Developed Countries

Weekly Performance Update For the week ending Thu Jun 24, 2021 The Market Monitor displays the trailing 1-quarter performance of strategies based around the BCA Score. For each region, we construct an equal-weighted, monthly rebalanced portfolio consisting of the top 3 stocks per sector and compare it with the regional benchmark. For each portfolio, we show the weekly performance of individual holdings in the Top Contributors/Detractors table. In addition, the Top Prospects table shows the holdings that currently have the highest BCA Score within the portfolio. For more details, click the region headers below to be redirected to the full historical backtest for the strategy. BCA US Portfolio Total Weekly Return BCA US Portfolio S&P500 TRI 1.19% 1.08% Top Contributors   TX:US SCCO:US DE:US UHAL:US TGT:US Weekly Return 28 bps 19 bps 19 bps 17 bps 12 bps Top Detractors   MPLX:US HE:US PEG:US STX:US FLO:US Weekly Return -10 bps -10 bps -9 bps -8 bps -7 bps Top Prospects   BRK.A:US ANAT:US ESGR:US TX:US MPLX:US BCA Score 98.55% 98.15% 97.91% 97.86% 93.55% BCA Canada Portfolio Total Weekly Return BCA Canada Portfolio S&P/TSX TRI 2.34% 0.38% Top Contributors   TOY:CA AUP:CA CS:CA TOU:CA IFP:CA Weekly Return 43 bps 38 bps 36 bps 19 bps 16 bps Top Detractors   EMP.A:CA TCL.A:CA CCA:CA QBR.A:CA ELF:CA Weekly Return -23 bps -7 bps -7 bps -5 bps -3 bps Top Prospects   CS:CA IFP:CA RUS:CA CFP:CA LNF:CA BCA Score 99.28% 98.50% 98.21% 97.43% 97.22% BCA UK Portfolio Total Weekly Return BCA UK Portfolio FTSE 100 TRI 0.23% -0.53% Top Contributors   ROSN:GB CVSG:GB KNOS:GB BIFF:GB NFC:GB Weekly Return 20 bps 14 bps 14 bps 14 bps 14 bps Top Detractors   NLMK:GB DEC:GB BAKK:GB TEP:GB LXI:GB Weekly Return -19 bps -15 bps -15 bps -12 bps -11 bps Top Prospects   SVST:GB NLMK:GB GLTR:GB BPCR:GB RMG:GB BCA Score 99.67% 98.62% 98.47% 95.23% 95.08% BCA Eurozone Portfolio Total Weekly Return BCA EMU Portfolio MSCI EMU TRI -0.86% -0.52% Top Contributors   MMT:FR WUW:DE FSKRS:FI MS:IT UN01:DE Weekly Return 13 bps 13 bps 11 bps 10 bps 9 bps Top Detractors   CNV:FR GTT:FR ADL:DE PHA:FR US:IT Weekly Return -53 bps -19 bps -16 bps -10 bps -8 bps Top Prospects   STR:AT POST:AT CNV:FR SOLV:BE HLAG:DE BCA Score 99.42% 98.85% 98.74% 97.65% 96.86% BCA Japan Portfolio Total Weekly Return BCA Japan Portfolio TOPIX TRI -0.58% -0.84% Top Contributors   7860:JP 6676:JP 7958:JP 8117:JP 5930:JP Weekly Return 13 bps 12 bps 12 bps 9 bps 7 bps Top Detractors   9543:JP 8595:JP 7994:JP 3132:JP 8922:JP Weekly Return -17 bps -17 bps -13 bps -10 bps -8 bps Top Prospects   4966:JP 6345:JP 8133:JP 9543:JP 7994:JP BCA Score 99.33% 98.60% 98.49% 98.45% 98.11% BCA Hong Kong Portfolio Total Weekly Return BCA Hong Kong Portfolio Hang Seng TRI 0.47% 1.23% Top Contributors   990:HK 316:HK 1798:HK 857:HK 1258:HK Weekly Return 121 bps 36 bps 23 bps 21 bps 14 bps Top Detractors   3600:HK 1919:HK 43:HK 743:HK 323:HK Weekly Return -73 bps -28 bps -20 bps -18 bps -12 bps Top Prospects   990:HK 2232:HK 811:HK 1606:HK 323:HK BCA Score 99.11% 98.28% 97.72% 97.55% 97.08% BCA Australia Portfolio Total Weekly Return BCA Australia Portfolio S&P/ASX All Ord. TRI 1.52% -0.80% Top Contributors   AGI:AU GRR:AU RUL:AU CAJ:AU PDN:AU Weekly Return 85 bps 18 bps 16 bps 13 bps 12 bps Top Detractors   STX:AU AST:AU SDG:AU SGF:AU EVT:AU Weekly Return -27 bps -15 bps -15 bps -6 bps -6 bps Top Prospects   PIC:AU GRR:AU AGI:AU SGF:AU BFG:AU BCA Score 98.36% 98.09% 97.54% 96.84% 96.80%

Special Report

Dear client, In lieu of our weekly bulletin next Friday, I will be hosting a webcast on Tuesday, June 29 to discuss the latest trends in FX markets, given the hawkish shift by the Federal Reserve. I hope to answer your questions during this webcast. Kind regards, Chester Ntonifor, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy Highlights The hawkish shift by the Federal Reserve last week jolted the dollar higher, but our bias is that the rally will be quite short-lived. The primary reason is that US real rates will remain depressed, relative to the rest of the world, for the foreseeable future. The US balance of payments backdrop continues to deteriorate suggesting that the willingness by foreign concerns to fund the trade deficit will be a drag on the dollar. Global trade is staging a recovery. Historically, this has been synonymous with stronger global growth and a weaker dollar. Most countries are seeing foreign direct investment (FDI) inflows accelerate in the first few months of 2021, on the back of potential profitable investment projects. This is set to continue. The advantage appears to be particularly pronounced in commodity-producing countries that are witnessing a strong terms-of-trade tailwind. Feature Chart I-1The Dollar Rallied Hard On The Fed Shift Last week, the Federal Reserve surprised markets with a hawkish shift. First, the median dots suggested at least two rate hikes by the end of 2023, a shift from the March communiqué where no rate hikes were expected until 2024. Second, the Fed revised its inflation forecast for 2021, from 2.4% to 3.4%, while suggesting that this should still be transitory. Longer-term inflation expectations were left largely unchanged. Finally, the discussion around tapering was acknowledged, which was interpreted as a sign that the Fed was inching closer to withdrawing monetary stimulus. The reaction in the FX market was violent. From a low of 90.5 last week, the DXY index rallied 2% and currently sits at 91.8. The most hit currencies were procyclical, even where central bankers have been more hawkish than the Fed, such as Norway and New Zealand (Chart I-1). Our initial take was that the market moves were a knee-jerk reaction, likely to be sustained in the coming weeks and months but would prove fleeting. As we finally digest the implications of the Federal Reserve’s shift, it is difficult to make the case for a sustainable rally in the US dollar. The jump in the dollar coincided with an upward revision in market expectations for rate hikes in 2022 and 2023. Markets now expect the Fed to lift interest rates by 34 bps in 2022 and an additional 51 bps in 2023. Notably, this is higher than what the market expected at the start of the year (Chart I-2, top panel). On the surface, this explains the dollar rally. But market interest rate expectations between the US and the rest of the world were largely unchanged, as real rates moved higher almost everywhere within the G10 (Chart I-2, bottom panel). From this perspective, the dollar rally was largely an overreaction. Higher inflation in the US, especially compared to the rest of the world, has usually been a bearish development for the dollar. The simple reason is that the fair value of the currency incrementally declines on a purchasing power parity basis. Therefore, the Federal Reserve’s adjustment higher of US inflation should not have reinvigorated bulls, unless they believe the Fed will actively move ahead of the inflation curve (Chart I-3). We did not get such a reading from last week’s release. And given that the US is generating the fastest inflation in the G10 and has the sole central bank targeting an inflation overshoot, our bias is that real rates will remain depressed for the foreseeable future Chart I-2Long-Term Rates Did Not Shift In Favor Of The Dollar Chart I-3Higher Inflation In The US Is Negative For The Greenback The Fed suggested that discussions have begun around tapering, but again, this was little reason for a rally in the dollar. Market participants had already expected tapering to begin sometime next year (Table I-1A and I-1B). Meanwhile, the Fed reiterated that any tapering discussions will be communicated well in advance. It is also worth noting that the Fed is lagging other central banks in tapering asset purchases, notably the Bank of Canada. Table 1AMarket Participants Already Expect The Fed To Taper Next Year Table I-1BMarket Participants Already Expect The Fed To Taper Next Year The above analysis suggests that the Fed provided an excuse for an oversold dollar to bounce higher, rather than trigger a sea change in the currency outlook. So, from a tactical perspective, the rally could continue, pushing us towards 94 on the DXY. However, longer term, the underlying drivers of the dollar suggest a bearish view remains appropriate. This week’s report focuses on one such longer-term driver – the balance of payments. The US trade deficit continues to widen at an accelerating pace, while improving in many other countries. From this perspective, the willingness by foreign concerns to fund the trade deficit will continue to be a drag on the dollar. Global Trade And The Dollar In Q1 2021, global trade was higher than pre-crisis levels, rising 10% year-on-year. According to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), the strong rebound continues to be driven by the strong exports from East Asian economies. These trends are expected to continue in the near-term, especially once trade in services can resume in earnest on the back of vaccination progress. Chart I-4US Balance Of Payments Are Negative For The Dollar Global FDI inflows should also begin to rebound going into next year, following a tumultuous decline in 2020. According to UNCTAD, global FDI inflows plunged by 35%, bringing total FDI inflows to below US$1 trillion. As reinvested earnings make up a huge share of total FDI, the earnings decline last year curtailed flows. Looking ahead, UNCTAD expects FDI flows to recover fully in 2022, under their optimistic scenario. Over the much longer term, the headwinds to trade and FDI flows remain, including rising protectionism, global onshoring of production and geopolitical tensions. De-globalization is here to stay, as policymakers promote more regulation and intervention in key industries. That said, over the next few years, balance of payments dynamics will remain important and could be the key driver for currencies, as investors become more discerning between countries and sectors with a high return on capital and those without. In this report, we look at the balance-of-payment dynamics in the G10. Specifically, the basic balance, which takes the sum of the current account and net long-term capital inflows (and therefore tends to measure the underlying competitiveness of a currency more accurately). On this basis, Sweden, the euro area, Australia and Norway sport the best surpluses, while the US is the worst (Chart I-4). United States Chart I-5US Balance Of Payments The US basic balance is deteriorating at an accelerating pace (Chart I-5). Just this week, the current account balance for Q1 came in at -$195.7 billion, the widest in over a decade. This is also occurring at a time when FDI inflows are deteriorating. If this trend continues, it could continue to undermine the US currency. The basic balance is approaching -4% of GDP. This has reversed most of the improvement in the basic balance since the Global Financial Crisis. This confirms our bias that the dollar likely put in a major top last year and has entered a multi-year decline. On portfolio flows, the most recent TIC data show that US Treasurys were aggressively bought in March and April by foreigners. Equity inflows also remain strong. However, should US real rates remain deeply negative, this will curtail foreign appetite for US government bonds, and require an adjustment lower in the dollar.           Euro Area Chart I-6Euro Area Balance Of Payments The euro area maintains a structural current account surplus, which has been improving in recent quarters (Chart I-6). Since the beginning of the year, the surplus has increased from €5.8 billion to €31.4 billion in April. Meanwhile, after about two decades of underinvestment in the euro area, FDI inflows are now at the strongest level, to the tune of about 2% of GDP. This is nudging the euro area’s basic balance to a record 4% of GDP. A rising basic balance surplus has been one of the key pillars underpinning a bullish euro thesis. This is likely to persist, as strong FDI inflows, especially in the green energy sector, continue. Portfolio investment has turned strongly negative in recent quarters, but this is likely a crowding out of bond investors by strong purchases from the ECB. Meanwhile, the euro area generates a surplus of savings that need to be reinvested abroad.             Japan Chart I-7Japan Balance Of Payments Ever since the Fukushima crisis, the Japanese trade balance has been severely hampered by rising energy imports. The key pillar for the basic balance surplus is income receipts from Japan’s large investment positions abroad. This should continue to keep the basic balance in surplus, albeit at lower levels than a decade ago (Chart I-7). Going forward, the Japanese trade balance should keep improving as exports maintain their strong growth. On the service side of the equation, foreign visitors should also increase, especially as the Olympics move ahead. At their peak, foreign visitors were about 2% of the Japanese population, compared to almost nil today. The improvement in the goods and services balance should nudge the basic balance above 2% of GDP in the coming quarters. Net portfolio investments are accelerating, especially given the recent underperformance of Japanese equities (making them cheap), and positive real rates from longer-term Japanese corporate and government bonds.         United Kingdom Chart I-8UK Balance Of Payments The UK trade and current account balance is deteriorating again, on the back of a more tumultuous post-Brexit transition. This has nudged the basic balance into negative territory (Chart I-8). The strong rally in the pound has also chiselled away some of the competitive edge British goods commanded on a global landscape. Significant foreign direct investment will be necessary to prevent the pound from adjusting much lower. There is progress, as the Conservative government has signed some significant trade deals over the course of the year. This should assuage foreign investor concerns over the potential for market access, should they invest in UK production. Portfolio investment in the UK has rolled over, but this is likely to be temporary if global equity markets remain resilient. Real rates are also improving in the UK, which should stem bond outflows. The key for the pound in the coming years will be productivity improvements which will allow foreign investors to keep financing the trade deficit.         Canada Chart I-9Canada Balance Of Payments The Canadian basic balance has modestly improved, after being flat for over a decade. The improvement has been in the current account and is specifically driven by income receipts from Canada’s improving net international investment position (Chart I-9). Foreign direct investment has also remained resilient, and should remain so, given strong commodity prices. Canada is one of the largest exporters of crude oil, meaning the increase in petroleum prices will buffet the trade balance. In fact, since the 2020 lows, the monthly trade balance has recovered from almost negative C$6 billion to C$0.6 billion in April. Today, the basic balance stands at a surplus of 1% of GDP and should continue to improve.                   Australia Chart I-10Australia Balance Of Payments Australia sports the best improvement in both its trade and current account balance over the last few years. This has pushed the basic balance near a record 3.75% of GDP (Chart I-10). Australia’s long affair with a current account deficit is over. Investment in projects in the resource space are now bearing fruit, easing the external funding requirement. This has ended the 35-year-long deficit in the current account. Australia’s comparative advantage in exports of LNG will likely be the next key driver of the trade balance, replacing coal shipments. This is consistent with the ESG megatrend. Net portfolio investment has been falling for years, but this just reflects Australia’s rising savings. In other words, the current account surplus is being recycled abroad. In short, the Aussie dollar has a large amount of running room, albeit, barring a tactical correction.             New Zealand Chart I-11New Zealand Balance Of Payments The New Zealand basic balance has been negative for many years, only recently going into balance (Chart I-11). The boom in agricultural prices has helped boost the trade balance into surplus, but this has not been sufficient to bring the current account into balance. Coupon and dividend payments to foreign investors, as well as valuation adjustments from net foreign liabilities have keep the current account in structural deficit. Portfolio investments are accelerating out of New Zealand. The last time they hit -8% of GDP was just after the financial crisis. It is not clear why foreign investors are shunning this rather defensive market, but high valuations may be playing a key role. Importantly, FDI inflows remain steady, near 1.75% of GDP. Going forward, New Zealand should continue to see modest improvement in its basic balance, especially relative to the US, supporting the kiwi.           Switzerland Chart I-12Switzerland Balance Of Payments Switzerland has had a structural uptrend in its trade balance for decades (Chart I-12). This has buffeted both the current account and the basic balance. It has also allowed the trade-weighted Swiss franc to outperform on a structural basis. In Q1, the current account surplus rose to CHF 16 billion, a 60% increase from Q1 2020, driven by an improvement in the goods trade balance. However, both primary and secondary income were a drag on the current account balance. The net international investment position also improved on the back of a net increase in foreign asset purchases. However, a strong dollar in Q1 reduced the net value of foreign currencies in the portfolio. The positive balance-of-payment backdrop continues to create a headache for the Swiss National Bank. CHF has been weak this year, and the SNB will likely continue to intervene in the foreign exchange markets to calm future appreciation in the franc. That said, we expect the trade-weighted franc to rise on a structural basis.          Norway Chart I-13Norway Balance Of Payments Norway’s trade balance was heavily hit by the COVID-19 crisis but is slowly recovering (Chart I-13). The trade surplus started to plunge sharply due to falling energy prices at the beginning of the lockdown. Going forward, the reopening of the global economy, especially Europe, will benefit Norwegian exports of oil and gas. Meanwhile, tepid investment in global oil and gas extraction over the past five years will ensure Norway’s terms of trade remains robust. This will especially be the case thanks to growing production from the new Johan Sverdrup field. From a more fundamental perspective, the krone will also benefit from positive income flows. Norway has one of the biggest NIIPs in the world, which generates large income receipts that skew heavily toward equity dividends. This characteristic strengthens the bond between the NOK and global equities, making it the perfect procyclical currency. On a structural basis, the Norwegian krone faces challenges. Declining productivity suggests that economic growth in Norway will be more inflationary. This will lower the fair value of the real exchange rate. Therefore, while we are positive on the NOK over the next 18 to 24 months, we will be cognizant not to overstay our welcome.   Sweden Chart I-14Sweden Balance Of Payments The Swedish current account balance has improved smartly in the last few quarters, boosting the basic balance to a surplus of over 5% of GDP. While the trade surplus has certainly improved, the primary income surplus has been the key driver (Chart I-14). FDI inflows have not had a strong impact on the basic balance. In terms of portfolio investment, this has turned negative as Riksbank purchases have crowded out investors. Income receipts have also needed to be recycled. In conclusion, the Swedish krona remains one of our favorite currencies due to its increasing basic balance surplus and its cheap valuation. We were stopped out of our long Nordic basket trade (NOK and SEK) against both the euro and the US dollar but will be looking to re-establish at more attractive levels.   Chester Ntonifor Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Limit Orders Closed Trades

Highlights The US is withdrawing from the Middle East and South Asia and making a strategic pivot to Asia Pacific. The third quarter will see risks flare around Iran and the US rejoin the 2015 Iranian nuclear deal. The result is briefly negative for oil prices but the rise of Iran is a new geopolitical trend that will increase Middle Eastern risk over the long run. The geopolitical outlook is dollar bullish, while the macroeconomic outlook is getting less dollar-bearish due to China’s risk of over-tightening policy. Stay neutral USD and be wary of commodities and emerging markets in the third quarter. European political risk is bottoming. The German and French elections are at best minor risks. However, the continent is ripe for negative black swans, especially due to Russian aggression. Go tactically long global large caps and defensives. Feature Chart 1Three Key Views On Track (So Far) We chose “No Return To Normalcy” as the theme of our 2021 outlook. While the COVID-19 vaccine promised economic recovery, we argued that normalization would create complacency regarding fundamental changes that have taken place in the geopolitical environment. A contradiction between an improving macroeconomic backdrop and a foreboding geopolitical backdrop would develop in 2021 and beyond. The “reflation trade” has begun to lose steam as we go to press. However, global recovery will still be the dominant story in the second half of the year as vaccination spreads. The question for the third quarter and the rest of the year is whether reflation will continue. As a matter of forecasting, we think it will. But as a matter of investment strategy, we are taking a more defensive stance until China relaxes economic policy. In our annual outlook we highlighted three key geopolitical views: (1) China’s headwinds, both at home and abroad (2) US détente with Iran and pivot to Asia (3) Europe’s opportunity. All three trends are broadly on track and can be illustrated by looking at equity performance in the relevant regions for the year so far: Chinese stocks sold off, UAE stocks rallied, and European stocks rallied (Chart 1). However, these trends are not exclusively tied to absolute equity performance. The most important question is what happens to global growth and the US dollar as these three key views continue. Stay Neutral On The Dollar It paid off for us to maintain a neutral stance on the dollar. True, the global recovery and exorbitant US trade and budget deficits are bearish for the dollar and bullish for other currencies. But the greenback’s “counter-trend bounce” is proving more formidable than many investors expected. The fundamentals of the American economy and global position remain strong. Since the outbreak of COVID-19, the US has secured its recovery with fiscal policy, maintained rule of law amid a contested election, innovated and distributed vaccines, benefited from more flexible social restrictions, refurbished global alliances, and put pressure on its geopolitical rivals. In essence, the combined effect of President Trump’s and Biden’s policies has been to make America “great again” (Chart 2). From a geopolitical perspective, the dollar is appealing. Chart 2Trump-Biden Make America Great Again? In addition, the first two geopolitical views mentioned above – China’s headwinds and the US-Iran détente – imply a negative environment for China and the renminbi. The reason for the US to do a suboptimal deal with Iran, both in 2015 and 2021, is to reduce the risk of war and buy time to enable a strategic pivot to Asia Pacific. Three US presidents have been elected on the pledge to conclude the “forever wars” in the Middle East and South Asia. Biden is withdrawing US troops from Afghanistan in September. There can be little doubt Biden is committed to an Iran deal, which is supposed to free up the US’s hands (Chart 3). Meanwhile the US public and Congress are unified in their desire to better defend US interests against China’s economic and military rise. There has not yet been a stabilization of US-China policies. Biden is not likely to hold a summit with Chinese President Xi Jinping until late October at earliest – and that is a guess, not a confirmed summit. The Biden administration has completed its review of China policy and is maintaining the Trump administration’s hawkish posture, as predicted. The US and China may resume their strategic and economic dialogue at some point but it is impossible to go back to the status quo ante 2015. That was the year the US adopted a more confrontational stance toward China – a stance later supercharged by Trump’s election and trade tariffs. The hawkish consensus on China is one of the rare unifying factors in a deeply divided America. The Biden administration explicitly says the US-China relationship is now defined by “competition” instead of “engagement.”1 One exception to this neutral view on the dollar has been our decision to go long the Japanese yen and Swiss franc, which has not panned out so far. Our reasoning is that geopolitical risk will boost these currencies but otherwise the reduction of geopolitical risk will weigh on the dollar in the context of global growth recovery. So far geopolitical risk has remained subdued while the US dollar has outperformed. We are still sympathetic to these safe-haven currencies, however, as they are attractively valued as long as one expects geopolitical risks to materialize (Chart 4). Chart 3US Pivot To Asia Runs Through Iran Our third key view, that EU was the real winner of the US election last year, remains on track. This is marginally positive for the euro at the expense of the dollar. Given the above points, we favor an equal-weighted basket of the euro and the dollar relative to the renminbi (Chart 5). Chart 4Safe-Haven Currencies Attractive Chart 5Favor Euro And Dollar Over Renminbi The geopolitical outlook is dollar-bullish. The macroeconomic outlook is dollar-bearish, except that China’s economy looks to slow down. We expect China to ease policy in the second half of the year but it may come late. We remain neutral dollar in the third quarter. Wait For China To Relax Policy July 1 marks the centenary of the Communist Party of China. The main thing investors should know is that the Communist Party predates China’s capitalist phase by sixty years. The party adopted capitalism to improve the economy – it never sacrificed its political or foreign policy goals. This poses a major geopolitical problem today because the Communist Party’s consolidation of power across Greater China, symbolized by Beijing’s revocation of Hong Kong’s special status in 2019, has convinced the western democracies that China is no longer compatible with the liberal world order. China launched a 13.8% of GDP monetary-and-fiscal stimulus over 2018-20 due to the trade war and COVID-19 pandemic. So the economy is stable for the hundredth anniversary celebration. The centenary goals are largely accomplished: GDP is larger, poverty is nearly extinguished, although urban incomes are still lagging (Chart 6). General Secretary Xi Jinping will mark the occasion with a speech. The speech will contribute to his governing philosophy, Xi Jinping Thought, a synthesis of communist Mao Zedong Thought and the pro-capitalist “socialism with Chinese characteristics” pioneered by General Secretary Deng Xiaoping in the 1980s-90s. The effect is to reassert Communist Party and central government primacy after the long period of decentralization that enabled China’s rapid growth phase. It is also to endorse an inward economic turn after the four-decade export-manufacturing boom. The Xi administration’s re-centralization of policy has entailed mini-cycles of tightening and loosening control over the economy. The administration leans against the country’s tendency to gorge itself on debt and grow at any cost – until it must lean the other way for fear of triggering a destabilizing slowdown. For this reason Beijing tightened policy proactively last year, producing a sharp drop in money, credit, and fiscal expansion in 2021 that now threatens to undermine the global recovery. By our measures, any further tightening will result in undershooting the regime’s money and credit targets, i.e. overtightening, and hence threaten to drag on the global recovery (Chart 7). Chart 6China's Communist Party Centenary Goals Chart 7China Verges On Over-Tightening Policy Overtightening would be a policy mistake with potentially disastrous consequences. So the base case should be that the government will relax policy rather than undermine the post-COVID recovery. However, investors cannot be confident about the timing. The 2015 financial turmoil and renminbi devaluation occurred because policymakers reacted too slowly. One reason to believe policy will be eased is that after July 1 the government will turn its attention to the twentieth national party congress in 2022, the once-in-five-years rotation of the Central Committee and Politburo. The party congress begins at the local level at the beginning of next year and culminates in the fall of 2022 with the national rotation of top party leaders. Xi Jinping was originally slated to step down in 2022. So he needs to squash any last-minute push against him by opposing factions of the party. He may have himself named chairman of the Communist Party, like Mao before him. Most importantly he will put his stamp on the “seventh generation” of China’s leaders by promoting his followers into key positions. All of this suggests that the Xi administration cannot risk triggering a recession, even if its preferences remain hawkish on economic policy. Policy easing could come as early as the end of July. As a rule of thumb, we have noticed that the Politburo’s July meeting on economic policy is often an inflection point, as was the case in 2007, 2015, 2018, and 2020 (Table 1). Some observers claim the April Politburo meeting already signaled an easing in policy, although we do not see that. If July clearly signals relaxation, global investors will cheer and emerging market assets and commodities will rise. Table 1China’s Politburo Often Hits Inflection Point On Economic Policy In July Still we maintain a defensive posture going into the third quarter because we do not have a high level of confidence that policymakers will act preemptively. A market riot may precede and motivate the inflection point in policy. Also the negative impact of previous policy tightening will be felt in the third quarter. China plays and industrial metals are extremely vulnerable to further correction (Chart 8). Chart 8China Plays And Metals Vulnerable To Further Correction The earliest occasion for a Biden-Xi summit comes at the end of October, as mentioned. While US-China talks will occur at some level, relations will remain fundamentally unstable. While a Biden-Xi summit may improve the atmosphere and lead to a new round of strategic and economic dialogue, or Phase Two trade talks, the fact is that the US is seeking to contain China’s rise and China is seeking to break out of the strictures of the US-led world order. The global elite and mainstream media will put a lot of emphasis on the post-Trump return to diplomatic “normalcy” and summits. But this is to overemphasize style at the expense of substance. Note that the positive feelings of the Biden-Putin summit on June 16 fizzled in less than a week when Russia allegedly dropped bombs in the path of a British destroyer in the Black Sea. The US and UK were training Ukraine’s military. Britain denies any bombs were dropped but Russia says next time they will hit their target. (More on this below.) This episode is instructive for US-China relations: summitry is overrated. China is building a sphere of influence and the US no longer believes dialogue alone is the answer. Tit-for-tat punitive measures and proxy battles in China’s neighboring areas, from the Korean peninsula to the Taiwan Strait to the South and East China Seas, are the new normal. Bottom Line: Tactically, stay defensive on global risk assets, especially China plays. Strategically, maintain a constructive outlook on the cycle given the global recovery and China’s need eventually to relax monetary and fiscal policy. US-Iran Deal Likely – Then The Real Trouble Starts The US will likely rejoin the 2015 Iranian nuclear deal (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) by August and pull out of its longest-ever war in Afghanistan in September. The US is wrapping up its “forever wars” to meet the demands of a war-weary public. Ironically, the long-term consequence is to create power vacuums that invite new geopolitical conflicts in the context of the US’s great power struggle with China and Russia. But for now a deal with Iran – once it is settled – reduces geopolitical risk by reducing the odds of military escalation in the region. The Iran talks are more significant than the Afghanistan pullout. We are confident in a deal because Biden can rejoin the 2015 deal unilaterally – it was never approved by the US Senate as a formal treaty. The Iranians will not support any militant action so aggressive as to scupper a deal that offers them the chance of reviving their economy at a critical time in the regime’s history. Reviving the deal poses a downside risk for oil prices in the third quarter though not over the long run. It is negative in the short run because investors will have to price not only Iran’s current and future production (Chart 9) but also any resulting loss of OPEC 2.0 discipline. Brent crude is trading at $76 per barrel as we go to press, above the $65-$70 per barrel average that our Commodity & Energy Strategy service expects to see over the coming five years (Chart 10). Chart 9Iran's Oil Production Will Return Chart 10Brent Price Faces Short-Term Downside Risk From Iranian Crude The oil price ceiling is enforced by the cartel of oil producers who fear that too high of prices will incentivize US shale oil production as well as the global shift to renewable energy. The Russians have always dragged their feet over oil production cuts and are now pushing for production hikes. The government needs an oil price of around $50-55 per barrel for the budget to break even. The Saudis need higher prices to break even, at $70-75 per barrel. Moscow must coordinate various oil producers, led by the country’s powerful oligarchs and their factions, which is inherently more difficult than the Saudi position of coordinating one producer, Aramco. The Russians and Saudis have maintained cartel discipline so far in 2021, as expected, because the wounds of the market-share war last year are still raw. They retreated from that showdown in less than a month. However, a major escalation in Saudi Arabia’s strategic conflict with Iran could push the Saudis to seek greater market share at Iran’s expense, as occurred before the original Iran deal in 2014-15. Hence our view that the risk to oil prices will shift from the upside to the downside in the second half of the year if the US-Iran deal is reconstituted. Over the long run, the deal is not negative for oil prices. The deal is a tradeoff for lower geopolitical risk today but higher risk in the future. The reason is that Iran’s economic recovery will strengthen its strategic hand and generate a backlash in the region. The global oil supply and demand balance will fluctuate according to circumstances but regional conflict will inject a risk premium over time. Biden’s likely decision to rejoin the 2015 deal should be seen as a delaying tactic. It is impossible to go back to 2015, when the US had mustered a coalition of nations to pressure Iran and when Iran’s “reformist” faction stood to receive a historic boost from the opening of the country’s economy. Now the US lacks a coalition and the reformists are leaving office in disgrace, with the hardliners (“principlists”) taking full power for the foreseeable future. Iran is happy to go back to complying with a deal that consists of sanctions relief in exchange for temporary limits on its nuclear program. The 2015 deal’s restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program begin expiring in 2023 and continue to expire through 2040. Biden has no chance of negotiating a newer and more expansive deal that extends these sunset clauses while also restricting Iran’s ballistic missile program and regional militant activities. He will say that easing sanctions is premised on a broader “follow on” deal to achieve these US goals. But the broader deal is unlikely to materialize anytime soon. The Iranians will commit to future talks but they will have no intention of agreeing to a more expansive deal unless forced. The country’s leaders will never abandon their nuclear program after witnessing the invasions of non-nuclear Libya and Ukraine – in stark contrast with nuclear-armed North Korea. Moreover Biden cannot possibly reassemble the P5+1 coalition with Russia and China anytime soon. The US is directly confronting these states. They could conceivably work with the US when Iran is on the brink of obtaining nuclear weapons but not before then. They did not prevent North Korea. The Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, the soon-to-be-inaugurated President Ebrahim Raisi, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, the Ministry of Intelligence, and other pillars of the regime are focused exclusively on strengthening the regime in advance of Khamenei’s impending succession sometime in the coming decade. The succession could easily lead to domestic unrest and a political crisis, which makes the 2020s a critical period for the Islamic Republic. With Tehran focused on a delicate succession, it is not a foregone conclusion that Iran will go on the offensive to expand its sphere of influence immediately after the US deal. But sooner or later a major new geopolitical trend will emerge: the rise of Iran. With sanctions removed, trade and investment increasing, and Chinese and Russian support, Iran will be capable of pursuing its strategic aims in the region more effectively. It will extend its influence across the “Shia Crescent,” including Iraq. The fear that this will inspire in Israel and the Gulf Arab states has already generated a slow-boiling war in the region. This war will intensify as the US will be reluctant to intervene. The purpose of the deal is to enable the war-weary US to reduce its active involvement in the region. The US foreign policy and defense establishment do not entirely see it this way – they emphasize that the US will remain engaged. But US allies in the Middle East will not be convinced. The region already has a taste for the way this works after the US’s precipitous withdrawal from Iraq in 2011, which lead to the rise of the Islamic State terrorist group. Biden will try not to be so precipitous but the writing is on the wall: the US will reduce its focus and commitment. A scramble for power in the region will begin the moment the ink dries on Biden’s signature of the JCPA. Israel and the Arab states are forming a de facto alliance – based on last year’s Abraham Accords – to prepare for Iran’s push to dominate the region. Even if Iran is not overly aggressive (a big if), Israel and the Gulf Arabs will overreact as a result of their fear of abandonment. They will also seek to hedge their bets by improving ties with the Chinese and Russians, making the Middle East the scene of a major new proxy battle in the global great power struggle. As a risk to our view: if the Biden administration changes course this summer and refuses to lift sanctions or rejoin the Iran deal – low but not zero probability – then tensions with Iran will explode almost instantaneously. The Iranians will threaten to close the Strait of Hormuz and a crisis will erupt in the third or fourth quarter. Bottom Line: The US will most likely rejoin the Iranian nuclear deal by August to avoid an immediate crisis or war. The Biden administration will wager that it can lend enough support to regional allies to keep Iran contained. This might work, as the Iranians will focus on fortifying the regime ahead of its leadership succession. However, Iran’s hardline leadership will see an opportunity in America’s withdrawal from its “forever wars.” Iran will increasingly cooperate with Russia and China. Iran’s conflict with Israel and Saudi Arabia will be extremely difficult to manage and will escalate over time, quite possibly creating a revolution or war in Iraq. The Gulf Arabs are already under immense pressure from the green energy revolution. Thus while oil prices might temporarily fall on the return of Iranian exports, they will later see upward pressure from a new wave of Middle Eastern instability. European Political Risk Has (Probably) Bottomed By contrast with all the above we have viewed Europe as a negligible source of (geo)political risk in 2021. European policy uncertainty is falling in Europe relative to these other powers and the rest of the world (Chart 11). Chart 11Europe's Relative Policy Uncertainty Bottoming Chart 12EU Break-Up Risk Hits Floor (Again) The risk of a break-up of the European Union has wilted and remains at historic lows (Chart 12). There is no immediate threat of any European countries emulating the UK and attempting to exit. Even Italian support for the euro has surged. Immigration flows have plummeted. European solidarity is not on the ballot in the upcoming German and French elections. Germany is choosing between the status quo and a “green revolution” that would not really be a revolution due to the constraints of coalition politics. The Greens have lost some momentum relative to their polling earlier this year but underlying trends suggest they will surprise to the upside in the September 26 vote (Charts 13A and 13B). They embrace EU solidarity, robust government spending, weariness with the Merkel regime, and concerns about climate change, Russia, China, and social justice. Chart 13AGerman Greens Will Surprise To Upside Chart 13BGerman Greens Will Surprise To Upside We expect the Greens to surprise to the upside. But as they are forced into a coalition with the ruling Christian Democrats then they will be limited to raising spending rather raising taxes (Table 2). The market will cheer this result. Table 2German Greens’ Ambitious Tax Hike Proposals If the Greens disappoint then a right-leaning government and too early fiscal tightening could become a risk – but it is a minor risk because Merkel’s hand-picked successor, the CDU Chancellor Candidate Armin Laschet, will be pro-Europe and fiscally dovish, just like the mainstream of his party under Merkel. The only limitation on this dovishness is that it would take another global shock for there to be enough votes in the Bundestag to loosen the schuldenbremse or “debt brake.” In France, President Emmanuel Macron is likely to win re-election – the populist candidate Marine Le Pen remains an underdog who is unlikely to make it through France’s two-round electoral system. In Italy, Prime Minister Mario Draghi is overseeing a national unity coalition that will dole out EU recovery funds. An election cannot be held ahead of the presidential election in January, which will be secured by the establishment parties as a major check on any future populist ruling coalition. The risk in these countries, as in Spain and elsewhere, is that neoliberal structural reform and competitiveness are falling by the wayside. Fiscal largesse is positive for securing the recovery but long-term growth potential will remain depressed (Chart 14). Chart 14European And Global Fiscal Stimulus (Updated June 2021) Europe remains stuck in a liquidity trap over the long run. It depends on the rest of the world for growth. This is a problem given that China’s potential growth is slowing and there is no ready substitute that will prop up global growth. Europe is increasingly ripe for negative “black swan” events. The power vacuum in the Middle East described above will lead to instability and regime failures that will threaten European security. Russia will remain aggressive, a reflection of its crumbling structural foundations. The Putin administration has not changed its strategy of building a sphere of influence in the former Soviet Union and pushing back against the West, as signaled by the threat to bomb ships that sail in Crimean waters – a unilateral expansion of Russia’s territorial waters following the Crimean invasion. The Biden administration is not seeking anything comparable to the diplomatic “reset” with Russia from 2009-11, which ended in acrimony. In other words, European political risk may be bottoming as we speak. Investment Takeaways Chart 15Limited Equity Upside From Likely US Infrastructure Bill US Peak Fiscal Stimulus: The Biden administration is highly likely to pass an infrastructure package through Congress, either as a bipartisan deal with Republicans or as part of the American Jobs Plan. The result is another $1-$1.5 trillion fiscal stimulus, albeit over an eight-year period, with infrastructure funding taking until 2024-25 to ramp up. Biden’s other plans probably will not pass before the 2022 midterm election, which will likely bring gridlock. Investors are well aware of these proposals and the policy setting will probably be frozen after this year. Hence there is limited remaining upside for global materials sector and US infrastructure plays (Chart 15). The extravagant US fiscal thrust of 2020-21 will turn into a huge fiscal drag in 2022 (Chart 16). The Federal Reserve, however, will remain ultra-dovish as long as labor market slack persists – regardless of who is at the helm. Chart 16US Fiscal Drag Very Large In 2022 Chart 17Go Long Large Caps And Defensives China’s Headwinds Persist: China may or may not ease policy in time to prevent a market riot. China plays and industrial metals are highly exposed to a correction and we recommend steering clear. US-Iran Deal Weighs On Oil Price: Tactically we are neutral on oil and oil plays. An Iran deal could depress oil prices temporarily – and potentially in a major way if the Saudis agree with the Russians on increasing production. Fundamentals are positive but depend on the OPEC 2.0 cartel. The cartel faces the risk that higher prices will incentivize both alternative oil providers and the green revolution. Europe’s Opportunity: We continue to see the euro and European stocks offering value. Given the troubles with Russia we favor developed Europe plays over emerging Europe. The German election would be a bullish catalyst for European assets but headwinds from China will prevail, which is negative for cyclical European stocks. The Russian Duma election, also in September, creates high potential for Russia to clash with the West between now and then. Tactically, go long global large caps and defensives (Chart 17).   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Independent Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders recently felt it was necessary to warn against a second cold war. Sanders, a democratic socialist, is a reliable indicator of the left wing of the Democratic Party and a dissenter who puts pressure on the center-left Biden administration. His fears underscore the dominance of the new hawkish consensus. Appendix China Russia UK Germany France Italy Canada Spain Taiwan – Province Of China Korea Turkey Brazil Australia

Highlights Entering 2H21, oil and metals' price volatility will rise as inventories are drawn down to cover physical supply deficits brought about by the re-opening of major economies ex-China. As demand increases and oil and metals supply become more inelastic, forward curves will backwardate further.  This will weaken commodity-price correlations with the USD and boost commodity-index returns. Going into next week's OPEC 2.0 meeting, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia likely will hold off on further production increases, until greater clarity around US-Iran negotiations and the return of Iran as a bona fide exporter is available. Chinese authorities will release 100k MT of copper, aluminum and zinc into tight domestic markets in July.  A two-day rally followed the news. Since bottoming in March 2020, the XOP and XME ETFs covering oil and gas producers and metals miners are up ~ 218% and ~ 196%, respectively, following the ~ 230% move in crude oil and the ~ 100% rise copper prices.  Higher volatility will present buying opportunities for these ETFs  (Chart of the Week). We remain long commodity index exposure – S&P GSCI and COMT ETF – expecting steeper backwardations. We will go long the PICK ETF at tonight's close again, after being stopped out last week with a 23.9% return. Feature Heading into 2H21, industrial commodity markets will continue to tighten.  In the case of oil, this is caused by OPEC 2.0's production-management strategy – i.e., keeping supply below demand – and capital discipline among producers in the price-taking cohort.1 Base metals, on the other hand, are tightening because demand is recovering much faster than supply.2 Re-opening of major economies will boost refined-product demand in oil markets – e.g., gasoline and jet fuel – which will leave refiners little choice but to continue drawing on inventories to cover supply shortfalls in the near term (Chart 2). Chart of the WeekResources ETFs Follow Prices Higher Chart 2Refiners Will Continue Drawing Crude Investments Base metals – particularly copper and aluminum – will remain well bid in the face of constrained supply and higher consumption ex-China.  Despite China's widely anticipated decision to release strategic stockpiles of copper, aluminum and zinc next month into a tight domestic market – which we flagged last month – continued inventory draws will be required to cover physical deficits in these markets, particularly in copper (Chart 3).3 Chart 3Copper Inventories Will Draw As Demand Ex-China Rises Chart 4Steeper Backwardation, Higher Volatility Higher Vol On The Way As demand for industrial commodities increases and inventories continue to draw, forward curves will become more backwardated – i.e., material delivered promptly (next day or next week) will command a higher price than commodities delivered next month or next year: Consumers value current supply above deferred supply, and producers and merchants have to charge more to cover inventory replacement costs, which increase when prompt demand outstrips supply. The steepening of forward curves for industrial commodities will lead to higher price volatility in oil and metals markets, particularly copper: Demand will confront increasingly inelastic supply.  In this evolution, prices will be forced to allocate inelastic supply as demand increases.  Sometimes-sharp changes in price are required to equilibrate available supply with demand when this happens.  This can be seen clearly in oil markets, but it holds true for all storable commodities (Chart 4).4 Investment Implications Industrial commodity markets are entering a more volatile phase, which will be characterized by sharp price movements up and down over the short term, as demand continues to outpace supply. Our analysis suggests this is the beginning of a more volatile phase in industrial commodity markets.  The balance of risk in industrial commodity prices will remain to the upside as volatility increases. In the short term, fundamental imbalances can be addressed over a relatively short months-long horizon – i.e., OPEC 2.0 can release spare capacity over a 3-4 month interval to accommodate rising demand – so that price increases do not destroy demand as oil-exporters are rebuilding their fiscal balance sheets. Base metals markets will have a tougher time in the short run finding the supply to meet surging demand, but it can be done over the next year or so without prices getting to the point where demand-destruction sets in. Over the medium to long term, investor-owned oil and gas producers literally are being directed by policymakers, shareholders and courts toward an extended wind-down of production and investment in future production.  Markets have been pricing through just such a situation in the post-COVID-19 world, with OPEC 2.0 managing supply against falling demand and still managing to reduce inventories significantly.  If the world follows the IEA's pathway to a decarbonized future – in which no investment in new oil or gas production is required after 2025 – this will become the status quo for these markets going forward.5 Metals producers, on the other hand, are being encouraged to increase marketable supply at a rapid pace to accommodate demand driven by the build-out of renewable energy – chiefly wind and solar – and the grids that will be required to move this energy. Producers, however, remain reluctant to do so, fearing their capex investment to build out supply will produce physical surpluses that depress returns, similar to the last China-led commodity super-cycle. Supplying the necessary base metals to make this happen will be difficult at best, according to Ivan Glasenberg, CEO at Glencore.  At this week's Qatar Economic Forum, he said copper supply will have to double between now and 2050 to meet expected demand for this critical metal.  “Today, the world consumes 30 million tonnes of copper per year and by the year 2050, following this trajectory, we’ve got to produce 60 million tonnes of copper per year,” he said.  “If you look at the historical past 10 years, we’ve only added 500,000 tonnes per year … Do we have the projects? I don’t think so. I think it will be extremely difficult.”6 The volatility we are expecting in oil, gas and base metals prices, will present buy-the-dip opportunities in related equities vehicles.  Since bottoming in March 2020, the XOP and XME ETFs covering oil and gas producers and metals miners are up ~ 218% and ~ 196%, respectively, matching the ~ 230% move in crude oil and the ~ 100% rise in copper prices.  We remain long commodity index exposure – S&P GSCI, which is up 5.9% and the COMT ETF, which is up 7.6% – expecting steeper backwardations.  The trailing stop on our MSCI Global Metals & Mining Producers ETF (PICK) position recommended 10 December 2020 was elected, which stopped us out with a gain of 23.9%.  We are getting long the PICK again at tonight's close.   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 Commercial crude oil stocks in the US (ex-SPR barrels) fell 7.6mm barrels w/w in the week ended 18 June 2021, according to the US EIA. Including products, US crude and product inventories were down 5.8mm barrels. US domestic crude oil production was down 100k b/d, ending the week at 11.1mm b/d. Overall product supplied, the EIA's proxy for refined-product demand, was up 180k b/d at 20.75mm b/d, which is 129k b/d below 2019 demand for the same period. At 9.44mm b/d, gasoline demand was just below comparable 2019 consumption of 9.47mm b/d, while jet-fuel demand remains severely depressed vs. comparable 2019 consumption at 1.58mm b/d (vs. 1.92mm b/d).  Distillate demand (e.g., diesel fuel) for the week ended 18 June 2021 was 3.95mm b/d vs. 3.97mm b/d for the comparable 2019 period. Base Metals: Bullish Benchmark spot iron ore (62% Fe) prices are holding above $210/MT in trading this week, as demand for the steel input remains strong in China (Chart 5). The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) increased its level of intervention in the iron ore market this week, launching investigations into “malicious speculation,” vowing to “severely punish” anyone found to be engaged in such behavior, according to ft.com.7 Benchmark iron ore prices hit $230/MT in May. We continue to expect exports from Brazil to pick up in 2H21, which will push prices lower in 2H21. Precious Metals: Bullish In the aftermath of last Wednesday’s FOMC meeting gold prices lost nearly $86/oz (Chart 6). Our colleagues at BCA Research's USBS believe markets are paying too much attention to the Fed’s dot plots, and not to the central bank’s verbal guidance.8 Originally, the Fed stated that it will only start raising interest rates once a checklist of three conditions have been met. This checklist includes guidance on actual and expected inflation rates and the labor market. Gold prices did not react to Chair Powell's testimony before the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis. Ags/Softs: Neutral US spring wheat prices are rallying on the back of dry weather in the northern Plains, while forecasts for benign crop weather in the Midwest pressured soybeans lower this week, according to successfulfarming.com. Chart 5 Chart 6     Footnotes 1     Please see our most recent oil price forecasts published last week in Balance Of Risks Tilts To Higher Oil Prices.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2     Please see A Perfect Energy Storm On The Way published on June 3, 2021 for further discussion. 3    Please see Less Metal, More Jawboning published on May 27, 2021, which flagged China's likely decision to release strategic stockpiles of base metals. 4    Chart 4 shows implied volatility as a function of the slope of the forward curve, i.e., the difference between the 1st- and 13th-nearby futures divided by the 1st-nearby future vs implied volatilities for Brent and WTI options.  This modeling extends Kogan et al (2009), mapping realized volatilities calculated using historical settlements of crude oil futures against the slope of crude oil futures conditioned on 6th- vs. 3rd-nearby futures returns (in %). Please see Kogan, L., Livdan, D., & Yaron, A. (2009), "Oil Futures Prices in a Production Economy With Investment Constraints." The Journal of Finance, 64:3, pp. 1345-1375. 5    Please see fn 2's discussion of the IEA's Net Zero by 2050, A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector beginning on p. 5 under The Case For A Carbon Tax. 6    Please see Copper supply needs to double by 2050, Glencore CEO says published on June 23, 2021 by reuters.com.  Of course, being a copper producer with large-scale base-metals projects due to come on line in the next year or so, Mr. Glasenberg could be talking his book, but as Chart 3 shows, copper has been and likely will be in physical deficits for years. 7     Please see China cracks down on iron ore market, published by ft.com on June 21, 2021. 8    Please see How To Re-Shape The Yield Curve Without Really Trying, published on June 22, 2021.   Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2021 Summary of Closed Trades

The S&P 500 raced through the seasonally strong spring months rising by more than 10% from early March. Now, there is the chance that the US equity market will find it difficult grinding higher if the proverbial “sell in May and go away” attitude kicks in. As a reminder, we also recently rotated into quality growth names and took down some of the high-octane cyclical sectors such as the S&P steel index. Both of these moves should protect our portfolio if volatility comes back this summer. Bottom Line: If history is any guide, we expect market to be range bound throughout the summer.

Special Report

Work from home policies, originally designed as emergency measures in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, are likely to be “sticky” in a post-pandemic world. This will negatively impact the labor market in central business districts, via reduced spending on services by office workers. The potential impact of working from home is often cited as an example of what is likely to be a lasting and negative effect on jobs growth, but we find that it is not likely to be a barrier to the labor market returning to the Fed’s assessment of “maximum employment.” The size of the impact depends importantly on whether employee preferences or employer plans for WFH prevail, but our sense is that the latter is more likely. A weaker pace of structures investment in response to elevated office vacancy rates will likely have an even smaller impact on growth than the effect of reduced central business district services employment. The contribution to growth from structures investment has been small over the past few decades, office building construction is a small portion of overall nonresidential structures, and there are compelling arguments that the net stock of office structures will stay flat, rather than decline. Our analysis suggests that job growth over the coming year could be even stronger than the Fed and investors expect, possibly resulting in a first rate hike by the middle of next year. This would be earlier than we currently anticipate, but it underscores that fixed-income investors should remain short duration on a 6-12 month time horizon, and that equity investors should favor value over growth positions beyond the coming 3-4 months. The outlook for US monetary policy over the next 12 to 18 months depends almost entirely on the outlook for employment. Many investors are focused on the potential for elevated inflation to force the Fed to raise interest rates earlier than it currently anticipates, but it is the progress in returning to “maximum employment” that will determine the timing of the first Fed rate hike – and potentially the speed at which interest rates rise once policy begins to tighten. In this report, we estimate the extent to which the “stickiness” of working from home (WFH) policies and practices could leave a lasting negative impact on the US labor market. We noted in last month's report that a large portion of the employment gap relative to pre-pandemic levels can be traced to the leisure & hospitality and professional and business services industries, both of which – along with retail employment – stand to be permanently impaired if the office worker footprint is much lower in a post-COVID world.1 Using employee surveys and a Monte Carlo approach, we present a range of estimates for the permanent impact of WFH policies on the unemployment rate, and separately examine the potential for lower construction of office properties to weigh on growth. We find that the impact of reduced office building construction is likely to be minimal, and that WFH policies may structurally raise the unemployment rate by 0.3 to 0.4%. While non-trivial, when compared with a pre-pandemic unemployment rate of 3.5%, WFH policies alone are not likely to cause a long-term deviation from the Fed’s maximum employment objective. Relative to the Fed’s expectations of a strong, lasting impact on the labor market from the pandemic, this suggests that job growth over the coming year could be even stronger than the Fed and investors expect, possibly resulting in a first rate hike by the middle of next year. This would be earlier than we currently anticipate, but it underscores that fixed-income investors should remain short duration on a 6-12 month time horizon, and that equity investors should favor value over growth positions beyond the coming 3-4 months (a period that may see outperformance of the latter). Quantifying The Labor Market Impact Of The New Normal For Work In a January paper, Barrero, Bloom, and Davis (“BBD”) presented evidence arguing why working from home will “stick.” The authors surveyed 22,500 working-age Americans across several survey “waves” between May and December 2020, and asked about both their preferences and their employer’s plans about working from home after the pandemic. Chart II-1 highlights that the desired amount of paid work from home days (among workers who can work from home) reported by the survey respondents is to approximately 55% of a work week, suggesting that a dramatic reduction in office presence would likely occur if post-pandemic WFH policies were set fully in accordance with worker preferences. Chart II-1Employee Preferences Imply A Dramatic Reduction In Post-COVID Office Presence However, Table II-1 highlights that employer plans for work from home policies are meaningfully different than those of employees. The table highlights that employers plan for employees to work from home for roughly 22% of paid days post-pandemic, which essentially translates to one day per week on average.2 BBD noted that CEOs and managers have cited the need to support innovation, employee motivation, and company culture as reasons for employees’ physical presence. Managers believe physical interactions are important for these reasons, but employees need only be on premises for about three to four days a week to achieve this. Table II-1 also shows that employers plan to allow higher-income employees more flexibility in terms of working from home, and less flexibility to employees whose earnings are between $20-50k per year. Table II-1Employer Plans, However, Imply Less Working From Home Than Employees Prefer Based on the survey results, BBD forecast that expenditure in major cities such as Manhattan and San Francisco will fall on the order of 5 to 10%. In order to understand the national labor market impact of work from home policies and what implications this may have on monetary policy, we scale up BBD’s calculations using a Monte Carlo approach that incorporates estimate ranges for several factors: The percent of paid days now working from home for office workers The amount of money spent per week by office workers in central business districts (“CBDs”) The number of total jobs in CBDs The percent of CBD jobs in industries likely to be negatively impacted by reduced office worker expenditure The average weekly earnings of affected CBD workers The average share of business revenue not attributable to strictly variable expenses The percent of affected jobs likely to be recovered outside of CBDs Our approach is as follows. First, we calculate the likely reduction in nationwide CBD spending from reduced office worker presence by multiplying the likely percent of paid days now permanently working from home by the number of total jobs in CBDs and the average weekly spending of office workers. This figure is then increased due to the estimated acceleration in net move outs from principal urban centers in 2020 (Chart II-2); we assume a 5% savings rate and an average annual salary of $50k for these resident workers, and assume that all of their spending occurred within CBDs. We also assume that roughly 50% of jobs connected to this spending are recovered. Chart II-2Fewer Residents Will Also Lower Spending In Central Business Districts Then, we calculate the gross number of jobs lost in leisure & hospitality, retail trade, and other services by multiplying this estimate of lost spending by an estimate of non-variable costs as a share of revenue for affected industries, and dividing the result by average weekly earnings of affected employees. For affected CBD employees in the administrative and waste services industry, we simply assume that the share of jobs lost matches the percent of paid days now permanently working from home. Finally, we adjust the number of jobs lost by multiplying by 1 minus an assumed “recovery” rate, given that some of the reduction in spending in CBDs will simply be shifted to areas near remote workers’ residences. We assume a slightly lower recovery rate for lost jobs in the administrative and waste services industry. Table II-2 highlights the range of outcomes for each variable used in our simulation, and Charts II-3 and II-4 present the results. The charts highlight that the distribution of outcomes based on employer WFH intensions suggest high odds that nationwide job losses in CBDs due to reduced office worker presence will not exceed 400k. Based on average employee preferences, that number rises to roughly 800-900k. Table II-2The Factors Affecting Permanent Central Business District Job Losses Chart II-3The Probability Distribution Of CBD Jobs Lost… Chart II-4…Based On Our Monte Carlo Approach   This raises the question of whether employer plans or employee preferences for WFH arrangements will prevail. Our sense is that it will be closer to the former, given that we noted above that employer WFH plans are the least flexible for employees whose earnings are between $20-50k per year (who are presumably employees who have less ability to influence the policy of firms). Chart II-5 re-presents the projected job losses shown in Chart II-4 as a share of the February 2020 labor force, along with a probability-weighted path that assumes a 75% chance that employer WFH plans will prevail. The chart highlights that WFH arrangements would have the effect of raising the unemployment rate by approximately 0.35%. However, relative to a pre-pandemic starting point of 3.5%, this would raise the unemployment rate to a level that would still be within the Fed’s NAIRU estimates (Chart II-6). Therefore, the “stickiness” of WFH arrangements alone do not seem to be a barrier to the labor market returning to the Fed’s assessment of “maximum employment,” suggesting that the conditions for liftoff may be met earlier than currently anticipated by investors. Chart II-5CBD Job Losses Will Not Be Trivial, But They Will Not Be Enormous Chart II-6Sticky WFH Policies Will Not Prevent A Return To Maximum Employment The Impact Of Lower Office Building Construction A permanently reduced office footprint could also conceivably impact the US economy through reduced nonresidential structures investment, as builders of commercial real estate cease to construct new office towers in response to expectations of a long-lasting glut. However, several points highlight that the negative impact on growth from US office tower construction will be even smaller than the CBD employment impact of reduced office worker presence that we noted above. First, Chart II-7 highlights the overall muted impact that nonresidential building investment has had on real GDP growth by removing the contribution to growth from nonresidential structures and for overall nonresidential investment. The chart clearly highlights that the historically positive contribution to real US output from capital expenditures over the past four decades has come from investment in equipment and intellectual property products, not from structures. Chart II-8 echoes this point, by highlighting that US real investment in nonresidential structures has in fact been flat since the early-1980s, contributing positively and negatively to growth only on a cyclical basis (not on a structural basis). Chart II-7Structures Have Not Contributed Significantly To US Growth For Some Time Chart II-8Nonresidential Structures Investment Has Been Flat For Four Decades Second, Table II-3 highlights that office properties make up a small portion of investment in private nonresidential structures. In 2019, nominal investment in office structures amounted to $85 billion, compared with $630 billion in overall structures investment, meaning that office properties amounted to just 13% of structures investment. Table II-3Office Structures Investment Is A Small Share Of Total Structures Investment Table II-4Conceivably, Vacant Office Properties Could Be Converted To Luxury Residential Units Third, it is true that investment is a flow and not a stock variable, meaning that, if the net stock of office buildings were to fall as a result from WFH policies, then the US economy would see a potentially persistently negative rate of growth from nonresidential structures (which would constitute a drag on growth). But if the net stock were instead to remain flat, then gross office property investment should equal the depreciation of those structures. The second column of Table II-3 highlights that current-cost depreciation of office structures was $53 billion in 2019 (versus nominal gross investment of $85 billion). Had office property investment been ~$30 billion lower in 2019, it would have reduced nominal GDP by a mere 14 basis points (resulting in an annual growth rate of 3.84%, rather than 3.98%). Fourth, there is good reason to believe that the net stock of office properties will stay flat, as the economics of converting offices to luxury housing units (whose demand is not substantially affected by factors such as commuting) – either fully or partially into mixed-use buildings – appear to be plausible. Table II-4 highlights that the average annual asking rent for office space per square foot in Manhattan was $73.23 in Q1 2021, and that the recent median listing home price per square foot is roughly $1,400. In a frictionless world where office space could be instantly and effortlessly sold as residential property, existing prices would imply a healthy (gross) rental yield of 5.2%. Thoughts On The Future Of Office Properties Of course, reality is far from frictionless. There are several barriers that will slow office-to-residential conversion as well as construction costs, which will meaningfully lower the net value of existing office real estate in large central business districts such as Manhattan. In a recent article in the Washington Post, Roger K. Lewis, retired architect and Professor Emeritus of Architecture at the University of Maryland, College Park, detailed several of these technical barriers (which we summarize below).3 Office buildings are typically much wider than residential buildings, the latter usually being 60 to 65 feet in width in order to enable windows and natural light in living/dining rooms and bedrooms. This suggests that office-to-residential conversion might require modifying the basic structure of office buildings, including cutting open parts of roof and floor plates on upper building levels to bring natural light into habitable and interior rooms, and other costly structural modifications to address the additional plumbing and infrastructure that will be needed. Lewis noted that floor-to-floor dimensions are typically larger in office buildings, which is beneficial for office-to-residential conversion because increased room heights augments the sense of space and openness, while allowing natural light to penetrate farther into the apartment. It also allows for extra space to place needed additional building infrastructure, such as sprinkler pipes, electrical conduits, light fixtures, and air ducts. But unique apartment layouts are often needed to use available floor space effectively in an office-to-residential conversion, which will increase design costs and raise the risk that nonstandard layouts may result in unforeseen quality-of-living problems that will necessitate additional future construction to correct. Zoning regulations and building code constraints will likely add another layer of costs to office-to-housing conversions, as these rules are written for conventional buildings, meaning that special exceptions or even regulatory changes are likely to be required. So it is clear that the process of converting office space to residential property will be a costly endeavor for office tower owners, which will likely reduce the net present value of these properties relative to pre-pandemic levels. But; this process appears to be feasible and, when faced with the alternative of persistently high vacancy rates and lost revenue, our sense is that office tower owners will choose this route – thus significantly reducing the likelihood that the growth in national gross investment in office properties will fall below the rate of depreciation. In addition, the trend in suburban and CBD office property prices suggests that there are two other possible alternatives to widespread office-to-residential conversion that would also argue against a significant and long-lasting decline in office structures investment. Chart II-9 highlights that the average asking rent has already fallen significantly in most Manhattan submarkets, and Chart II-10 highlights that suburban office prices are accelerating and rising at the strongest pace relative to CBD office prices over the past two decades, possibly in response to increased demand for workspace that is closer to home for many workers who previously commuted to CBDs. Chart II-9Working From The Office Is Getting Cheaper Chart II-10Suburban Offices Are Getting More Expensive Thus, the first alternative outcome to CBD office-to-residential conversion is that an increase in suburban office construction offsets the negative impact of outright reductions in CBD office investment if residential conversions prove to be too costly or too technically challenging. The second alternative is that owners of CBD office properties “clear the market” by dramatically cutting rental rates even further, to alter the cost/benefit calculation for firms planning permissive WFH policies. We doubt that existing rents reflect the extent of vacancies in large cities such as Manhattan, so we would expect further CBD office price declines in this scenario. But if owners of centrally-located office properties face significant conversion costs and a decline in the net present value of these buildings is unavoidable and its magnitude uncertain, owners may choose to cut prices drastically as the simpler solution. Investment Conclusions Holding all else equal, the fact that owners of CBD office properties are likely to experience some permanent decline in the value of these real estate assets is not a positive development for economic activity. But these losses will be experienced by firms, investors, and ultra-high net worth individuals with strong marginal propensities to save, suggesting that the economic impact from this shock will be minimal. And as we highlighted above, a decline in the pace of gross office building investment to the depreciation rate will have a minimal impact on the overall economy. This leaves the likely impact on CBD employment as the main channel by which WFH policies are likely to affect monetary policy. As we noted above and as discussed in Section 1 of our report, the Fed is now focused entirely on the return of the labor market to maximum employment, which we interpret as an unemployment rate within the range of the Fed’s NAIRU estimates (3.5% - 4.5%) and a return to a pre-pandemic labor force participation rate. Chart II-11On A One-Year Time Horizon, Favor Value Over Growth Our analysis indicates that WFH policies may structurally raise the unemployment rate by 0.3 to 0.4%. While non-trivial, when compared with a pre-pandemic unemployment rate of 3.5%, this suggests that WFH policies alone are not likely to cause a long-term deviation from the Fed’s maximum employment objective. The implication is that job growth over the coming year could be even stronger than the Fed and investors expect, which could mean that the Fed may begin lifting rates by the middle of next year barring a major disruption in the ongoing transition to a post-pandemic world. This is earlier than we currently expect, but the fact that it would also be earlier than what is currently priced into the OIS curve underscores that fixed-income investors should remain short duration on a 6-12 month time horizon. In addition, as noted in Section 1 of our report, while value stocks may underperform growth stocks over the coming 3-4 months,4 rising bond yields over the coming year will ultimately favor value stocks and will likely weigh on elevated tech sector valuations. Chart II-11 highlights that the relative valuation of growth stocks remains above its pre-pandemic starting point (Chart II-11), suggesting that investors should continue to favor MSCI-benchmarked value over growth positions over a 6-12 month time horizon. Finally, as also noted in Section 1 of our report, we do not expect rising bond yields to prevent stock prices from grinding higher over the coming year, unless investor expectations for the terminal fed funds rate move sharply higher – an event that seems unlikely, although not impossible, before monetary policy actually begins to tighten. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Footnotes 1 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "June 2021," dated May 27, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2 Readers should note that the desired share of paid work from home days post-COVID among employees is shown to be lower in Table II-1 than what is implied by Chart II-1 on a weighted-average basis. This is due to the fact that Table II-1 excludes responses from the May 2020 survey wave, because the authors did not ask about employer intensions during that wave. This underscores that the average desired number of paid days working from home declined somewhat over time, and thus argues for the value shown in Table II-1 as the best estimate for employee preferences. 3 Roger K. Lewis, “Following pandemic, converting office buildings into housing may become new ‘normal,’ Washington Post, April 3, 2021. 4 Please see US Equity Strategy "Rotate Into Growth Stocks, Be Granular In The Selection Of Cyclicals," dated June 14, 2021, available at uses.bcaresearch.com