Technology

Highlights The greatest legislative battle of the Biden presidency will unfold between now and the end of the year.   Biden’s bipartisan infrastructure deal is likely to pass the Senate soon but will have to cross several hurdles before passage in the House of Representatives. We maintain our 80% subjective odds that it will pass one way or another. Assuming the infrastructure bill does not fall apart, we will upgrade the odds that Biden’s budget reconciliation bill will pass this fall from 50% to 65%. The latter comprises a nominal $3.5 trillion in social spending and tax hikes that will be watered down and revised heavily by the time it passes, which may take until Christmas. Uncertainty about passage will cause volatility to rise in financial markets. Democrats left the debt ceiling out of their fiscal 2022 budget resolution, which ostensibly means they cannot raise the debt limit via a simple majority but will need 10 Republican senators to join. A bruising standoff will ensue that will add to volatility. Ultimately Republicans will comply as they cannot afford to be held responsible for a default on the national debt. The party is currently unpopular and tarred with accusations of insurrection. If Biden succeeds in passing both bills, US fiscal policy will be frozen in place through at least 2025, though endogenous disinflationary fears will largely be dispelled. Feature The biggest domestic political battle of the Joe Biden presidency is likely to occur between now and Christmas. With a one-seat de facto majority in the Senate, and a four-seat majority in the House, Biden is barely capable of passing his two outstanding legislative proposals. The first of these is the $550 billion bipartisan infrastructure deal, which we have given an 80% subjective chance of passing and which passed the Senate on a 69-30 vote margin as we went to press. The second is the $3.5 trillion partisan reconciliation package, based on the remainder of Biden’s American Jobs and Families Plan, which we have given a 50% chance of passage. We will upgrade these odds to 65% if bipartisan infrastructure does not fall through in the House. Next year will be consumed by campaigning for the 2022 midterms so it will be hard to pass any major legislation with such thin majorities (though bipartisan anti-trust legislation could pass and poses a risk to the equity market). The midterms are likely – though not guaranteed – to result in Republicans taking at least the House. The result will be gridlock in which only the rare bipartisan bill can pass. In other words, after Christmas, Biden’s domestic legislative capability and hence US fiscal policy will likely be frozen in place through 2025. In this report we provide a road map for the budget battle that will define the Biden presidency. Buy The Dip … Unless New Variants Change The Game First, a brief word regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. The Delta variant is ramping up, particularly in states where vaccination rates have lagged and social restrictions are minimal (Chart 1). The new lambda variant is also causing concerns that vaccines may be inadequate. Equity markets could easily suffer more downside in the near term but US-dedicated investors should consider the following: Scientists have created one vaccine for COVID-19 and can create others. There has been a concrete reduction in uncertainty since November 2020. Vaccination rates will never be perfect – many people smoke cigarettes and refuse to wear seat belts! – but greater infection rates and hospitalizations are leading to improvements in vaccination coverage. While new lockdowns are not impossible, the public will only support them as a last resort. Not only is the White House still officially opposed to new lockdowns but also the authority to impose lockdowns rests with governors. If hospital systems are crashing then even Republican governors will endorse new social restrictions. Otherwise, restrictions will not be draconian unless a much more virulent variant emerges (one that is more deadly or that has a worse impact on children). Monetary and fiscal stimulus will ramp up if a new variant is more deadly or the economy otherwise starts to slide back. In the US, additional fiscal stimulus will come faster than in other countries because new short-term measures can easily be tacked onto major bills that are already coming down the pike. Chart 1Stay Constructive Amid Delta Jitters Might the White House leverage a renewed sense of crisis to get its main fiscal bills passed? We can see that. The last thing Biden needs is a sluggish recovery to translate into congressional gridlock in the 2022 midterms – the bane of the Obama administration. Rather, the goal is to harness the sense of crisis to pass stimulus. Biden’s approval rating is falling, as is the norm with modern presidents. However, it is still “above water” (net positive) and still sufficient to get his legislative initiatives across the line. Biden’s forthcoming bills will reinforce economic recovery and sentiment (Chart 2) Chart 2Biden’s Approval Comes Down To Earth What if a variant evades vaccination? Especially if it is more deadly and/or more harmful to children? That would be a game changer and would cause at least a market correction. Still, investors would want to buy the dip given what they know today relative to what they knew in early 2020 (and given that they bought the dip in March 2020 even not knowing what they know today). Bipartisan Structural Reform Our second key view for 2021 – “bipartisan structural reform” – is coming to fruition with the Senate’s 69-30 vote passage of the American Infrastructure and Jobs Act as we go to press. Major bipartisan deals are rare in highly polarized America but we have given an 80% subjective chance of passage to this bill. Passage in the Senate reinforces that view, though the odds of final passage remain the same as there will be hurdles in the House. We include infrastructure as a “structural reform” because of its ability to increase the productivity of an economy. The bill contains funding for traditional infrastructure, like roads, bridges, and ports, as well as non-traditional infrastructure such as subsidies for electric vehicles and high-speed internet (Table 1). Table 1What’s In The Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal? Table 2 shows the 19 Republican senators who voted in favor of this bipartisan deal, along with their ideological ranking and state support rates. This tally provides a nine-seat buffer in case the House version of the bill requires another Senate vote. It also provides a measure of the support that might be brought to bear for bipartisan causes later, such as funding the government, suspending the debt ceiling, or passing bills on popular issues (such as regulating Big Tech) in 2022-24. All Democrats voted in unison for the bill. Table 2Republican Senators Who Voted For Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill Our high confidence on infrastructure spending stems both from its popular support (Chart 3) and from the fact that even if bipartisanship fails, there remains a partisan option: budget reconciliation. This is still true today. The bipartisan infrastructure bill could still die in the House, given Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s determination to make its passage contingent on the success of the larger reconciliation bill, which is anathema to Republicans. But if it dies, Democrats would take up the key provisions in the reconciliation bill – and the odds of that bill passing would go up, not down, since Democrats would need to close ranks to clinch a legislative victory ahead of the midterms. Chart 3Popular Support For Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal Thus the real risk is not that infrastructure spending will fail but that its success will reduce the political capital needed to pass the more controversial reconciliation bill, which we discuss below. Over the short and medium term, this bipartisan infrastructure deal emblematizes the sea change in US fiscal policy – the shift against austerity – and thus serves to dispel fears of disinflation. At the same time, the deal epitomizes America’s long-term fiscal predicament. Democrats only want to increase spending while Republicans only want to decrease taxes. The former will not make budget cuts while the latter will not hike taxes. The result, inevitably, is higher budget deficits. This is precisely what occurred with the latest agreement: tax measures to pay for new infrastructure spending are mostly chimerical – the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that only $200 billion of the new spending will be offset with new revenue. The other $350 billion will add directly to deficits and debt. The difference is small but the political signal is notable. Chart 4 highlights the increase in the deficit likely to occur, with the CBO’s more realistic assessment delineated from the nominal bill. From a macro point of view, the takeaway is that the US economy faces a stark withdrawal of government support in 2022 but this bill slightly cushions the blow. Continued recovery will depend on consumers and businesses (which look to be in good shape). Beginning in 2025 deficits will start to rise again and hence the overall picture is one in which US government support for the economy has taken a step up for the decade. Chart 4Bipartisan Deal Not Paid For = Fiscal Stimulus Side note: Chart 4 is worrisome for President Biden if his reconciliation bill fails, as it points to fiscal drag through 2024, the election year. Bottom Line: We still see an 80% chance that Biden’s infrastructure proposals will pass, as the Democrats have a backup plan if the bipartisan deal somehow collapses in the House. Biden’s Greatest Legislative Battle Up till now we have assigned 50% odds of passage to the subsequent part of the Biden agenda, the American Families Plan, which covers social spending and tax hikes (corporate and individual). If bipartisan infrastructure passes promptly, we would upgrade the reconciliation bill’s odds of passing to 65%. The reason is twofold: first, reconciliation only requires a simple majority consisting of all 50 Senate Democrats plus the vice president; second, hesitant moderate senators ultimately will be forced to recognize that sinking the bill would render the Biden presidency defunct and fan the flames of populist rebellion on both sides of the political spectrum. And yet, since Biden cannot spare a single vote, conviction levels cannot be high. Therefore 65% seems appropriate. On August 9 Senate Democrats presented a $3.5 trillion budget resolution that will form the basis of the reconciliation bill this fall. The bill contains a wish list of spending priorities, as outlined in Table 3. Most of these are familiar from last month when the Senate Budget Committee first put forward its framework. The hang-up stems from House Speaker Pelosi. Knowing that infrastructure’s passage will suck away political capital from social spending, Pelosi is attempting to link the two bills. If the Senate fails to pass the reconciliation bill, the House will not pass the infrastructure bill. This gambit will create a big increase in uncertainty this fall as the legislative battle heats up. Republicans cannot support the infrastructure bill if it is directly tied to the Democrats’ “Nanny State” debt blowout, which will be the basis for their campaign against Democrats in future. They need plausible deniability. If Pelosi insists on linking the two bills, Republican support will evaporate. True, Democrats would then proceed to partisan reconciliation – but they would need to sacrifice other agenda items, such as subsidies for green tech, college, health care, and manufacturing (see Table 3 above). Table 3Senate Democratic FY22 Budget Resolution (July 2021) Biden and the Senate are now united on the infrastructure bill. Biden and Democrats in marginal seats need a legislative victory ahead of the midterms – and a bipartisan victory on a popular policy like infrastructure is critical. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Therefore, Pelosi will probably have to concede, after gaining assurances from moderate Senate Democrats that they will not sink reconciliation. Moderate Democrats, in turn, will need to see the reconciliation bill watered down, both on spending and taxes. Table 4 shows both bills together, as Biden’s “Build Back Better” agenda, with a baseline net deficit impact. Budget deficit scenarios are then updated in Chart 5. Once again what stands out is the large fiscal drag in 2022, the fiscal thrust for the remainder of the decade, and (in this case) minimal fiscal drag for 2024. Table 4Face Value Impact Of Biden’s Spending Proposals Before Congress (Baseline) Chart 5Deficit Scenarios For Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal And Reconciliation Bill This is true even if tax hikes fail to make it into the final reconciliation bill. We still maintain that the corporate tax rate will rise above Senator Joe Manchin’s ideal 25% rate (if not all the way to Biden’s 28%) while individual tax rates will return to pre-Trump levels. It is not clear if capital gains tax hikes will make the final cut. Most likely some tax hikes will occur but they will fall short of Biden’s plan, producing, at most, a one percentage point increase in the budget deficit relative to the Congressional Budget Office’s baseline estimate (Chart 6). Chart 6What Happens If Tax Hikes Fail To Pass Congress? In Table 5 we update our various legislative scenarios, each consisting of different mixes of spending and tax hikes. We assume that the size of the bipartisan infrastructure deal will not be reduced in the House; that the revenue offsets of that deal will be $200 billion maximum; that moderate Senate Democrats will have greater success in watering down tax hikes than spending programs; and that the government overestimates its ability to collect revenue through tougher tax enforcement. Finally we assume that Senate Democrats’ spending proposals will not be cut – an extremely generous assumption that will not hold up in practice. Table 5Legislative Scenarios For Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal And FY22 Reconciliation Bill Each legislative scenario’s impact on the deficit is shown in Table 6. The result is a wide range of deficit impacts, from the baseline of $588 billion to Scenario 6, with $2.59 trillion (zero tax offsets). The more realistic range is from $1 trillion to $2.3 trillion (i.e. all scenarios except the baseline and Scenario 5). Within this range the result depends on the moderate senators’ negotiation skills. Conservatively, the impact will range from $1-$1.5 trillion (Scenarios 1, 2, 4), with moderate senators preventing a $2 trillion price tag as politically impracticable (e.g. Scenario 3). Table 6Scoring Of Legislative Scenarios For Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal And FY22 Reconciliation Bill There are two other aspects of Biden’s massive legislative battle this fall: regular government budget appropriations and the debt ceiling. Government appropriations are supposed to be passed by the end of the fiscal year, September 30, but often run over and likely will this time. Republicans will not support regular spending increases given that Democrats will ram through a partisan spending blowout. Therefore Congress will have to settle for a continuing resolution (a stop-gap measure) that keeps spending levels the same. Otherwise a government shutdown will occur. A shutdown is possible but would weigh heavily on Republicans’ public image, which is already at a low point in recent memory following the scandals of the Trump presidency. That is not all – there is also the debt ceiling (limit on national debt). Democrats made a major gambit by not including a suspension or increase of the debt ceiling in their fiscal 2022 budget resolution. If they had included it, then they could have raised the debt ceiling on their own with a simple majority when they passed their reconciliation bill. Instead they are attempting to make Republicans share the blame. Republicans, however, will mount an aggressive resistance, as they do not want to be seen as authorizing the debt increase necessary to accommodate the Democrats’ “socialist” spending spree. The “X date,” when the Treasury Department runs out of the ability to use extraordinary measures to make payments due on US debt, is expected sometime in October or November, though Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen warns it could come sooner and will try to pressure lawmakers. After this date the US would technically default on national debt obligations, triggering financial turmoil and potentially a global crisis. A debt ceiling showdown is virtually inevitable and volatility will rise – but ultimately a default will be averted, as we outlined in a recent report. First, Democrats still have the ability to revise the budget resolution so as to include a debt ceiling suspension in their final reconciliation bill. While Republicans could arguably block this attempt via a filibuster in the Budget Committee, they would have no interest in doing so (they could abstain and thus keep their hands clean of any debt ceiling increase). Second, Republicans can be forced to agree to a suspension of the debt ceiling when they fund the government, since it is necessary to do so anyway to fund their own infrastructure deal. Suspending the debt ceiling is not the same as raising it. New battles would be set up for later, in 2022 and beyond. But Republicans do not have the political ability to force a default on the public debt of the United States in the same year that Democrats accuse them of raising an insurrection against its Congress. Bottom Line: This fall will see the great legislative battle of the Biden presidency. Infrastructure spending has an 80% chance of passing. Pelosi will not be able to withstand Biden and the Senate in passing this deal separately from the more partisan reconciliation bill. If it passes, then Biden’s reconciliation bill will rise from 50% to 65% odds of passage. The latter will be watered down to a net deficit impact of $1-$1.5 trillion to secure the votes of moderate Senate Democrats, who ultimately will not betray their party to neuter Biden’s presidency. Thin margins in the House and Senate do not permit higher odds of passage or a high level of confidence. Investment Takeaways Political polarization has fallen sharply (Chart 7). This is connected to our view that the Republican Party is split, while Biden’s key initiative (infrastructure) has bipartisan support. However, Biden’s bipartisanship has resulted in a larger loss of Democratic support than a gain of Republican support (Chart 7, bottom panel). And the upcoming reconciliation bill will reignite Republican opposition. Moreover, polarization will remain at historically elevated levels, even to the point of generating domestic terrorist attacks, as we have argued. Biden’s approval rating has fallen but not enough to sink his legislative proposals. The overall economy is strong judging by both consumer confidence (Chart 8) and capital spending (Chart 9). Any soft patch in the economy in the near term will assist Biden in his legislative battles. Passage of either or both major bills will boost his approval rating, potentially ameliorating the Democrats’ challenging situation in the 2022 midterms. Chart 7Bipartisan Biden Lowers Polarization As Dems Waver Chart 8US Consumer Confidence Soars Chart 9US Capital Spending At Peak Levels Still, we expect investors to “buy the rumor and sell the news” of Biden’s upcoming stimulus bills. After the Senate passes the reconciliation measure, investors will have to look forward to the combined impact of tax hikes, the Fed’s tapering of asset purchases and eventual rate hikes, and the various troubles with global growth and geopolitical risk. Until that time, investors must weigh the risks of the COVID-19 variants against actions by both American and Chinese policymakers to dispel deflationary tail risks. Thus for now we are sticking with our key trades of the year: value stocks, materials, and infrastructure plays (Chart 10). After Biden wins his big legislative battles, we will reassess.     Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri Associate Editor jesse.Kuri@bcaresearch.com Chart 10Buy Rumor, Sell News On Biden Plan   Appendix Table A1USPS Trade Table Table A2Political Risk Matrix Chart A1Presidential Election Model Chart A2Senate Election Model Table A3Political Capital Index Table A4APolitical Capital: White House And Congress Table A4BPolitical Capital: Household And Business Sentiment Table A4CPolitical Capital: The Economy And Markets Footnotes    

Foreword Today we are publishing a charts-only report focused on the S&P 500 and its sectors. Many of the charts are self-explanatory; to some we have added a short commentary.  As with the styles Chart Pack, published a month ago, the sector charts cover macro, valuations, fundamentals, technicals, and the uses of cash.  Our goal is to equip you with all the data you need to underpin sector allocation decisions.  We also include performance, valuations, and earnings growth expectations tables for all the styles, sectors, industry groups, and industries (GICS 1, 2 and 3). We hope you will find this publication useful. We plan to update it monthly, alternating sector and style coverage. Overarching Investment Themes Macro Economic surprise index is flagging while Q2-21 earnings surprises are unprecedented.  Much of the good economic news has been priced in and the Citigroup Economic Surprise Index is hovering around zero (Chart 1A).  Most of the economic indicators have turned, confirming that the surge in growth has run its course and the macroeconomic environment is normalizing. Covid-19 fears are resurfacing:  The spread of the Delta variant is unlikely to trigger another lockdown, but consumers may curtail their activities out of fear of infection, adversely affecting demand for goods and services.  However, for now, we are sanguine about this risk. Investors expect inflation to roll over: Investors’ inflation fears are dissipating, attested by the falling 5Y/5Y inflation breakevens (Chart 1B).  Indeed, it appears that the debate on the persistence of inflation has been won by the “inflation is transitory” camp.  Yet, we won’t be surprised if inflation surprises on the upside (no pun intended).  Chart 1AGood Economic News Has Been Priced In Chart 1BMost Investors Are Now Convinced That Inflation Will Be Transitory Labor shortages are starting to dissipate: On the labor front, companies are still struggling to fill job openings.  However, there are signs that the labor market is healing, with more and more workers interested in returning to the labor force  (Chart 2). Inventories will be replenished, spurring investment: Post-pandemic economic recovery is still plagued by the mismatch between supply and demand. Supply-chain disruptions and shortages fail to meet pent-up demand of consumers eager to spend “helicopter drop cash” and accumulated savings.  As a result, inventories have been drawn down, chipping away 1.1% from GDP growth. In fact, they are at all-time lows: Non-farm inventories to final sales have dropped lower than they were during the GFC (Chart 3).  Low inventories will have to be replenished, resulting in further gains in investment and providing a boost to industrial activity going forward. Chart 2More Workers Are Interested In Returning To The Labor Force Demand for services will continue to exceed demand for goods: Last, but not least, consumers have money to spend but are shifting away from goods and toward services and experiences.  Consumer expenditure on goods is above trend and has recently turned down, while spending on services is still below pre-pandemic levels, and rebound is still running its course (Chart 4). Chart 3Inventories Are At All Time Low Chart 4Real Spending On Services Is At PrePandemic Levels: Room For Further Rebound Valuations And Profitability The US stock market remains expensive: The S&P 500 is trading more than two standard deviations above the long-term average.  However, there are pockets of reasonably priced, albeit unloved, stocks within the S&P 500: Telecom (11x forward earnings), Health Care (17x), Energy (14x), and Financials (14x).  Earnings continue to crush expectations: While equities are expensive, they are redeemed by the strong showing of earnings and sales growth reported for Q2-2021.  The scale of earnings beats relative to analyst expectations is spectacular: Running at nearly 20%, or more than two standard deviations above the historical average (Chart 5). Chart 5Earnings Surprises Are Unprecedented Earnings growth is normalizing: Earnings have increased 90% over the lackluster Q2, 2020.  Compared to Q2-2019 as a baseline quarter, earnings are up 22%, pointing to normalization going forward.  Earnings growth will become a tailwind for the outperformance of equities into the balance of the year and will help the S&P 500 to grow into its big valuation “shoes”. Margins are expanding despite inflation:  Many sectors are able to grow earnings and recover margins despite increases in costs of raw materials and labor, thanks to their strong pricing power, i.e., ability to pass on higher input costs to their customers (Chart 6A).  Sectors with the highest pricing power are: Communications Services, Consumer Discretionary, Industrials, Energy and Materials.  They are the best inflation hedges. Chart 6ACompanies' Profitability Is Improving To Pre-Pandemic Levels Uses Of Cash Cash to be disbursed to shareholders: Share buybacks and other shareholder-friendly activities are on the rise again and are expected to gain steam this year and next.  This is supported both by strong earnings growth, healthy balance sheets, and regulatory headwinds to any potential M&A activity due to the anti-trust stance of the current administration Capex is about to make a comeback: Capex is still lagging across most sectors.  A pickup in capex will signal that the post-pandemic recovery is firmly on track, and companies are comfortable investing in future growth.  However, there are early signs that that is about to change.  Philly Fed survey shows that over 40% of respondents are planning to increase their capex expenditure  (Chart 6B). Chart 6BCapex Increases Are On The Way Investment Implications Overweight sectors and industry groups exposed to consumer services spending (airlines, hotels, leisure) and be selective about consumer goods and retailing industry groups: Real PCE for goods has turned down toward the trend line.  Exceptions are areas of the market with well-publicized shortages such as Autos and Parts. Overweight Industrials – US manufacturing has limited capacity, onshoring is a new trend, inventories need to be replenished, and capex intentions are on the rise. Overweight Health Care – growth slowdown favors this defensive sector, which also benefits from a backlog of demand for medical procedures and services. Reflation trade is out of the picture, now that inflation fears have abated and the Delta variant preoccupies investors.  For that, we still favor Growth over Value.  Yet, we watch this allocation closely, to time rotation once Covid-19 fears dissipate, rates pick up and inflation surprises on the upside. With valuations high, and forward returns expectations lackluster, we favor sectors likely to delivery healthy cash yield: Financials, Health Care, Energy, and Technology.   Irene Tunkel Chief Strategist, US Equity Strategy irene.tunkel@bcaresearch.com   S&P 500 Chart 7Macroeconomic Backdrop And Earnings Surprise Chart 8Profitability Chart 9Valuations And Technicals Chart 10Uses Of Cash Communication Services Chart 11Macroeconomic Backdrop Chart 12Profitability Chart 13Valuations And Technicals Chart 14Uses Of Cash Consumer Discretionary Chart 15Macroeconomic Backdrop Chart 16Profitability Chart 17Valuations And Technicals Chart 18Uses Of Cash Consumer Staples Chart 19Macroeconomic Backdrop Chart 20Profitability Chart 21Valuations And Technicals Chart 22Uses Of Cash Energy Chart 23Macroeconomic Backdrop Chart 24Profitability Chart 25Valuations And Technicals Chart 26Uses Of Cash Financials Chart 27Macroeconomic Backdrop Chart 28Profitability Chart 29Valuations And Technicals Chart 30Uses Of Cash Health Care Chart 31Health Care: Sector vs Industry Groups Chart 32Profitability Chart 33Valuations And Technicals Chart 34Uses Of Cash Industrials Chart 35Macroeconomic Backdrop Chart 36Profitability Chart 37Valuations And Technicals Chart 38Uses Of Cash Information Technology Chart 39Macroeconomic Backdrop Chart 40Profitability Chart 41Valuations And Technicals Chart 42Uses Of Cash Materials Chart 43Macroeconomic Backdrop Chart 44Profitability Chart 45Valuations And Technicals Chart 46Uses Of Cash Real Estate Chart 47Macroeconomic Backdrop Chart 48Profitability Chart 49Valuations And Technicals Chart 50Uses Of Cash Utilities Chart 51Macroeconomic Backdrop Chart 52Profitability Chart 53Valuations And Technicals Chart 54Uses Of Cash  Table 1Performance Table 2Valuations And Forward Earnings Growth Recommended Allocation   Footnotes  

Highlights Investors have grown enamored with online retailers (AMZN), payment processing companies (V, MA, PYPL, SQ), and social media companies (FB, SNAP). All three sectors are likely to experience headwinds over the next 12 months as life returns to normal following the pandemic. Looking further out, market saturation, increased competition, and heightened regulation all pose risks to these sectors. Internet companies in general, and social media firms in particular, will face increased scrutiny not just for their monopolistic practices, but for the mental harm they are causing young people. Just like cigarettes are heavily regulated due to their addictive qualities, the same could happen to social media. We think there is a 50/50 chance that governments will start restricting social media usage only to adults over the age of 18 by the end of the decade, a move that could decimate the sector. Global Growth Will Remain Above Trend Investors are worried about growth again. Globally, the number of Covid cases is on the rise due to the proliferation of the Delta variant (Chart 1). The ISM manufacturing index dropped to 59.5 in July, down from a high of 64.7 in March. Both of China’s manufacturing PMIs have fallen, with the new orders component of the Caixin index dipping below the 50 line. The European PMIs have also come off their highs (Chart 2). Chart 1Number Of Covid Cases On The Rise Globally Due To The Delta Variant Chart 2Manufacturing PMIs Are Off Their Highs     Growth concerns have registered in financial markets (Chart 3). After climbing to 1.74% in March, the US 10-year Treasury yield has fallen back to 1.22%. Cyclical equity sectors have underperformed defensives. Growth-sensitive currencies such as the Swedish krona and the Australian dollar have weakened. We are more upbeat about global growth prospects than the consensus. As the experience of the UK demonstrates, there is little will to impose lockdowns in countries with ample access to vaccines. Strict social distancing restrictions remain a fact of life in countries lacking adequate vaccine supplies. However, the situation should improve later this year as vaccine production increases (Chart 4). Chart 3Financial Markets Trim Growth Expectations Chart 4Over 10 Billion Vaccine Doses Will Be Produced This Year   Households in developed economies are sitting on US$5 trillion in excess savings, half of which reside in the United States (Chart 5). Inventories are at record low levels, which should support production over the coming quarters (Chart 6). Chart 5Households Flush With Excess Savings Chart 6Record Low Inventories Will Provide A Boost To Production     Chinese policy should turn more stimulative, as the recent cut to bank reserve requirements foreshadows. With credit growth back down to 2018 lows, policymakers can afford to give the economy some juice. The 6-month credit impulse has already turned up (Chart 7). From Goods To Services While global growth should remain well above trend for the next 12 months, the composition of that growth will shift in ways that could meaningfully affect equities. As Chart 8 illustrates, aggregate US consumption has returned to its pre-pandemic trend. However, spending on goods is 11% above trend while spending on services is still 6% below trend. Chart 7Chinese Policy Is Turning More Stimulative Chart 8The Divergence Between Goods And Services Spending   Households typically cut spending on durable goods during recessions, while services serve as the ballast for the economy. The opposite happened during the pandemic. As the global economy recovers, goods spending will slow while services spending will stay robust. This is critical for online retailers such as Amazon, which derive the bulk of their e-commerce revenue from selling goods. Even after its disappointing Q2 earnings report, analysts still expect Amazon to grow e-commerce sales by 17% in 2022 (Chart 9). Such a goal may be difficult to achieve, given that core US retail sales currently stand 13% above their trendline (Chart 10). Chart 9AAnalysts’ Great Expectations May Be Dashed (I) Chart 9BAnalysts’ Great Expectations May Be Dashed (II) Chart 10AUS Retail Spending Is Well Above Trend (I) Chart 10BUS Retail Spending Is Well Above Trend (II) Chart 11Screen Time Is Moderating If e-commerce spending slows, shares of payment processing companies could disappoint. Likewise, social media companies could suffer as people start going out more often. After spiking during the height of the pandemic, growth in data usage has returned to normal (Chart 11). Long-Term Risks Looking beyond the post-pandemic recovery, all three equity sectors face structural challenges that are not being fully discounted by investors. The first is market saturation. Close to three-quarters of US households have Amazon Prime accounts. Slightly over half have a Netflix account. Nearly 70% have a Facebook account. Google commands 92% of the internet search market. Together, Google and Facebook generate about 60% of all online advertising revenue. Competition is another challenge. Companies such as Amazon, Facebook, and Google dominate their respective markets. As they look for further growth, they will invariably invade each other’s turf. The result might benefit consumers, but it is unlikely to help the bottom line if it means more competitive pressures. Moreover, it is not just competition from within the tech industry that may disrupt incumbent firms. Consider payment processors. Like most other central banks, the Fed is planning to launch its own digital currency. Widely available, free-to-use Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) could thwart the ability of Visa and MasterCard to skim 2%-to-3% off of every transaction. Regulatory Pressures In recent years, tech companies have faced increased scrutiny over their alleged monopolistic practices. In contrast to Chinese tech firms, which have fallen under the thumb of the authorities, US companies have been able to evade harsh measures. Just last month, a US federal court judge dismissed a case filed by more than 40 state attorneys general arguing that Facebook’s acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp had harmed competition. In the past, evidence that companies were setting prices well above marginal costs could be used to build a case for anti-trust enforcement. Such cases are more difficult to argue today because so many online services are given away for free. Nevertheless, governments are likely to become more adept in pursuing regulatory actions. Rather than focusing simply on pricing policies, regulators are increasingly looking at the ways big tech companies use vendor data in the case of Amazon and user data in the case of Facebook and Google to maintain market dominance. Public contempt for tech companies is fueling a political backlash. According to a Gallup poll conducted earlier this year, only 34% of Americans held a favorable view of tech companies such as Amazon, Facebook, and Google, down from 46% in 2019; 45% had an unfavorable opinion, up from 33% in 2019. The shift in public sentiment over the past two years has been entirely driven by Independent and Republican voters, many of whom feel that tech companies are unfairly censoring their opinions (Table 1). The same poll revealed that the majority of Americans – including the majority of Republicans – now favor increased regulation of tech companies. Table 1American Views On Big Tech A Drug Worse Than Nicotine? Social media companies are among the most loathed within the tech sector. A Pew Research Center study conducted last year revealed that more than six times as many Americans had a negative opinion of social media as a positive one (Chart 12). The public’s disdain for social media is increasingly going beyond traditional concerns over privacy. As psychologists Jonathan Haidt and Jean Twenge recently argued in the New York Times, there is growing evidence that the pervasive use of social media is harming the mental health of the nation’s youth. The share of students reporting high levels of loneliness has more than doubled in both the US and abroad over the past decade (Chart 13). Chart 12Social Media Increasingly Vilified Chart 13Alone In The Crowd In 2019, the last year for which comprehensive data is available, nearly a quarter of girls between the ages of 12 and 17 reported experiencing a major depressive episode over the prior year, up from 12% in 2011 (Chart 14). Academic studies have shown that adolescents who use Facebook and Instagram frequently feel greater anxiety and unease than those who do not. Just like cigarettes are heavily regulated due to their addictive qualities, the same could happen to social media. Facebook and most other social media companies already restrict access to those under the age of 13, although enforcement is generally spotty. We assign a 50/50 chance that governments start restricting social media usage only to adults over the age of 18 by the end of the decade, a move that could decimate the sector. Priced For Perfection The seven companies in the three high-flying sectors mentioned in this report trade at 91-times forward earnings compared to the S&P 500’s aggregate multiple of 22. They also trade at an average price-to-sales ratio of 16 compared to 3.2 for the broader market (Chart 15). Chart 14The Rise In Depression Rates Coincided With Increased Social Media Usage Chart 15Trading At A High Multiple To Sales   Such valuations can be justified only if these companies grow earnings-per-share by nearly 30% per year over the next five years, as analysts currently expect (Chart 16). However, as noted above, that may be too high a hurdle to clear. Higher bond yields represent another threat to valuations. Growth stocks are much more sensitive to changes in discount rates than value stocks. Chart 17show that tech stocks have generally outperformed the S&P 500 over the past four years whenever bond yields were falling. We expect bond yields to rebound over the coming months, with the 10-year yield rising to 1.8% by early next year. Tech is likely to lag the market in that environment. Chart 16Long-Term Growth Estimates May Be Too Optimistic For These High-Fliers Chart 17Higher Bond Yields Could Hurt Tech Stocks   Trade Update Our long EM equity trade got stopped out last Tuesday before recouping some of its losses in subsequent days. We continue to expect EM stocks to bounce back later this year. That said, in keeping with this report, we see more upside for “traditional” EM sectors such as banks, industrials, energy, and materials than for EM tech (especially Chinese tech). Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist pberezin@bcaresearch.com Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores

Highlights Last week’s market gyrations do not mark the end of China’s structural reforms. The country’s macro policy setting has shifted to allow a higher tolerance for short-term pain in exchange for long-term gain. Chinese policymakers will temporarily put the brakes on its reform agenda if policy measures threaten domestic economic stability; a spillover from the equity market rout to the currency market and private-sector investment will be a pressure point for the authorities. Messages from last week’s Politburo meeting were only marginally more positive than in April. While policymakers seem to be paying more attention to the economic slowdown, they do not appear to be in a rush to rescue the economy. We present three scenarios describing how the equity markets and policy may develop in the coming months. In all the scenarios, investors should avoid trying to catch a falling knife. Feature July was an extraordinarily difficult time for Chinese stocks and last week’s steep slide intensified as a slew of announced regulatory changes spooked market participants (Chart 1). Chart 1Chinese Stocks Had A Tough MonthWe have repeatedly outlined the risks to Chinese equities in the past month. Since the PBoC cut the reserve requirement ratio in early July, the negative impact on the financial markets from tightening industry policies has outweighed the limited positive effects from a slightly more dovish central bank policy stance.  Chart 2Chinese TMT Stock Prices Were Hammered Is now a good time to buy Chinese stocks? Multiple compressions have made Chinese equities, particularly the hard-hit technology, media & telecom (TMT) stocks in the offshore market, appear cheap compared with their global counterparts (Chart 2). In this report we present three scenarios how China’s equity market and policies will likely evolve. In our view, more than a week of stock selloffs will be needed for policymakers to halt reforms. Furthermore, even if the pace of reforms eases and policymakers start to reflate the economy, it will likely take between 6 and 12 months for stock prices to find a bottom.  In light of escalating uncertainty over China’s financial market performance, the China Investment Strategy and Global Asset Allocation services will jointly publish a Special Report on August 18. We will examine how global investors can improve the risk-reward profile of their multi-asset portfolios with exposure to Chinese assets.   Three Scenarios While the regulatory landscape is unclear, we can draw on previous experience to analyze how China’s equity market and policy directions may evolve. In the first scenario, which is our baseline case, the economy would weaken, but would not cross policymakers’ pain threshold. There would be marginal policy easing action to alleviate market anxiety and monetary policy would be slightly loosened along with polices on some non-core sectors, such as infrastructure investment. In this scenario, structural reforms could continue for another 6 to 12 months, as suggested by colleagues at the BCA Geopolitical Strategy services. Investors should resist the urge to buy on the dip. Investors would be kept on edge by a confluence of a slowing economy (even though the slowdown is measured) and heighted regulatory oversight. The market would oscillate between technical rebounds when macro policy eases and selloffs when industry regulations tighten. There are two reasons why the pace of regulatory tightening will not moderate in the near term. First, China’s economic policy has shifted from setting an annual economic growth target to multi-year planning. This allows policymakers to have a higher tolerance for near-term distress in exchange for long-term benefits. Despite a deep dive in stock prices last week, China’s bond and currency markets have been stable relative to the market gyrations in both 2015 and 2018 (Chart 3A and 3B).  Furthermore, the newly released PMIs and recent economic data show that the China’s economic activity is weakening, but the speed of softening seems to be within the policymakers’ comfort zone (Chart 4). Chart 3AChinese Bond And Currency Markets Have Been Relatively Calm Despite Equity Market Selloffs Chart 3BChinese Bond And Currency Markets Have Been Relatively Calm Despite Equity Market Selloffs Chart 4Economic Pain Has Not Crossed Policymakers' Threshold Secondly, the new rules imposed on industries - ranging from internet, property, education, healthcare to capital markets - are part of China’s long-term structural reform agenda outlined in the 14th Five-Year Plan (FYP).  As China transitions from building a "moderately prosperous society" by 2020 to becoming a "great modern socialist nation" by 2049, the country’s policy priority has shifted from a rapid accumulation of wealth to addressing income inequality and social welfare for average households.  The policy objective is not only to close regulatory loopholes and end the disorderly expansion of capital and market shares, but also assign a larger weight of social equality and responsibility to the private sector’s business practices. The pace in achieving this overarching goal will only moderate when China’s economy and financial markets show meaningful signs of stress. The second possibility would be if policymakers fail to restore investors’ confidence. Foreign and domestic investors would reassess China’s policy directions and reprice the outlook for corporate profit growth. Market selloffs would continue, like in 2015 and 2018 following policy shocks,1 equity market gyrations would spill over to the currency market through capital outflows and real economic sectors through dwindling investment (Chart 5). In this scenario, Chinese policymakers would likely abandon their reform agenda, at least temporarily, and decisively shift policy to reflate the economy (Chart 6). Chart 5Financial Market Panic Spilled Over To Other Sectors In Both 2015 and 2018... Chart 6...Triggering Decisive Reflationary Policy Responses A third scenario would be if China is challenged by the external environment, either due to a significant increase in geopolitical conflicts or a widespread resurgence of new COVID cases. Both aspects would pose sizable downside risks to China’s economic activity. The risks would force authorities to shift to an easier stance and slow the pace of domestic reforms. Chart 7It Took 6 To 12 Months (And Sizable Stimulus) For Stock Prices To Bottom Out In the second and third scenarios, the rout in the equity market would likely deepen in the near term, before prices bottom in response to a halt in regulatory crackdowns and a decisive turn to reflationary measures. As illustrated in Chart 7, in both 2015 and 2018, it took 6 to 12 months and significant stimulus for Chinese stock prices to bottom in absolute terms. Bottom Line: Our baseline scenario suggests a continuation of structural reforms. Investors should refrain from jumping into the market until there are firm signs that regulatory tightening is over and reflationary measures have started. Key Messages From The Politburo Meeting Last week’s much-anticipated Politburo meeting, chaired by President Xi Jinping, adopted a slightly more dovish tone towards macroeconomic policy than in April, but also indicated that the leadership will stick to its long-term reform agenda. The stance was mildly positive for the overall economy and financial markets. Macro policies in some non-core sectors, such as infrastructure investment, will likely ease at the margin during the rest of the year. However, the meeting’s statement warned “a more complex and challenging external environment” lies ahead, which indicates that heightened concerns over geopolitical tensions will only exacerbate regulatory oversights in data and national security.  Regarding fiscal policy in 2H21, the authorities seem to be growing more concerned about growth outlook.  The meeting mentioned that fiscal support should make “reasonable progress” later this year and early next year. The pace of local government special purpose bond (SPB) issuance will pick up in Q3 and into Q4. However, we maintain our view that without a significant rise in bank credit growth, an acceleration in SPB issuance will only provide a moderate boost to local infrastructure spending. The reference to cross-cycle policy adjustment from the meeting readout is also in line with our view that policymakers may save their fiscal ammunition for next year when the economy comes under greater downward pressure. Odds are rising that the authorities will allow a frontloading of SPBs in Q1 2022 before the National People’s Congress in March next year. The statement also notably mentioned that government officials shall “ensure the supply of commodities and stabilize prices" and called for a more rational pace in carbon reduction. We think this message implies a temporary easing of production curbs in some heavy industries, such as steel, coal, and possibly a further release of strategic reserves of industrial metals (Chart 8A and 8B). The supply-side policy shift should add downward pressure on global industrial prices in addition to the ongoing slowdown in demand from China (Chart 9). Chart 8ASome Backpaddling Likely In Decarbonization Progress Chart 8BSome Backpaddling Likely In Decarbonization Progress Chart 9Downward Pressure On Commodity Prices From China's Weakening Demand And Rising Domestic Production Meanwhile, the meeting repeated the "three stabilization” policy, which targets stabilizing land prices, housing prices and property market expectations. This sends a strong signal that policymakers are unwilling to soften the tone on restrictions in the housing market. Bottom Line: The July Politburo meeting’s messaging was only modestly more dovish than three months ago. Investment Implications Chinese offshore stocks have fallen by 26% from their February peak, compared with approximately 14% for onshore stocks. The offshore TMT stocks are approaching their long-term technical resistance, measured by the three-year moving average in prices (Chart 10). While the magnitude of last week’s stock price decline seems excessive relative to previous market selloffs, the multiple compression reflects considerable uncertainty surrounding the outlook for China’s policy direction. New antitrust regulations in China are intended to limit the monopolistic business practices of internet companies. As a result, these companies’ operational costs will rise and profit growth will decline, and their valuations will converge with those of non-TMT companies. The trailing P/E ratio in Chinese investable TMT stocks is still elevated, making the equities vulnerable to further regulatory tightening and multiple compressions (Chart 11). Chart 10Chinese TMT Stocks: On The Verge Of Breaking Below Their Technical Resistance... Chart 11...But Still Vulnerable To Further Multiple Compression     Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1On August 11, 2015, the PBOC surprised the market with three consecutive devaluations of the Chinese yuan, knocking over 3% off its value. On April 3, 2018 former US President Donald Trump unveiled plans for 25% tariffs on about $50 billion of Chinese imports. Market/Sector Recommendations Cyclical Investment Stance

Highlights Globalization is recovering to its pre-pandemic trajectory. But it will fail to live up to potential, as the “hyper-globalization” trends of the 1990s are long gone. China was the biggest winner of hyper-globalization. It now faces unprecedented risks in the context of hypo-globalization. Global investors woke up to China’s domestic political risks this year, which include arbitrary regulatory crackdowns on tech and private business. While Chinese officials will ease policy to soothe markets, the cyclical and structural outlook is still negative for this economy. Growth and stimulus have peaked. Political risk will stay high through the national party congress in fall 2022. US-China relations have not stabilized. India, the clearest EM alternative for global investors, is high-priced relative to China and faces troubles of its own. It is too soon to call a bottom for EM relative to DM. Feature Global investors woke up to China’s domestic political risk over the past week, as Beijing extended its regulatory crackdown to private education companies. Our GeoRisk Indicator shows Chinese political risk reaching late 2017 levels while the broad Chinese stock market continued this year’s slide against emerging market peers (Chart 1). Chart 1China: Domestic Political Risk Takes Investors By Surprise A technical bounce in Chinese tech stocks will very likely occur but we would not recommend playing it. The first of our three key views for 2021 is the confluence of internal and external headwinds for China. True, today’s regulatory blitz will pass over like previous ones and the fast money will snap up Chinese tech firms on the cheap. The Communist Party is making a show of force, not destroying its crown jewels in the tech sector. However, the negative factors weighing on China are both cyclical and structural. Until Chinese President Xi Jinping adjusts his strategy and US-China relations stabilize, investors do not have a solid foundation for putting more capital at risk in China. Globalization is in retreat and this is negative for China, the big winner of the past 40 years. Hypo-Globalization Globalization in the truest sense has expanded over millenia. It will only reverse amid civilizational disasters. But the post-Cold War era of “hyper-globalization” is long gone.1 The 2010s saw the emergence of de-globalization. In the wake of COVID-19, global trade is recovering to its post-2008 trend but it is nowhere near recovering the post-1990 trend (Chart 2). Trade exposure has even fallen within the major free trade blocs, like the EU and USMCA (Chart 3). Chart 2Hypo-Globalization Chart 3Trade Intensity Slows Even Within Trade Blocs Of course, with vaccines and stimulus, global trade will recover in the coming decade. We coined the term “hypo-globalization” to capture this predicament, in which globalization is set to rebound but not to its previous trajectory.2 We now inhabit a world that is under-globalized and under-globalizing, i.e. not as open and free as it could be. A major factor is the US-China economic divorce, which is proceeding apace. China’s latest state actions – in diplomacy, finance, and business – underscore its ongoing disengagement from the US-led global architecture. The US, for its part, is now on its third presidency with protectionist leanings. American and European fiscal stimulus are increasingly protectionist in nature, including rising climate protectionism. Bottom Line: The stimulus-fueled recovery from the global pandemic is not leading to re-globalization so much as hypo-globalization. A cyclical reboot of cross-border trade and investment is occurring but will fall short of global potential due to a darkening geopolitical backdrop. Still No Stabilization In US-China Relations Chart 4Do Nations Prefer Growth? Or Security? A giant window of opportunity is closing for China and Russia – they will look back fondly on the days when the US was bogged down in the Middle East. The US current withdrawal from “forever wars” incentivizes Beijing and Moscow to act aggressively now, whether at home or abroad. Investors tend to overrate the Chinese people’s desire for economic prosperity relative to their fear of insecurity and domination by foreign powers. China today is more desirous of strong national defense than faster economic growth (Chart 4). The rise of Chinese nationalism is pronounced since the Great Recession. President Xi Jinping confirmed this trend in his speech for the Communist Party’s first centenary on July 1, 2021. Xi was notably more concerned with foreign threats than his predecessors in 2001 and 2011 (Chart 5).3 China has arrived as a Great Power on the global stage and will resist being foisted into a subsidiary role by western nations. Chart 5Xi Jinping’s Centenary Speech Signaled Nationalist Turn Meanwhile US-China relations have not stabilized. The latest negotiations did not produce agreed upon terms for managing tensions in the relationship. A bilateral summit between Presidents Biden and Xi Jinping has not been agreed to or scheduled, though it could still come together by the end of October. Foreign Minister Wang Yi produced a set of three major demands: that the US not subvert “socialism with Chinese characteristics,” obstruct China’s development, or infringe on China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity (Table 1). The US’s opposition to China’s state-backed economic model, export controls on advanced technology, and attempts to negotiate a trade deal with the province of Taiwan all violate these demands.4 Table 1China’s Three Demands From The United States (July 2021) The removal of US support for China’s economic, development – recently confirmed by the Biden administration – will take a substantial toll on sentiment within China and among global investors. US President Joe Biden and four executive departments have explicitly warned investors not to invest in Hong Kong or in companies with ties to China’s military-industrial complex and human rights abuses. The US now formally accuses China of genocide in the Xinjiang region.5 Bottom Line: There is no stabilization in US-China relations yet. This will keep the risk premium in Chinese currency and equities elevated. The Sino-American divorce is a major driver of hypo-globalization. China’s Regulatory Crackdown President Xi Jinping’s strategy is consistent. He does not want last year’s stimulus splurge to create destabilizing asset bubbles and he wants to continue converting American antagonism into domestic power consolidation, particularly over the private economy. Now China’s sweeping “anti-trust” regulatory crackdown on tech, education, and other sectors is driving a major rethink among investors, ranging from Ark-founder Cathie Wood to perma-bulls like Stephen Roach. The driver of the latest regulatory crackdown is the administration’s reassertion of central party control. The Chinese economy’s potential growth is slowing, putting pressure on the legitimacy of single-party rule. The Communist Party is responding by trying to improve quality of life while promoting nationalism and “socialism with Chinese characteristics,” i.e. strong central government control and guidance over a market economy. Beijing is also using state power and industrial policy to attempt a great leap forward in science and technology in a bid to secure a place in the sun. Fintech, social media, and other innovative platforms have the potential to create networks of information, wealth, and power beyond the party’s control. Their rise can generate social upheaval at home and increase vulnerability to capital markets abroad. They may even divert resources from core technologies that would do more to increase China’s military-industrial capabilities. Beijing’s goal is to guide economic development, break up the concentration of power outside of the party, prevent systemic risks, and increase popular support in an era of falling income growth. Sociopolitical Risks: Social media has demonstrably exacerbated factionalism and social unrest in the United States, while silencing a sitting president. This extent of corporate power is intolerable for China. Economic And Financial Risks: Innovative fintech companies like Ant Group, via platforms like Alipay, were threatening to disrupt one of the Communist Party’s most important levers of power: the banking and financial system. The People’s Bank of China and other regulators insisted that Ant be treated more like a bank if it were to dabble in lending and wealth management. Hence the PBoC imposed capital adequacy and credit reporting requirements.6 Data Security Risks: Didi Chuxing, the ride-sharing company partly owned by Uber, whose business model it copied and elaborated on, defied authorities by attempting to conduct its initial public offering in the United States in June. The Communist Party cracked down on the company after the IPO to show who was in charge. Even more, Beijing wanted to protect its national data and prevent the US from gaining insights into its future technologies such as electric and autonomous vehicles. Foreign Policy Risks: Beijing is also preempting the American financial authorities, who will likely take action to kick Chinese companies that do not conform to common accounting and transparency standards off US stock exchanges. Better to inflict the first blow (and drive Chinese companies to Hong Kong and Shanghai for IPOs) than to allow free-wheeling capitalism to continue, giving Americans both data and leverage. Thus Beijing is continuing the “self-sufficiency” drive, divorcing itself from the US economy and capital markets, while curbing high-flying tech entrepreneurs and companies. The party’s muscle-flexing will culminate in Xi Jinping’s consolidation of power over the Politburo and Central Committee at the twentieth national party congress in fall 2022, where he is expected to take the title of “Chairman” that only Mao Zedong has held before him. The implication is that the regulatory crackdown can easily last for another six-to-12 more months. True, investors will become desensitized to the tech crackdown. But health care and medical technology are said to be in the Chinese government’s sights. So are various mergers and acquisitions. Both regulatory and political risk premia in different sectors can persist. The current administration has waged several sweeping regulatory campaigns against monopolies, corruption, pollution, overcapacity, leverage, and non-governmental organizations. The time between the initial launch of one of these campaigns and their peak intensity ranges from two to five years (Chart 6). Often, but not always, central policy campaigns have an express, three-year plan associated with them. Chart 6ABeijing Cracked Down On Monopolies, Corruption, Pollution... Chart 6B...NGOs, Overcapacity, And Leverage Chart 7China Tech: Buyer Beware The first and second year mark the peak impact. The negative profile of Chinese tech stocks relative to their global peers suggests that the current crackdown is stretched, although there is little sign of bottom formation yet (Chart 7). The crackdown began with Alibaba founder Jack Ma, and Alibaba stocks have yet to arrest their fall either in absolute terms or relative to the Hang Seng tech index. Bottom Line: A technical bounce is highly likely for Chinese stocks, especially tech, but we would not recommend playing it because of the negative structural factors. For instance, we fully expect the US to delist Chinese companies that do not meet accounting standards. The Chinese Government’s Pain Threshold? The government is not all-powerful – it faces financial and economic constraints, even if political checks and balances are missing. Beijing does not have an interest in destroying its most innovative companies and sectors. Its goal is to maintain the regime’s survival and power. China’s crackdown on private companies goes against its strategic interest of promoting innovation and therefore it cannot continue indefinitely. The hurried meeting of the China Securities Regulatory Commission with top bankers on July 28 suggests policymakers are already feeling the heat.7 In the case of Ant Group, the company ultimately paid a roughly $3 billion fine (which is 18% of its annual revenues) and was forced to restructure. Ant learned that if it wants to behave more like a bank athen it will be regulated more like a bank. Yet investors will still have to wrestle with the long-term implications of China’s arbitrary use of state power to crack down on various companies and IPOs. This is negative for entrepreneurship and innovation, regardless of the government’s intentions. Chart 8China's Pain Threshold = Property Sector Ultimately the property sector is the critical bellwether: it is a prime target of the government’s measures against speculative asset bubbles. It is also an area where authorities hope to ease the cost of living for Chinese households, whose birth rates and fertility rates are collapsing. While there is no risk of China’s entire economy crumbling because of a crackdown on ride-hailing apps or tutoring services, there is a risk of the economy crumbling if over-zealous regulators crush animal spirits in the $52 trillion property sector, as estimated by Goldman Sachs in 2019. Property is the primary store of wealth for Chinese households and businesses and falling property prices could well lead to an unsustainable rise in debt burdens, a nationwide debt-deflation spiral, and a Japanese-style liquidity trap. Judging by residential floor space started, China is rapidly approaching its overall economic pain threshold, meaning that property sector restrictions should ease, while monetary and credit policy should get easier as necessary to preserve the economic recovery (Chart 8). The economy should improve just in time for the party congress in late 2022. Bottom Line: China will be forced to maintain relatively easy monetary and fiscal policy and avoid pricking the property bubble, which should lend some support to the global recovery and emerging markets economies over the cyclical (12-month) time frame. China’s Regulation And Demographic Pressures Is the Chinese government not acting in the public interest by tamping down financial excesses, discouraging anti-competitive corporate practices, and combating social ills? Yes, there is truth to this. But arbitrary administrative controls will not increase the birth rate, corporate productivity, or potential GDP growth. First, it is true that Chinese households cite high prices for education, housing, and medicine as reasons not to have children (Chart 9). However, price caps do not attack the root causes of these problems. The lack of financial security and investment options has long fueled high house prices. The rabid desire to get ahead in life and the exam-oriented education system have long fueled high education prices. Monetary and fiscal authorities are forced to maintain an accommodative environment to maintain minimum levels of economic growth amid high indebtedness – and yet easy money policies fuel asset price inflation. In Japan, fertility rates began falling with economic development, the entrance of women in the work force, and the rise of consumer society. The fertility rate kept falling even when the country slipped into deflation. It perked up when prices started rising again! But it relapsed after the Great Recession and Fukushima nuclear crisis (Chart 10, top panel). Chart 9China: Concerns About Having Children China’s fertility rate bottomed in the 1990s and has gradually recovered despite the historic surge in property prices (Chart 10, second panel), though it is still well below the replacement rate needed to reverse China’s demographic decline in the absence of immigration. A lower cost of living and a higher quality of life will be positive for fertility but will require deeper reforms.8 Chart 10Fertility Fell In Japan Despite Falling Prices At the same time, arbitrary regulatory crackdowns that punish entrepreneurs are not likely to boost productivity. Anti-trust actions could increase competition, which would be positive for productivity, but China’s anti-trust actions are not conducted according to rule of law, or due process, so they increase uncertainty rather than providing a more stable investment environment. China’s tech crackdown is also aimed at limiting vulnerability to foreign (American) authorities. Yet disengagement with the global economy will reduce competition, innovation, and productivity in China. Bottom Line: China’s demographic decline will require larger structural changes. It will not be reversed by an arbitrary game of whack-a-mole against the prices of housing, education, and health. India And South Asia Chart 11China Will Ease Policy... Or India Will Break Out Global investors have turned to Indian equities over the course of the year and they are now reaching a major technical top relative to Chinese stocks (Chart 11). Assuming that China pulls back on its policy tightening, this relationship should revert to mean. India faces tactical geopolitical and macroeconomic headwinds that will hit her sails and slow her down. In other words, there is no great option for emerging markets at the moment. Over the long run, India benefits if China falters. Following the peak of the second COVID-19 wave in May 2021, some high frequency indicators have showed an improvement in India’s economy. However, activity levels appear weaker than of other emerging markets (Chart 12). Given the stringency levels of India’s first lockdown last spring, year-on-year growth will look faster than it really is. As the base effect wanes, underlying weak demand will become evident. Moreover India is still vulnerable to COVID-19. Only 25% of the population has received one or more vaccine shots which is lower than the global level of 28%. The result will be a larger than expected budget deficit. India refrained from administering a large dose of government spending in 2020 (Chart 13). With key state elections due from early 2022 onwards, the government could opt for larger stimulus. This could assume the form of excise duty cuts on petroleum products or an increase in revenue expenditure. These kinds of measures will not enhance India’s productivity but will add to its fiscal deficit. Chart 12Weak Post-COVID Rebound In India – And Losing Steam Chart 13India Likely To Expand Fiscal Spending Soon Such an unexpected increase in India’s fiscal deficit could be viewed adversely by markets. India’s fiscal discipline tends to be poorer than that of peers (see Chart 13 above). Meanwhile India’s north views Pakistan unfavorably and key state elections are due in this region. Consequently, Indian policy makers may be forced to adopt a far more aggressive foreign policy response to any terrorist strikes from Pakistan or territorial incursions by China over August 2021. The US withdrawal from Afghanistan poses risks for India as it has revived the Taliban’s influence. India has a long history of being targeted by Afghani terrorist groups. And its diplomatic footprint in Afghanistan has been diminishing. Earlier in July, India decided temporarily to close its consulate in Kandahar and evacuated about 50 diplomats and security personnel. As August marks the last month of formal US presence in Afghanistan, negative surprises emanating from Afghanistan should be expected. Bottom Line: Pare exposure to Indian assets on a tactical basis. Our Emerging Markets Strategy takes a more optimistic view but geopolitical changes could act as a negative catalyst in the short term. We urge clients to stay short Indian banks. Investment Takeaways US stimulus contrasts with China’s turmoil. The US Biden administration and congressional negotiators of both parties have tentatively agreed on a $1 trillion infrastructure deal over eight years. Even if this bipartisan deal falls through, Democrats alone can and will pass another $1.3-$2.5 trillion in net deficit spending by the end of the year. Stay short the renminbi. Prefer a balance of investments in the dollar and the euro, given the cross-currents of global recovery yet mounting risks to the reflation trade. A technical bounce in Chinese stocks and tech stocks is nigh. China’s policymakers are starting to respond to immediate financial pressures. However, growth has peaked and structural factors are still negative. The geopolitical outlook is still gloomy and China’s domestic political clock is a headwind for at least 12 more months. Prefer developed market equities over emerging markets (Chart 14). Emerging markets failed to outperform in the first half of the year, contrary to our expectation that the global reflation trade would lift them. China/EM will benefit when Beijing eases policy and growth rebounds. Chart 14Emerging Markets: Not Out Of The Woods Yet Stay short Indian banks and strongman EM currencies, including the Turkish lira, the Brazilian real, and the Philippine peso. The biggest driver of EM underperformance this year is the divergence between the US and China. But until China’s policy corrects, the rest of EM faces downside risks.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Ritika Mankar, CFA Editor/Strategist ritika.mankar@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Dani Rodrik, The Globalization Paradox: Democracy and the Future of the World Economy (New York: Norton, 2011). 2 See my "Nationalism And Globalization After COVID-19," Investments & Wealth Monitor (Jan/Feb 2021), pp13-21, investmentsandwealth.org. 3 Our study of Xi’s speech is not limited to this quantitative, word-count analysis. A fuller comparison of his speech with that of his predecessors on the same occasion reveals that Xi was fundamentally more favorable toward Marx, less favorable toward Deng Xiaoping and the pro-market Third Plenum, utterly silent on notions of political reform or liberal reform, more harsh in his rhetoric toward the outside world, and hawkish about the mission of reunifying with Taiwan. 4 The Chinese side also insisted that the US stop revoking visas, punishing companies and institutes, treating the press as foreign agents, and detaining executives. It warned that cooperation – which the US seeks on the environment, Iran, North Korea, and other areas – cannot be achieved while the US imposes punitive measures. 5 See US Department of State, "Xinjiang Supply Chain Business Advisory," July 13, 2021, and "Risks and Considerations for Businesses Operating in Hong Kong," July 16, 2021, state.gov. 6 Top business executives are also subject to these displays of state power. For example, Alibaba founder Jack Ma caricatured China’s traditional banks as “pawn shops” and criticized regulators for stifling innovation. He is now lying low and has taken to painting! 7 See Emily Tan and Evelyn Cheng, "China will still allow IPOs in the United States, securities regulator tells brokerages," CNBC, July 28, 2021, cnbc.com. Officials are sensitive to the market blowback but the fact remains that IPOs in the US have been discouraged and arbitrary regulatory crackdowns are possible at any time. 8 Increasing social spending also requires local governments to raise more revenue but the central government had been cracking down on the major source of revenues for local government: land sales and local government financing vehicles. With the threat of punishment for local excesses and lack of revenue source, local governments have no choice but to cut social services, pushing affluent residents towards private services, while leaving the less fortunate with fewer services. As with financial regulations, the central government may backpedal from too tough regulation of local governments, but more economic and financial pain will be required to make it happen. The Geopolitics Of The Olympics The 2020 Summer Olympics are currently underway in Tokyo, even though it is 2021. The arenas are mostly empty given the global pandemic and economic slowdown. Every four years the Summer Olympics create a golden opportunity for the host nation to showcase its achievements, infrastructure, culture, and beauty. But the Olympics also have a long history of geopolitical significance: terrorist acts, war protests, social demonstrations, and boycotts. In 1906 an Irish athlete climbed a flag pole to wave the Irish flag in protest of his selection to the British team instead of the Irish one. In 1968 two African American athletes raised their fists as an act of protest against racial discrimination in the US after the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. In 1972, the Palestinian terrorist group Black September massacred eleven Israeli Olympians in Munich, Germany. In 1980 the US led the western bloc to boycott the Moscow Olympics while the Soviet Union and its allies retaliated by boycotting the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics. In 2008, Russia used the Olympics as a convenient distraction from its invasion of Georgia, a major step in its geopolitical resurgence. So far, thankfully, the Tokyo Olympics have gone without incident. However, looking forward, geopolitics is already looming over the upcoming 2022 Winter Olympics in Beijing. How the world has changed. The 2008 Summer Olympics marked China’s global coming-of-age celebration. The breathtaking opening ceremony featured 15,000 performers and cost $100 million. The $350 million Bird’s Nest Stadium showcased to the world China’s long history, economic prowess, and various other triumphs. All of this took place while the western democratic capitalist economies grappled with what would become the worst financial and economic crisis since the Great Depression. In 2008, global elites spoke of China as a “responsible stakeholder” that was conducting a “peaceful rise” in international affairs. The world welcomed its roughly $600 billion stimulus. Now elites speak of China as primarily a threat and a competitor, a “revisionist” state challenging the liberal world order. China is blamed for a lack of transparency (if not virological malfeasance) in handling the COVID-19 pandemic. It is blamed for breaking governance promises and violating human rights in Hong Kong, for alleged genocide in Xinjiang, and for a list of other wrongdoings, including tough “Wolf Warrior” diplomacy, cyber-crime and cyber-sabotage, and revanchist maritime-territorial claims. Even aside from these accusations it is clear that China is suffering greater financial volatility as a result of its conflicting economic goals. Talk of a diplomatic or even full boycott of Beijing’s winter games is already brewing. Sponsors are also second-guessing their involvement. More than half of Canadians support boycotting the winter games. Germany is another bellwether to watch. In 2014, Germany’s president (not chancellor) boycotted the Sochi Olympics; in 2021, the EU and China are witnessing a major deterioration of relations. Parliamentarians in the UK, Italy, Sweden, Switzerland, and Norway have asked their governments to outline their official stance on the winter games. In the age of “woke capitalism,” a sponsorship boycott of the games is a possibility. This is especially true given the recent Chinese backlash against European multinational corporations for violating China’s own rules of political correctness. A boycott which includes any members of the US, Norway, Canada, Sweden, Germany, or the Netherlands would be substantial as these are the top performers in the Winter Olympics. Even if there is no boycott, there is bound to be some political protests and social demonstrations, and China will not be able to censor anything said by Western broadcasters televising the events. Athletes usually suffer backlash at home if they make critical statements about their country, but they run very little risk of a backlash for criticizing China. If anything, protests against China’s handling of human rights will be tacitly encouraged. Beijing, for its part, will likely overreact, as these days it not only controls the message at home but also attempts more actively to export censorship. This is precisely what the western governments are now trying to counteract, for their own political purposes. The bottom line is that the 2008 Beijing Olympics reflected China’s strengths in stark contrast with the failures of democratic capitalism, while the 2022 Olympics are likely to highlight the opposite: China’s weaknesses, even as the liberal democracies attempt a revival of their global leadership.   Jesse Anak Kuri Associate Editor Jesse.Kuri@bcaresearch.com Section II: GeoRisk Indicator China Russia United Kingdom Germany France Italy Canada Spain Taiwan Korea Turkey Brazil Australia Section III: Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights China’s broad equity market performance since the PBoC cut its reserve requirement ratio (RRR) is consistent with our view. While the central bank’s policy tone remains dovish, a single reduction in the RRR rate has a limited impact on the economy. Divergent sector performance points to an ongoing pressure for structural reforms, ranging from traditional economic pillars to some of the new economy sectors. The bond market is betting on more rate cuts. While we expect more monetary policy easing later this year, the bond market may be ahead of itself and vulnerable to a near-term reassessment of policy and growth.  Stay underweight Chinese stocks until sure signs of policy easing emerge. Feature Chart 1Overexcited Bond buyers, Unimpressed Equity Investors China’s bond markets rallied in the two weeks following the PBoC’s 50bps reduction in the RRR. The A-share market, on the other hand, moved sideways until the big selloff earlier this week (Chart 1). Chinese policymakers’ continued crackdown on internet companies forced offshore Chinese equities to drop by 13% so far in July.  As we previously highlighted, a single RRR cut, at the most, represents a continuation in the central bank’s dovish policy stance.Meanwhile, China continues to push for structural reforms and shows no signs of easing industry regulations. In this week's report, we review the response of investors to the RRR cut and recent policy moves, both at the broad market and sector levels. We expect that China’s macro policy measures will eventually become more reflationary to shore up domestic demand next year. However, to change our underweight stance on Chinese stocks, we would need more evidence before concluding that policies on the macro level have eased enough and will lead to a cyclical uptrend in the country’s economy. While Chinese policymakers are unlikely to lift the existing sector regulations anytime soon, the strength in policy tightening may start to moderate in the next 12 months given that regulators’ ultimate goal is to promote domestic innovation and productivity. Chinese equities, particularly the ones in the offshore market, have underperformed global stocks for most of this year. We think a bottom in Chinese stocks’ relative performance may be near, however, we recommend investors stay the course for now.  Unimpressed Equity Investors The performance in both China’s onshore and offshore equity markets suggests market participants agree with our assessment, that a single reduction in RRR does not signal the beginning of broad-based reflationary efforts by Chinese authorities. Moreover, the divergence in sector performance continues pointing to a policy pivoting away from the traditional pillars in the economy. Charts 2A and 2B present the relative performance of Chinese investable and onshore stocks versus the emerging market (EM) and global benchmarks, both in USD and rebased to 100 on the day of the RRR cut announcement. The initial reaction to the announcement was modestly positive, with Chinese equities gaining in relative terms versus their global peers. However, the small gains disappeared less than a week after the RRR’s trim, reflecting investors’ lack of confidence in the stimulative effects from a one-off cut. Chart 2AA Lackluster Offshore Equity Market... Chart 2B...The Pickup In The Onshore Market Did Not Last Long Either Chart 3The Real-Economy Sectors In The Offshore Market Also Underperformed China’s heightened regulatory oversight on its internet companies, including the recent clampdown on private tutoring firms, has further dampened the appetite for Chinese offshore stocks, which are concentrated in internet titans. Nonetheless, the real economy sectors in the MSCI China Index also underperformed their global peers, indicating that investors’ risk-off sentiment towards Chinese stocks is widespread (Chart 3). Furthermore, divergent sector performance is consistent with our view that it is too early to call a loosening in China’s macro policy. In addition to a continued underperformance in real estate sector stocks, domestic infrastructure stocks also failed to break above their technical resistance relative to the overall domestic market and global stocks (Charts 4A and 4B). The market signals suggest that a significant ramp up in infrastructure spending in China is not imminent. Presumably, any meaningful improvement in the country’s fiscal spending would cause the earnings outlook for domestic infrastructure stocks to brighten considerably relative to the domestic market and the global average. Chart 4AProperty Stocks On A Free Fall Due To Tightened Regulations Chart 4BNo Sign Of Improvement In Infrastructure Stocks Interestingly, the BCA China Play Index, which tracks a portfolio of assets sensitive to the outlook for Chinese growth and reflation,1 has soared since the second quarter of last year. It presents nearly a mirror image of onshore Chinese infrastructure stocks (Chart 5). Such a stark contrast in the performance between the BCA China Play Index and onshore Chinese infrastructure stocks occurred in the past and we are inclined to trust the market signals from the latter rather than the former.  The Chinese Li-Keqiang Index (LKI) of industrial activity leads the BCA China Play Index by about two to three months (Chart 6). The LKI declined non-trivially in the face of a sharp reduction in credit growth and pressing structural reforms in 1H21, suggesting that risks to the China Play Index will be to the downside in the coming months. Chart 5Which One Is Sending The Right Signal? Chart 6China's Li Keqiang Index May Be Flashing Amber On the surface, the divergence between the performance in China’s blue-chip stocks and ChiNext, a NASDAQ-style subsidiary of the Shenzhen Stock Exchange, seems consistent with falling financing costs this year (Chart 7). ChiNext is tech-heavy and sensitive to changes in interest rates.  However, ChiNext’s outperformance relative to the aggregate A-share market also reflects China’s policy direction, which is a strategic push for technology self-sufficiency and a significant increase in high-tech infrastructure investment (Chart 8).   Chart 7Chinese 'High-Tech' Stocks Benefit From Lower Rates... Chart 8...But Policy Supports Have Been A Non-Trivial Factor Bottom Line: Signals from China’s equities, both in general and on a per-sector basis, suggest that investors are not betting on a meaningful easing in the country’s policy. Making Sense Of The Bond Market The RRR cut exacerbated China’s nascent bond market rally as expectations continue to climb that additional policy easing will be forthcoming. While we agree with the bond market that China’s monetary policy will eventually turn more accommodative, the timing and speed of easing may disappoint investors. The depth in the decline of sovereign bond yields in recent weeks makes the fixed-income market vulnerable to repricing in the coming months. After hitting a peak of 3.3% in November last year, China’s 10-year government bond yield has fluctuated on a downward trend. The rollover in yields coincided with a top in several key economic indicators, such as the PMI, credit impulse and the China Economic Surprise Index (ESI) (Chart 9). Falling demand for bank credit relative to liquidity supply - indicating corporates' lower propensity to invest in the real economy - further depressed bond yields (Chart 10). Chart 9Yields Fell When The Economy Peaked Chart 10Lower Propensity To Invest In Real Economy Also Helped Pushing Down Bond Yields Although the momentum in China’s economic growth has peaked, the magnitude of the decline in the 10-year bond yield has likely overstated the degree of the economic slowdown. As illustrated in Chart 9, the pace of the decline in the 10-year bond yield in the past three months was as rapid as during the height of previous economic downturns.  Those economic slowdowns involved more than a single RRR cut, including the ones that coincided with the US-China trade war in 2018 and those triggered by a prolonged deflationary cycle in 2015/16. Chart 11Is The Bond Market Ahead Of Itself? From a technical perspective, the 10-year government yield has become stretched versus the underlying trend in yields as defined by the 200-day moving average (Chart 11). The steep decline in the long-date bond yield suggests that the market has priced in more potential rate cuts as well as weaknesses in China’s economy. China’s ESI, which is a gauge of market psychology, has ticked up of late. If authorities at the Politburo meeting later this month show any reluctance in further reducing rates, then a reassessment of policy will likely push up bond yields in the coming weeks. COVID-19 remains a risk to this view, however, given China’s zero tolerance towards domestic infection cases.  Even localized outbreaks will probably cause sporadic disruptions in economic activity and dampen optimism, helping to push sovereign yields even lower. Bottom Line: We remain cautious about the sustainability of the recent bond market rally, barring large disruptions caused by the COVID-19 Delta variant. The market lacks catalysts for Chinese government bond yields to trigger significant moves in either direction. Moreover, the plummet in yields in the past few weeks makes bonds vulnerable to a price correction in the near term.   Investment Conclusions While the bond market is betting on slower economic growth and more rate cuts, the timing of further policy easing is in question and the magnitude may be smaller than the market has already priced in. Meanwhile, China’s onshore and offshore market investors remain cautious, particularly given China’s renewed focus on structural reforms.  In light of these aspects, we would not recommend that investors with a time horizon of less than three months take a long position in Chinese stocks, either in absolute terms or relative to the global benchmark. However, on a cyclical (i.e. 6-12 month) time frame, we could turn more constructive on Chinese stocks if the authorities show more willingness to respond to slowing economic activity by easing policies. Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1The assets included in the BCA China Play Index are: Chinese iron ore prices in USD; Swedish industrial equities in USD; Brazilian equities in USD; AUD/JPY; and EM high-yield bonds denominated in USD. Market/Sector Recommendations Cyclical Investment Stance

Overweight The juggernaut trend in the US software & services industry is as strong as ever, and today we are reiterating our overweight call for this large sector. First, within the context of our recent recommendation to rotate into growth, software & services stocks are quintessential growth companies that outperform during periods of a growth slowdown and benefit from rate stabilization. Second, the US private fixed investment in software is going to the moon with the latest print making a 20-year high (top panel). There is no doubt that all this capex will boost both top-line and bottom-line growth. Finally, software & services earnings growth expectation data is also revealing. Sell-side analysts have completely thrown in the towel on software companies with relative forward earnings probing dotcom and GFC era Mariana Trenches (bottom panel). Bottom Line: Secular software & services growth story remains intact and we reiterate our overweight recommendation for this key sector.  

Highlights Tactically downgrade cyclical equities from overweight in Europe. The shift in global growth drivers, the beginning of the global liquidity withdrawal, and lingering COVID worries create headwinds for the cyclicals-to-defensives ratio this summer. Weaker global inflation expectations, commodity prices, and a dollar rebound will accompany this period of turbulence. The relative technical and valuation backdrop will also contribute to this period. Short consumer discretionary / long telecommunication is a high-octane version of the trade. Short technology / long healthcare is its lower-risk / lower-reward cousin. This temporary portfolio shift is a risk management move to capitalize on our positive 18- to 24- month view on cyclicals. Feature Last week, we recommended investors adopt a more defensive tactical posture.  They should raise cash and shift into defensive quality names in order to weather a summer replete with potential downside risk. This will place investors in a good position to shift back into a more aggressive stance this fall, when cyclical sectors should resume their outperformance. This week, we explore this idea in more detail. The combination of a Chinese credit slowdown, a potential transition in the driver of growth away from goods into services, and a shift in tone from global central banks will feed the expected market volatility this summer. European defensive stocks are set to outperform during this period. Buying telecommunication equities / selling consumer discretionary stocks is a high octane bet on this trend, while going long healthcare / short technology shares is its low-risk incarnation. Summer Storms This summer, three forces will feed some downside risk in the market and, more specifically, an underperformance of cyclical sectors relative to defensive ones: a transition in global growth, preliminary signs that global central banks will begin to take away the punch bowl, and disappointments caused by COVID variants. Growth Transition The global economy is set to cool down as we transition away from the first stage of the post-pandemic recovery. As we showed last week, China’s deteriorating credit impulse is consistent with global industrial activity receding from its extremely robust pace of expansion (Chart 1). The continued decline in China’s banking system excess reserve ratio suggests that total social financing flows will slow further. Consequently, China’s intake of raw materials and industrial goods will decelerate, which will impact global industrial activity negatively. Already, the New Orders component of China’s Manufacturing PMI has rolled over. The disappointment of Chinese retail sales last week further indicates that China will act as a drag on global growth in the coming quarters. We have also highlighted that the combined effect of higher yields and oil prices has become strong enough to alter negatively the path of global industrial activity going forward. Our Global Growth Tax indicator, which includes both variables, shows that the US ISM Manufacturing survey and the global manufacturing PMI have reached their apex and will moderate this summer (Chart 2). Chart 1The China Drag Chart 2Rising Costs Bite The problem for global growth is one of changing leadership. Global economic activity is not about to collapse, but the extraordinary surge in goods consumption that started in 2020 will make room for a catch-up in the service sector. As an example, US retail sales stand 15% above their pre-pandemic trends; however, services spending still lies 7% below its pre-pandemic tendency (Chart 3). Thus, as summer progresses, the recent deceleration in consumer spending on goods will continue and services will progressively pick up the slack. The change in growth leadership will cause some temporary trepidation in global economic activity, because it is happening when the effect of both the Chinese credit slowdown and the previous increase in yields and oil will be most potent. As a result, we expect the G-10 Economic Surprises Index to follow that of China and experience an air pocket this summer (Chart 4). Chart 3From Goods To Services Chart 4Where China Goes, So Will The G-10   The Chaperone Is On The Way More than 65 years ago, former Fed Chair William McChesney Martin noted that the job of central bankers was to be “the chaperone who has ordered the punch bowl removed just as the party was really warming up.” Chart 5The Chaperone Is Waking Up Today, the party is a rager, and central bankers are indicating that they will remove the punch bowl soon. Real estate speculation is worrying the Bank of Canada, and its balance sheet has already shrunk by C$99 billion, to C$476 billion. The Norges Bank has indicted that it will lift interest rates twice this year. The Reserve Bank of New Zealand is set to lift the Official Cash Rate soon. The Bank of England has begun to adjust its asset purchases and could begin a full-fledge tapering this year. The 800-pound gorilla is the Fed, which telegraphed more clearly last week its intention to raise rates twice in 2023, and therefore moved closer to the pricing of the OIS curve (Chart 5). Implied in this forecast, the Fed will start tapering its asset purchase in early 2022 at the latest. This change in tone by global central banks is not a major problem for the business cycle – global rates are still far below any reasonable estimates of the neutral rate of interest, but periods of transition in monetary policy are often associated with transitory market turbulences. This time will not be an exception, especially because it is happening when global growth is downshifting. Delta, Gamma, Epsilon, etc? Chart 6Depressed Macro Volatility With the rapid progress of vaccination, the worst of the COVID tragedy is behind us. Nonetheless, the pandemic is not yet fully in the rear-view mirror, not even in the Western nations that lead the global inoculation campaign. SARS-CoV-2 continues to evolve and will therefore produce new variants over time, some of which will be problematic. The UK illustrates this phenomenon. The government has postponed the so-called Freedom Day, when life returns to normal, by five weeks despite the country’s high vaccination rate. The Delta variant is significantly increasing among the unvaccinated and not fully inoculated Britons. Many countries will also face this problem. These delays will be minor and will not threaten national recoveries. However, they will feed market tensions in a context where global macro volatility is low (Chart 6), global growth is already peaking, and monetary accommodation is receding. Global Market Implications… The confluence of the change in global economic growth leadership, the upcoming liquidity removal, and the potential for short-lived delays to the global economic re-opening point toward a decline in global inflation expectations, a rebound in the US dollar, weaker commodity prices, and an underperformance of global cyclical relative to defensive equities. Over the coming months, inflation breakeven rates are likely to soften, while real yields will rise modestly. In May, US inflation breakeven rates peaked near 2.6%, their highest level in ten years. A weaker global growth impulse in combination with a Fed that is more willing to remove some monetary accommodation will cool inflationary fears among investors and cause inflation expectations to decline further. However, the specter of tighter policy will also support TIPS yields. Bond yields are likely to correct somewhat more over the summer. Bond prices have not yet fully purged their oversold conditions (Chart 7); thus, a decrease in inflation expectations will temporarily support Treasury prices, even if real yields do not fall. Recent market action is moving in this direction. Last week, by Thursday evening, 10-year Treasury yields had already lost their 9 bps rise that followed Wednesday’s FOMC meeting. 30-year Treasury yields have plunged to a four-month low. Bund yields are unable to hang on to their gains either. The dollar has more upside this summer. Higher real US yields offer a potent backing for a DXY that still refuses to drop below 89. Moreover, the greenback is a highly counter-cyclical currency and is particularly sensitive to the gyrations in the global industrial cycle. Thus, the deceleration in the global manufacturing cycle will create a temporary tailwind for the greenback. Over the past three years, the gap between US TIPS yields and the Chinese Economic Surprise index explained the fluctuation of the DXY; it currently points toward a continued rebound in the USD (Chart 8). Even if this move is ephemeral, it will have implications for investors this summer. Chart 7Technical Backdrop For Bonds Chart 8Near-Term Upside For The DXY Commodities will also suffer. Natural resource prices have rallied in a parabolic fashion and our Composite Technical Indicator is massively overbought (Chart 9). Meanwhile, Chinese authorities are verbally jawboning industrial metal prices and have begun to release copper, zinc, aluminum, and nickel from their stockpiles. In this context, the Chinese credit slowdown and the imminent removal of monetary accommodation in various corners of the globe will catalyze a correction in commodities, even if a new supercycle has begun. The recent travails of lumber prices, which have collapsed 47% since May 7 (while they still remain in technical bull market!), may constitute a canary in the coalmine for the wider commodity complex. Global cyclical equities have greater downside against their defensive counterparts. US markets are global trendsetters; while the S&P cyclicals have lost some altitude compared to defensives, they have yet to purge their oversold state and remain very expensive (Chart 10). This backdrop makes them vulnerable to slowing Chinese import growth, a stronger dollar, and weaker commodity prices. Chart 9Will The GSCI Follow Lumber? Chart 10Vulnerable Global Cyclicals   … And European Investment Implications Chart 11European Cyclicals Are Also At Risk The European cyclicals-to-defensives ratio is vulnerable, like it is in the US. Hence, a more defensive portfolio bias makes sense for the summer, which should allow investors to regain maximum cyclical exposure later this year. Short consumer discretionary / long telecommunications and short technology / long healthcare are pair trades with particularly attractive risk profiles. The cyclicals-to-defensives ratio is technically unattractive. The relative share prices stand toward the top of their 16-year trading range (Chart 11). Moreover, their 52-week momentum measure is rolling over at a highly elevated level, while the 13-week rate of change is deteriorating. Meanwhile, the Combined Mechanical Valuation Indicator1 (CMVI) of the cyclicals towers far above that of the defensives and is consistent with a corrective episode (Chart 11, bottom panel). The drivers of the performance of Eurozone cyclical relative to defensive sectors confirm that cyclicals could suffer a turbulent summer. For instance: The potential for further declines in global yields does not bode well for the European cyclicals-to-defensives ratio (Chart 12). Weaknesses in market-based inflation expectations would prove particularly threatening (Chart 12, bottom panel). The deceleration in China’s total social financing flows anticipates an underperformance of European cyclicals (Chart 13). As China’s credit decelerates, so will the earnings revisions of cyclical equities. Moreover, a weaker Chinese TSF is consistent with falling Treasury yields. Chart 12Lower Inflation Expectations Equals Underperforming Cyclicals Chart 13Cyclicals Listen To China The potential for weaker commodity prices is another problem for European cyclical equities (Chart 14). Commodities capture the ebb and flow of global growth sentiment, which is also a driver of the earnings revisions of cyclicals relative to defensives. Moreover, commodity prices greatly affect the earnings of cyclical equities. Unsurprisingly, the momentum of the European cyclicals-to-defensives ratio correlates closely with the BCA Commodity Composite Technical Indicator (Chart 14, bottom panel). Cyclicals perform poorly when the dollar appreciates. The Eurozone’s cyclicals-to-defensives ratio moves in lock-step with the euro and high-beta cyclical currencies (Chart 15). These relationships reflect the counter-cyclicality of the dollar, as well as the negative effect on global financial conditions of its rallies, and thus, on the earnings outlook for cyclicals. Chart 14Beware The Impact Of Weaker Commodities Chart 15A Strong Dollar Hurts European Cyclicals Chart 16Short Consumer Discretionary And Long Telecommunication Based on these observations, we are tactically downgrading cyclicals from our overweight stance for the summer, despite our conviction that cyclicals have upside on an 18- to 24-month basis. We look at this move as risk management. For investors looking to bet on a potential underperformance of cyclical equities in Europe, we recommend two positions: a high-octane pair trade and a lower-risk one. The high-octane version is to sell consumer discretionary stocks and buy telecommunications ones (Chart 16). This pair trade is exposed to lower yields, lower inflation expectations, and the shift in growth drivers from China and goods consumption to services expenditures. Additionally, the relative 52-week momentum measure is overextended, while the 13-week rate of change is already sagging. The CMVI of the consumer discretionary sector is extremely elevated, while that of telecommunication stocks is the most depressed of any Eurozone sector. Consequently, the gap between the two sectors’ CMVI stands at nearly three-sigma, which is concerning because the RoE of consumer discretionary shares lies 7% below that of the telecoms industry (Chart 16, third and fourth panel). Because higher RoEs should justify higher valuations, consumer discretionary and telecommunication stand out as the greatest outliers among European sectors (Chart 17). As an added benefit, this trade enjoys a positive dividend carry of more than 2.5%. Chart 17Spot The Outliers Chart 18Short Technology And Long Healthcare The low octane pair trade is to sell technology stocks and buy healthcare names instead. This position offers lower expected returns but also a lower risk, because both sectors are growth stocks and they will benefit from falling yields and inflation expectations. However, based on their respective CMVI, tech equities are much more expensive than healthcare ones (Chart 18), while they are also extremely overbought. Thus, healthcare should benefit more from falling yields and inflation expectations than tech. Moreover, technology is a more cyclical sector than healthcare; it will therefore be more sensitive to the evolution of global growth. Bottom Line: We remain positive on the outlook for cyclical equities on an 18- to 24-month horizon, but the changing global growth leadership, the imminent removal of global monetary accommodation, and the demanding valuation and technical backdrop of the European cyclicals-to-defensives ratio suggest that a period of turbulence will materialize this summer. Thus, we are tactically downgrading cyclicals. Investors should consider going long telecommunications / short consumer discretionary as a high-octane tactical bet on this portfolio stance. Buying healthcare / selling technology would constitute a lower risk / lower return play. Mathieu Savary, Chief European Investment Strategist Mathieu@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 For a detailed explanation of the Combined Mechanical Valuation Indicator, see Special Report, “Valuation – A Mechanical Approach,” dated May 31, 2021. Currency Performance Fixed Income Performance Government Bonds Corporate Bonds Equity Performance Major Stock Indices Geographic Performance Sector Performance

Dear Client, Last week, I had the pleasure of participating in a debate with my colleague, Dhaval Joshi, on the future of cryptocurrencies. You can access a replay of the event here. Best regards, Peter Berezin Highlights The meme stock mania is unlikely to die down anytime soon. Fueled by zero-commission trading and an anti-establishment mindset, social media has given millions of retail traders the ability to coordinate attacks on individual companies. An examination of the most popular meme stocks reveals that returns were highest when both the closing price and volume during the prior day’s session were above their moving averages. For GameStop and AMC, in particular, returns averaged 11.0% and 13.9%, respectively, when both the prior day’s closing price and volume were above their 5-day moving averages, compared with -4.0% and -1.3%, respectively, when the price and volume were below their 5-day moving averages. Nearly 80% of the returns on meme stocks were earned overnight (i.e., between the close of trading and the following day’s open). The ups and downs of meme stocks have generally had little impact on the overall direction of the stock market. Nevertheless, growing interest in meme stocks is positive for equities over a medium-term horizon of about 12 months. This is because the meme stock phenomenon is drawing funds into the stock market, boosting prices and liquidity in the process. #HedgiesGetWedgies Chart 1Word Du Jour: Meme This January, the term “meme stock” entered the popular lexicon (Chart 1). That was the month that GameStop and a handful of other once-left-for-dead stocks soared to dizzying heights. Armed with stimulus checks, millions of amateur investors flocked to one of the few sources of entertainment still available to them: online trading. Tales of instant riches spread like wildfire, motivating yet more new investors to enter the fray. Whether it was stocks or cryptos, the allure of easy money was irresistible. The decision by most American brokerages to eliminate trading commissions in the fall of 2019 added fuel to the fire. Meanwhile, the proliferation of social media provided a ready-made mechanism for retail traders to coordinate attacks on individual stocks. And attack they did. Most of the companies targeted had high short interest, making them ripe for a short squeeze. The implosion of Melvin Capital demonstrated to the Reddit crowd that they, too, could beat hedge funds at their own game. “We can remain stupid longer than you can stay solvent” became their rallying cry. In a game of chicken, being perceived by your opponent as irrational boosts your odds of winning. Trading Meme Stocks For Fun And Profit If one were so inclined, how should one trade meme stocks? It helps to begin with some data. Table 1 displays average daily returns from the start of 2021 for six popular meme stocks: GameStop (GME), AMC Entertainment (AMC), Blackberry (BB), Nokia (NOK), Bed Bath & Beyond (BBBY) and Koss Corp (KOSS). A few observations stand out: There is strong price momentum. Looking across all six stocks, the average daily return was 5.9% when the prior day’s closing price was above its 5-day moving average, compared to 0.3% when the prior day’s close was below its 5-day moving average. The average daily return for stocks in our sample was 3.3%. Volatility predicts higher returns. Meme stocks gained 4.3%, on average, when the prior day’s return was positive compared to 2.4% when it was negative. Looking only at the subset of cases where the prior day’s return was either above 10% or below -10%, we find that meme stocks gained 11.3% when the price rose more than 10% during the prior day and gained a still-robust 7.5% when the price dropped more than 10% during the prior day. Strong volume predicts higher returns. Consistent with the volatility observation, meme stocks gained an average of 6.1% when the volume in the prior day’s trading session was above its 5-day moving average, compared to just 1.3% when the volume was below its 5-day moving average. Meme stocks do best after the close of trading. Nearly 80% of returns on meme stocks were earned overnight (i.e., between the close of trading and the following day’s open). We attribute this phenomenon to the tendency of many traders to exit positions before the closing bell and reopen them at the start of trading the following day. Such a pattern of selling and repurchasing tends to boost overnight returns. Historically, a similar pattern has held for most other US stocks (Chart 2). Table 1Meme Stock: Returns And Patterns Chart 2Bear By Day, Bull By Night In summary, meme stocks perform best when they are trading above their 5-day moving average. Both volatility and strong volume predict positive returns. Holding (hodling?)1 meme stocks overnight can significantly enhance returns. Be An Ape Chart 3The BUZZ ETF Is Off To A Lackluster Start Fans of AMC often refer to themselves as “apes.” The moniker is fitting, if not ironic, given the tendency of meme investors to ape one another in their trading decisions. The VanEck Vectors Social Sentiment ETF (BUZZ) tries to get in front of the apes and other meme investors by buying stocks that are garnering increasing attention from social media, news articles, blog posts, and other sources. While it is too early to assess the value of this approach, it should be noted that the fund has lagged the S&P 500 for most of the time since its inception in March (Chart 3). A potentially more fruitful approach, and one that I myself have adopted, is to seek out meme stocks before they become meme stocks. For example, Cinemark (CNK) is the second biggest publicly-listed movie theater chain in the US. The share of its float sold short is almost identical to AMC’s. Yet, the Reddit crowd has largely ignored it. Could that change? Only time will tell. Don’t Get A Wedgie: How To Short Meme Stocks Safely While meme stocks can benefit from positive price momentum in the short term, it is at the expense of lower returns down the road. By any reasonable measure, the leading meme stocks are grossly overvalued. Knowing when a meme stock will fall back to earth is no easy task, however. The discussion in this report provides one avenue for short-term traders to mitigate risk: Short meme stocks only when price and volume are trending lower. The average daily return for GME and AMC was 11.0% and 13.9%, respectively, when both the prior day’s closing price and volume were above their 5-day moving averages, compared with -4.0% and -1.3%, respectively, when the price and volume were below their 5-day moving averages. With that in mind, we are opening a new tactical trade going short an equally-weighted basket of AMC and GME. The trade will only be active when the prior day’s closing price and volume are below their 5-day moving averages.2  Longer-term investors looking to short meme stocks without having to frequently open and close positions should consider using the “exponential” shorting technique discussed in a recent report. The technique flips the usual risk-reward trade-off from going short on its head. Rather than facing unlimited losses and a maximum gain of only 100% of the initial position, our shorting strategy caps the loss at 100% but allows for unlimited gains. Broad Market Implications As Chart 4 illustrates, the ups and downs of meme stocks have generally had little impact on the overall direction of the stock market. Nevertheless, growing interest in meme stocks is positive for equities over a medium-term horizon of about 12 months. This is because the meme stock phenomenon is drawing funds into the stock market, boosting prices and liquidity in the process. Chart 4Meme Stock Roller-Coaster: Little Impact On The Broader Market Chart 5Global Equity Risk Premium Remains Quite High   While the “stimmy” checks have already been deposited into brokerage accounts, their impact on the stock market will linger on. As we explained in Savings Gluts, Asset Shortages, And The 60/40 Split, retail investors who bid up the price of stocks will generally force institutional investors to sell their holdings.3 This will leave institutions with excess cash on hand – cash that they can deploy in other parts of the stock market. The resulting game of “hot potato” will only end when the value of the stock market rises by enough to ensure that all investors are happy with how much stock they own in relation to how much cash they hold. Given that the equity risk premium remains quite high, this dynamic likely has further to run (Chart 5). Disclosure: At the time of writing, I am personally long CNK and short AMC and GME. I previously held a short position in KOSS. Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist pberezin@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 HODL stands for “Hold On for Dear Life”. The term is widely used by traders on Wallstreetbets and other online forums. 2 The equal-weighted trade should be initiated if the conditions are met for either stock (GME, AMC) in the basket. The conditions are as follows: Both the price and volume should be below their 5-day moving average. The price and volume at the end of the day determine whether one enters the trade the next day or not. 3 An exception is when retail investors buy stock from the company itself, as has happened several times with meme stocks. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores  

Highlights Political and corporate climate activism will increase the cost of developing the resources required to produce and deliver energy going forward – e.g., oil and gas wells; pipelines; copper mines, and refineries. Over the short run, the fastest way for investor-owned companies (IOCs) to address accelerated reductions in CO2 emissions imposed by courts and boards is to walk away from the assets producing them, which could be disruptive over the medium term. Longer term, state-owned companies (SOCs) not facing the constraints of IOCs likely will be required to provide an increasing share of the resources needed to produce and distribute energy. The real difficulty will come in the medium term. Capex for critical metals like copper languishes, just as the call on these metals steadily increases over the next 30 years (Chart of the Week). The evolution to a low-carbon future has not been thought through at the global policy level. A real strategy must address underinvestment in base metals and incentivize the development of technology via a carbon tax – not emissions trading schemes – so firms can innovate to avoid it. We remain long energy and metals exposures.1 Feature And you may ask yourself, "Well … how did I get here?" David Byrne, Once In A Lifetime Energy markets – broadly defined – are radically transforming from week to week. The latest iteration of these markets' evolution is catalyzed by climate activists, who are finding increasing success in court and on corporate boards – sometimes backed by major institutional investors – and forcing oil and gas producers to accelerate CO2 emission-reduction programs.2 Climate activists' arguments are finding increasing purchase because they have merit: Years of stiff-arming investors seeking clarity on the oil and gas producers' decarbonization agendas, coupled with a pronounced failure to provide returns in excess of their cost of capital, have given activists all of the ammo needed to argue their points. Chart of the WeekCall On Metals For Energy Will Increase This activism is not limited to the courts or boardrooms. Voters in democratic societies with contested elections also are seeking redress for failures of their governments to effectively channel mineral wealth back into society on an equitable basis, and to protect their environments and the habitats of indigenous populations. This voter activism is especially apparent in Chile and Peru, where elections and constitutional conventions likely will result in higher taxes and royalties on metals IOCs operating in these states, which will increase production costs and ultimately be passed on to consumers.3 These states account for ~ 40% of world copper output. IOCs Walk Away Earlier this week, Exxon walked away from an early-stage offshore oil development project in Ghana.4 This followed the unfavorable court rulings and boardroom setbacks experienced by Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron and Exxon recently (referenced in fn. 2). While the company had no comment on its abrupt departure, its action shows how IOCs can exercise their option to put a project back to its host government, thus illustrating one of the most readily available alternatives for energy IOCs to meet court- or board-mandated CO2 emissions targets. If these investments qualify as write-offs, the burden will be borne by taxpayers. As climate activism increases, state-owned companies (SOCs) not facing the constraints of IOCs likely will be required to provide an increasing share of the resources – particularly oil and gas – needed to produce and distribute energy going forward. This is not an unalloyed benefit, as the SOCs still face stranded-asset risks, if they invest in longer-lived assets that are obviated by a successful renewables + grid buildout globally. That is a cost that will have to be compensated, when the SOCs work up their capex allocations. Still, if legal and investor activism significantly accelerates IOCs' capex reductions in oil and gas projects, the SOCs – particularly those in OPEC 2.0 – will be able to expand their position as the dominant supplier in the global oil market, and could perhaps increase their influence on price levels and forward-curve dynamics (Chart 2).5 Chart 2OPEC 2.0s Could Expand If Investor Activism Increases Higher Call On Metals At present, there is a lot of talk about the need to invest in renewable electricity generation and the grid structure supporting it, but very little in the way of planning for this transition. Other than repeated assertions of its necessity, little is being said regarding how exactly this strategy will be executed given the magnitude of the supply increase in metals required. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the refined copper market, which has been in a physical deficit – i.e., production minus consumption is negative – for the last 6 years (Chart 3). Physical copper markets in China, which consumes more than 50% of refined output, remain extremely tight, as can be seen in the ongoing weakness of treating charges and refining charges (TC/RC) for the past year (Chart 4). These charges are inversely correlated to prices – when TC/RCs are low, it means there is surplus refining capacity for copper – unrefined metal is scarce, which drives down demand for these services. Chart 3Coppers Physical Deficit Likely Persist Chart 4Chinas Refined Copper Supply Remains TightTheoretically, high prices will incentivize higher levels of production. However, after the last decade’s ill-timed investment in new mine discoveries and expansions, mining companies have become more wary with their investments, and are using earnings to pay dividends and reduce debt. This leads us to believe that mining companies will not invest in new mine discoveries but will use capital expenditure to expand brownfield projects to meet rising demand. In the last decade, as copper demand rose, capex for copper rose from 2010-2012, and fell from 2013-2016 (Chart 5). During this time, the copper ore grade was on a declining trend. This implies that the new copper brought online was being mined from lower-grade ore, due to the expansion of existing projects(Chart 6). Chart 5Copper Capex Growth Remains Weak Chart 6Copper Ore-Quality Declines Persist Through Capex Cycle Capex directed at keeping ore production above consumption will not be sufficient to avoid major depletions of ore supplies beginning in 2024, according to Wood Mackenzie. The consultancy foresees a cumulative deficit of ~ 16mm MT by 2040. Plugging this gap will require $325-$500 billion of investment in the copper mining sector.6 The Case For A Carbon Tax The low-carbon future remains something of a will-o'-the-wisp – seen off in the future but not really developed in the present. Most striking in discussions of the low-carbon transition is the assumption of resource availability – particularly bases metals –in, e.g., the IEA's Net Zero by 2050, A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector, published last month. In the IEA's document, further investment in hydrocarbons is not required beyond 2025. The copper, aluminum, steel, etc., required to build the generation and supporting grid infrastructure will be available and callable as needed to build all the renewable generation the world requires. The document is agnostic between carbon trading and carbon taxes as a way to price carbon and incentivize the technology that would allow firms and households to avoid a direct cost on carbon. A real strategy must address the fact that most of the world will continue to rely on fossil fuels for decades, as development goals are pursued. Underinvestment in base metals and its implications for the buildout of generation and grids has to be a priority if these assets are to be built. Given the 5-10-year lead times base metals mines require to come online, it is obvious that beyond the middle of this decade, the physical reality of demand exceeding supply will assert itself. A good start would be a global effort to impose and collect carbon taxes uniformly across states.7 This would need to be augmented with a carbon club, which restricts admission and trading privileges  to those states adopting such a scheme. Harmonizing the multiple emissions trading schemes worldwide will be a decades-long effort that is unlikely to succeed. Such schemes also can be gamed by larger players, producing pricing distortions. A hard and fast tax that is enforced in all of the members of such a carbon club would immediately focus attention on the technology required to avoid paying it – mobilizing capital, innovation and entrepreneurial drive to make it a reality. This would support carbon-capture, use and storage technologies as well, thus extending the life of existing energy resources as the next generation of metals-based resources is built out. In addition, a carbon tax raises revenue for governments, which can be used for a variety of public policies, including reducing other taxes to reduce the overall burden of taxation. Lastly, a tax eliminates the potential for short-term price volatility in the pricing of carbon – as long as households and firms know what confronts them they can plan around it.  Tax revenues also can be used to reduce the regressive nature of such levies. Investment Implications The lack of a coherent policy framework that addresses the very real constraints on the transition to a low-carbon economy makes the likelihood of a volatile, years-long evolution foreordained. We believe this will create numerous investment opportunities as underinvestment in hydrocarbons and base metals production predisposes oil, natural gas and base metals prices to move higher in the face of strong and rising demand. We remain long commodity index exposure – the S&P GSCI and GSCI Commodity Dynamic Roll Strategy ETF (COMT), which is optimized to take advantage of the most backwardated commodity forward curves in the index. These positions were up 5.3% and 7.2% since inception on December 7, 2017 and March 12, 2021, respectively, at Tuesday's close. We also remain long the MSCI Global Metals & Mining Producers ETF (PICK), which is up 33.9% since it was put on December 10, 2020. Expecting continued volatility in metals – copper in particular – we will look for opportunities to re-establish positions in COMEX/CME Copper after being stopped out with gains. A trailing stop was elected on our long Dec21 copper position established September 10, 2020, which was closed out with a 48.2% gain on May 21, 2021. Our long calendar 2022 vs short calendar 2023 COMEX copper backwardation trade established April 22, 2021, was closed out on May 20, 2021, leaving us with a return of 305%.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com   Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish OPEC 2.0 offered no surprises to markets this week, as it remained committed to returning just over 2mm b/d of production to the market over the May-July period, 70% of which comes from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), according to Platts. While Iran's return to the market is not a given in OPEC 2.0's geometry, we have given better than even odds it will return to the market beginning in 3Q21 and restore most of the 1.4mm b/d not being produced at present to the market over the course of the following year. OPEC itself expects demand to increase 6mm b/d this year, somewhat above our expectation of 5.3mm b/d. Stronger demand could raise Brent prices above our average $63/bbl forecast for this year (Chart 7). Brent was trading above $71/bbl as we went to press. Base Metals: Bullish BHP declared operations at its Escondida and Spence mines were running at normal rates despite a strike by some 200 operations specialists. BHP is employing so-called substitute workers to conduct operation, according to reuters.com, which also reported separate unions at both mines are considering strike actions in the near future. Precious Metals: Bullish The Fed’s reluctance to increase nominal interest rates despite indications of higher inflation will reduce real rates, which will support higher gold prices (Chart 8). We agree with our colleagues at BCA Research's US Bond Strategy that the Fed is waiting for the US labor market to reach levels consistent with its assessment of maximum employment before it makes its initial rate hike in this interest-rate cycle. Subsequent rate changes, however, will be based on realized inflation and inflation expectations. In our opinion, the Fed is following this ultra-accommodative monetary policy approach to break the US liquidity trap, brought about by a rise in precautionary savings due to the pandemic. In addition, we continue to expect USD weakness, which also will support gold and precious metals prices. We remain long gold, expecting prices to clear $2,000/oz this year. Ags/Softs: Neutral Corn prices fell more than 2% Wednesday, following the release of USDA estimates showing 95% of the corn crop was planted by 31 May 2021, well over the 87% five-year average. This was in line with expectations. However, the Department's assessment that 76% of the crop was in good-to-excellent condition exceeded market expectations. Chart 7 Chart 8 Footnotes 1     Please see Trade Tables below. 2     Please see OPEC, Russia seen gaining more power with Shell Dutch ruling and EXCLUSIVE BlackRock backs 3 dissidents to shake up Exxon board -sources published by reuters.com June 1, 2021 and May 25, 2021. 3    Please see Chile's govt in shock loss as voters pick independents to draft constitution published by reuters.com May 17, 2021, and Peru’s elite in panic at prospect of hard-left victory in presidential election published by ft.com June 1, 2021.  Peru has seen significant capital flight on the back of these fears.  See also Results from Chile’s May 2021 elections published by IHS Markit May 21, 2021 re a higher likelihood of tax increases for the mining sector.  The risk of nationalization is de minimis, according to IHS. 4    Please see Exxon walks away from stake in deepwater Ghana block published by worldoil.com June 1, 2021. 5    Please see OPEC 2.0's Production Strategy In Focus, which we published on May 20, 2021, for a recap our how we model OPEC 2.0's strategy.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 6    Please see Will a lack of supply growth come back to bite the copper industry?, published by Wood Mackenzie on March 23, 2021. 7     Please see The Challenges and Prospects for Carbon Pricing in Europe published by the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies last month for a discussion of carbon taxes vs. emissions trading schemes.     Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2021 Summary of Closed Trades