, e.g. draconian export controls enforced on US allies. Yet it is highly unlikely to gain the tech by seizing Taiwan, since war would likely destroy the computer chip fabrication plants and provoke global sanctions that would crush its economy. The result is that China is launching a massive campaign of domestic production and indigenous innovation while circumventing US restrictions through cyber and other means. Still, a dangerous strategic asymmetry is looming because the US will retain access to the most advanced computer chips via its alliances and on-shoring, whereas China will remain vulnerable to a tech blockade via Taiwan. This brings us to our chief global geopolitical risk: a US-China showdown in the Taiwan Strait. Highlighting the urgency of the risk, Admiral John Aquilino, the nominee for Commander of the US Indo-Pacific Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that China might not wait six years to attack Taiwan: “My opinion is that this problem is much closer to us than most think and we have to take this on.”5 To illustrate the calculus of such a showdown – and our reasons for maintaining an alarmist tone and building up market hedges and safe-haven investments – we turn to game theory. Game theory is not a substitute for empirical analysis but a tool to formalize complex international systems with multiple decision-makers. An obvious yet fair analogy to a US-China-Taiwan crisis is the Cuban missile crisis of 1962.6 The standard construction of the Cuban missile crisis in game theory goes as follows: if the US maintains a blockade and the Soviets withdraw their missiles a compromise is achieved and war is averted; if the US conducts air strikes and the Soviets maintain or use their missiles then war ensues. The payouts to each player are shown in the matrix in Diagram 1. Diagram 1Cuban Missile Crisis, 1962 One concern about this construction is that the payouts may underestimate the costs of war since nuclear arms could be used. We insert a comment into the diagram highlighting that the payouts could be altered to account for nuclear war. Note that this alteration does not change the final outcome: the equilibrium scenario is still US blockade and Soviet withdrawal, which is what happened in reality. If we model a US-China-Taiwan conflict along similar lines, the US takes the role of the Soviet Union while China stands where the US stood in 1962 (Diagram 2). This is a theoretical scenario in which the US offers Taiwan a decisive improvement in its security or offensive military capabilities. However, because of the unique circumstances of the Chinese civil war, in which the victors established the People’s Republic of China in Beijing in 1949 and the defeated forces retreated to Taiwan, China’s regime legitimacy is at stake in any showdown over Taiwan. If Beijing suffered a defeat that secured Taiwan’s independence while degrading Beijing’s regime legitimacy and security, the Chinese regime might not survive the domestic blowback.7 Diagram 2Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis – What Happens If The US Offers Game-Changing Military Support To Taiwan? Thus we reduce the Chinese payout in the case of American victory. In the top right cell of Diagram 2, the row player’s payout falls from two points (2ppt) in the first diagram to one point (1ppt) in this diagram. This seemingly slight change entirely alters the outcome of the game. Beijing now faces equally bad outcomes in the event of defeat, whereas victory remains preferable to a tie. Therefore as long as China believes that the US will not resort to nuclear weapons to defend Taiwan (a reasonable assessment) then it may make the mistake of opting for military force to ensure victory. Fortunately for global investors the US is not providing Taiwan with game-changing military capabilities, although it is ultimately up to China to decide what threatens its security and the US is in the process of upgrading Taiwan’s defense in an effort to deter Beijing from forceful reunification. Thus the exercise demonstrates why we do not expect immediate war – no game-changer yet – but at the same time it shows why war is much likelier than the consensus holds if the military or political status quo changes in a way that China deems strategically unacceptable. A lower-degree Taiwan crisis should be expected – i.e. one in which the US maintains tech restrictions, offers arms sales or military training that do not upend the military balance, or signs free trade agreements or other significant upgrades to the US-Taiwan relationship.8 We would give a 60% probability to some kind of crisis over the next 12-24 months. The global equity market could at least suffer a 10% correction in a standard geopolitical crisis and it could easily fall 20% if US-China war appears more likely. What would trigger a full-fledged Taiwan war? We would grow even more alarmed if we saw one of three major developments: Chinese internal instability giving rise to a still more aggressive regime; the US providing Taiwan with offensive military capabilities; or Taiwan seeking formal political independence. The first is fairly likely, the second lends itself to miscalculation, and the third is unlikely. But it would only take one or two of these to increase the war risk dramatically. Bottom Line: The Taiwan Strait is still the critical geopolitical risk and Biden’s policy on China is still unclear. Iranian and North Korean tensions will escalate in the short run but the fundamental crisis lies in Taiwan. Since some kind of showdown is likely and war cannot be ruled out we advise clients to accumulate safe-haven assets like the Japanese yen and otherwise not to bet headlong against the US dollar until it loses momentum. Emerging Markets Round-Up In this section we will briefly update some important emerging market themes and views: Chart 8Favor USMCA Over Putin's Russia Russia: US-Russia tensions are escalating in the face of Biden’s reassertion of the US bid for liberal hegemony, which poses a direct threat to Russia’s influence in eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Ukraine is expected to see a renewed conflict this spring. The top US and Russian military commanders spoke on the phone for the second time this year after Ukrainian military reports indicated that Russia is amassing forces on the border. We also assign a 50/50 chance that the US will use sanctions to prevent the completion of the NordStream II pipeline from Russia to Germany, an event that would shake up the German election as well as provoke a Russian backlash. The Russian ruble has suffered a long slide since Putin’s invasion of Georgia in 2008 and Crimea in 2014 and the country’s currency and equities have not staged much of a comeback amid the global cyclical upswing and commodity price rally post-COVID. We recommend investors favor the Canadian dollar and Mexican peso as oil plays in the context of American stimulus and persistent Russian geopolitical risk (Chart 8). We also favor developed market European stocks over emerging Europe, which will suffer from renewed US-Russia tensions. Brazil: Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro’s domestic political troubles are metastasizing as expected – the rally-around-the-flag effect in the face of COVID-19 has faded and his popular approval rating now looks dangerously like President Trump’s did, relative to previous presidents, which is an ominous warning for the “Trump of the South,” who faces an election in October 2022 (Chart 9). The COVID-19 deaths are skyrocketing, with intensive care units reaching critical levels across the country. The president has reshuffling his cabinet, including all three heads of the military in an unprecedented disruption that compounds fears about his willingness to politicize the military.9 Meanwhile the judicial system looks likely (but not certain) to clear former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva to run against Bolsonaro for the presidency, a potent threat (Chart 10). Bolsonaro’s three pillars of political viability have cracked under the pandemic: the country remains disorderly, the systemic corruption and the “Car Wash” scandal under the former ruling party are no longer at the center of public focus, and fiscal stimulus has replaced structural reform. Chart 9Brazil: Will ‘Trump Of The South’ Face Trump’s Fate? Our Brazilian GeoRisk Indicator has reached a peak with Bolsonaro’s crisis – and likely breaking of the fiscal spending growth cap put in place at the height of the political crisis in 2016 – while Brazilian equities relative to emerging markets have hit a triple bottom (Chart 11). It is too soon for investors to buy into Brazil given that the political upheaval can get worse before it gets better and a Lula administration is no cure for Brazil’s public debt crisis, though a short-term technical rally is at hand. Chart 10Brazil’s Lula Looks To Be A Contender In 2022? Chart 11Brazil: Policy Risk Peaks, Equities Hit Triple-Bottom Versus EM India: A lot has happened since we last updated our views on India, South Asia, and the broader Indian Ocean basin. Farmer protests broke out in India, forcing Prime Minister Narendra Modi to temporarily suspend his much-needed structural reforms to the agricultural sector, while China-backed military coup broke out in Myanmar, and the US election set up a return to negotiations with Iran and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Perhaps the biggest surprise was the Indo-Pakistani ceasefire, despite boiling tensions over India’s decision to make Jammu and Kashmir a federal union territory. The ceasefire is temporary but it does highlight a changing geopolitical dynamic in the region. India and Pakistan ceased fire along the Line of Control where they have fought many times. The ceasefire does not resolve core problems – Pakistan will not stop supporting militant proxies and India will not grant Kashmir autonomy – but it does show their continued ability to manage the intensity of disputes while dealing with the global pandemic. An earlier sign of coordination occurred after the exchange of air strikes in early 2019, which preceded the Indian election and suggested that India and Pakistan had the ability to control their military encounters. India’s move to revoke the autonomy of Jammu and Kashmir in August 2019, along with various militant operations, created the basis for another major conflict this year. After all, the Kargil war in 1999 followed nuclear weaponization, while the 2008 conflict followed the Mumbai attack. But instead India and Pakistan have agreed to a temporary truce. A major India-Pakistan conflict would be a “black swan” as nobody is expecting it at this point. Not coincidentally, India and China also reduced tensions after the flare-up in their Himalayan territorial disputes in 2020. China may be reducing tensions now that it no longer has to distract its population from Trump and the US election. China is shifting its focus to the Myanmar coup, another area where it hopes to parlay its influence with a Biden administration preoccupied with democracy and human rights. Sino-Indian tensions will resume later, especially as China continues its infrastructure construction at the farthest reaches of its territory for the sake of economic stimulus, internal control, and military logistics. The Biden administration is adopting the Trump administration’s efforts to draw India into a democratic alliance. But more urgently it is trying to withdraw from Afghanistan and cut a deal with Iran, which means it will need Indian and Pakistani cooperation and will want India to play a supportive role. Typically India eschews alliances and it will disapprove of Biden’s paternalism. For both China and Pakistan, making a temporary truce with India discourages it from synching up relations with the US immediately. Still, we expect India to cooperate more closely with the US over time, both on economic and security matters. This includes a beefed up “Quad” (Quadrilateral Security Dialogue) with Japan and Australia, which already have strong economic ties with India. Biden’s attempt to frame US foreign policy as a global restoration of democracy and liberalism will not go very far if he alienates the largest democracy in the world and in Asia. Nor will his attempt to diversify the US economy away from China or counter China’s regional assertiveness. Therefore Biden will have to take a supportive role on US-India ties. We are sticking with our contrarian long India / short China equity trade (Chart 12). India cannot achieve its geopolitical goals without reforming its economy and for that very reason it will redouble its structural reform drive, which is supported by changing voting patterns in favor of accelerating nationwide economic development. India will also receive a tailwind from the US and its allies as they seek to diversify production sources and reduce supply chain dependency on China, at least for health, defense, and tech. Meanwhile China’s government is pursing import substitution, deleveraging, and conflict with its neighbors and the United States. While Chinese equities are much cheaper than Indian equities on a P/E basis, they are not as pricey on a P/B and P/S basis (Chart 13) – and valuation trends can continue under the current macro and geopolitical backdrop. Indian equities are more volatile but from a long-term and geopolitical point of view, India’s moment has arrived. Chart 12Contrarian Trade: Stick To Long India / Short China Bottom Line: Stay long Indian equities relative to Chinese and stay short Russian and Brazilian currencies and assets. These views are based on political and geopolitical themes that will remain relevant over the long run but are also seeing short-term confirmation. Chart 13Indian Stocks Not As Over-Priced On Price-To-Book, Price-To-Sales Investment Takeaways To conclude we want to highlight two investment takeaways. First, while the market has rallied in expectation of the US stimulus package, Biden must now get the package passed. This roller coaster process, combined with the inevitable European recovery once the vaccine rollout gets on its feet (Chart 14), will power an additional rally in cyclicals, value stocks, and commodities. This is true as long as China does not tighten monetary and fiscal policy too abruptly, a risk we have highlighted in previous reports. Chart 14Europe's Vaccination Problem While the US is pursuing “Buy American” provisions within its stimulus package, its growing trade deficit shows that it will be forced to import goods and services to meet its surging demand. This is beneficial for its nearest trade partners, Canada and Mexico, and Europe – as well as China substitutes further afield in some cases. Our European Investment Strategist Mathieu Savary has pointed out the opportunities lurking in Europe at a time when vaccine troubles and lockdowns are clouding the medium-term economic view, which is brightening. He recommends going long the “laggard” sectors and sub-sectors that have not benefited much relative to “leaders” that rallied sharply in the wake of last year’s stimulus, vaccine discovery, and defeat of President Trump (Chart 15). The laggard sectors are primed to outperform on rising US interest rates and decelerating Chinese economy as well (Chart 16). Therefore we recommend going long his basket of Euro Area laggards and short the leaders. Chart 15Europe’s Laggards And Leaders Chart 16Macro Forces Favor The Laggards over the Leaders Chart 17Will OPEC 2.0 Maintain Production Discipline To Keep Oil Supplies Tight? Commodities – especially base metals – will continue to benefit from the global and European reopening as well as the US infrastructure buildout, assuming that China does not shoot its economy in the foot. Our Commodity & Energy Strategy highlights that global oil prices should remain in a $60-$80 per barrel range over the coming years on the back of tight supply/demand balances and ongoing OPEC 2.0 production management (Chart 17). We continue to see upside oil price risks in the first half of the year but downside risks in the second half. The US pursuit of a deal with Iran may trigger sparks initially – i.e. unplanned supply outages – but this will be followed by increased supply from Iran and/or OPEC 2.0 as a deal becomes evident. Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 White House, "Remarks by President Biden on the American Jobs Plan," Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, March 31, 2021, whitehouse.gov. 2 A bipartisan bill is conceivably, barely, since Republicans face pressure to join with such a popular bill, but they cannot accept the corporate tax hikes, unionization, or green boondoggles that will inevitably occur. 3 The pandemic and President Trump’s hands-off attitude toward it helped galvanize this revival of Big Government, but the revival was already well on its way prior to the pandemic. 4 White House, "Remarks by President Biden in Press Conference," March 25, 2021, whitehouse.gov. 5 Again, "the most dangerous concern is that of a military force against Taiwan," though he implied that Beijing would wait until after the February 2022 Winter Olympics before taking action. He requested that the US urgently increase regional military defense. See Senate Armed Services Committee, "Nomination – Aquilino," March 23, 2021, armed-services.senate.gov. 6 At that time the Soviet Union stationed nuclear missiles in Cuba that threatened the US homeland directly and sent a convoy to make the missile installation permanent. The US imposed a blockade. A showdown ensued, at great risk of war, until the Soviets withdrew and the Americans made some compromises regarding missiles in Turkey. 7 Note that this was not the case for the US in 1962: Cuba did not have special significance for the legitimacy of the American republic and the American regime would have survived a defeat in the showdown, although its security would have been greatly compromised. 8 Taiwan is proposing to buy a missile segment enhancement for its Patriot Advanced Capability-3 missile defense system for delivery in 2025, though this is not yet confirmed by the Biden administration. See for example Yimou Lee, "Taiwan To Buy New U.S. Air Defence Missiles To Guard Against China," Reuters, March 31, 2021, reuters.com. 9 See Monica Gugliano, "I Will Intervene! The Day Bolsonaro Decided To Send Troops To The Supreme Court," Folha de São Paulo, August 2020, piaui.folha.uol.com.br.