Developed Countries

Highlights Stronger global growth in the wake of continued and expected fiscal and monetary stimulus, and progress against COVID-19 are boosting oil demand assumptions by the major data suppliers for this year.  We lifted our 2021 global demand estimate by 640k b/d to 98.25mm b/d, and assume OPEC 2.0 will make the necessary adjustments to keep Brent prices closer to $60/bbl than not, so as not to disrupt a fragile recovery. We are maintaining our 2022 and 2023 Brent forecasts at $65/bbl and $75/bbl. Commodity markets are ignoring the rising odds of armed conflict involving the US, Russia and China and their clients and allies.  Russia has massed troops on Ukraine’s border and warned the US not to interfere.  China has massed warships off the coast of the Philippines, and continues its incursions in Taiwan’s air-defense zone, keeping US forces on alert.  Intentional or accidental engagement would spike oil prices.  Two-way price risk abounds.  In addition to the risk of armed hostilities, faster distribution of vaccines would accelerate recovery and boost prices above our forecasts.  Downside risk of a resurgence in COVID-19-induced lockdowns remains, as rising death and hospitalization rates in Brazil, India and Europe attest (Chart of the Week). Feature Oil-demand estimates – ours included – are reviving in the wake of measurable progress in combating the COVID-19 pandemic in major economies, and an abundance of fiscal and monetary stimulus, particularly out of the US.1 On the back of higher IMF GDP projections, we lifted our 2021 global demand estimate by 640k b/d to 98.25mm b/d in this month’s balances. In our modeling, we assume OPEC 2.0 will make the necessary adjustments to keep Brent prices closer to $60/bbl than not, so as not to disrupt a fragile recovery. In an unusual turn of events, the early stages of the recovery in oil demand will be led by DM markets, which we proxy using OECD oil consumption (Chart 2). Thereafter, EM economies, re-take the growth lead next year and into 2023. Chart of the WeekCOVID-19 Deaths, Hospitalizations Threaten Global Recovery Chart 2DM Demand Surges This Year Absorbing OPEC 2.0 Spare Capacity We continue to model OPEC 2.0, the producer coalition led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia, as the dominant producer in the market. The growth we are expecting this year will absorb a significant share of OPEC 2.0’s spare capacity, most of which – ~ 6mm b/d of the ~ 8mm b/d – is to be found in KSA (Chart 3). The core producers’ spare capacity allows them to meet recovering demand faster than the US shale producers can mobilize rigs and crews and get new supply into gathering lines and on to main lines. We model the US shale producers as a price-taking cohort, who will produce whatever the market allows them to produce. After falling to 9.22mm b/d in 2020, we expect US production to recover to 9.56mm b/d this year, 10.65mm b/d in 2022, and 11.18mm in 2023 (Chart 4). Lower 48 production growth in the US will be led by the shales, which will account for ~ 80% of total US output each year. Chart 3Core OPEC 2.0 Spare Capacity Will Respond First To Higher Demand Chart 4Shale Is The Marginal Barrel In The Price Taking Cohort OPEC 2.0’s dominant position on the supply side allows it to capture economic rents before non-coalition producers, which will remain a disincentive to them until the spare capacity is exhausted. Thereafter, the price-taking cohort likely will fund much of its E+P activities out of retained earnings, given their limited ability to attract capital. Equity investors will continue to demand dividends that can be maintained and grown, or return of capital via share buybacks. This will restrain production growth to those firms that are profitable. We expect the OPEC 2.0 coalition’s production discipline will keep supply levels just below demand so that inventories continue to fall, just as they have done during the COVID-19 pandemic, despite the demand destruction it caused (Chart 5). These modeling assumptions lead us to continue to expect supply and demand will continue to move toward balance into 2023 (Table 1). Chart 5Supply-Demand Balances in 2021 Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) We continue to expect this balancing to induce persistent physical deficits, which will keep inventories falling into 2023 (Chart 6). As inventories are drawn, OPEC 2.0’s dominant-producer position will allow it to will keep the Brent and WTI forward curves backwardated (Chart 7).2 We are maintaining our 2022 and 2023 Brent forecasts at $65/bbl and $75/bbl (Chart 8). Chart 6OPEC 2.0 Policy Continues To Keep Supply Below Demand... Chart 7OECD Inventories Fall to 2023 Chart 8Brent Forecasts Rise As Global Economy Recovers Two-Way Price Risk Abounds Risks to our views abound on the upside and the downside. To the upside, the example of the UK and the US in mobilizing its distribution of vaccines is instructive. Both states got off to a rough start, particularly the US, which did not seem to have a strategy in place as recently as January. After the US kicked its procurement and distribution into high gear its vaccination rates soared and now appear to be on track to deliver a “normal” Fourth of July holiday in the US. The UK has begun its reopening this week. Both states are expected to achieve herd immunity in 3Q21.3 The EU, which mishandled its procurement and distribution likely benefits from lessons learned in the UK and US and achieves herd immunity in 4Q21, according to McKinsey’s research. Any acceleration in this timetable likely would lead to stronger growth and higher oil prices. The next big task for the global community will be making vaccines available to EM economies, particularly those in which the pandemic is accelerating and providing the ideal setting for mutations and the spread of variants that could become difficult to contain. The risk of a resurgence in large-scale COVID-19-induced lockdowns remains, as rising death and hospitalization rates in Brazil, India and Europe attest. Cry Havoc The other big upside risk we see is armed conflict involving the US, Russia, China and their clients and allies. Commodity markets are ignoring these risks at present. Even though they do not rise to the level of war, the odds of kinetic engagement – planes being shot down or ships engaging in battle in the South China Sea – are rising on a daily basis. This is not unexpected, as our colleagues in BCA Research’s Geopolitical Strategy pointed out recently.4 Indeed, our GPS service, led by Matt Gertken, warned the Biden administration would be tested in this manner by Russia and China from the get-go. Russia has massed troops on Ukraine’s border and warned the US not to interfere. China has massed warships off the coast of the Philippines, and continues its incursions in Taiwan’s air-defense zone, keeping US forces on alert. Political dialogue between the US and Russia and the US and China is increasingly vitriolic, with no sign of any leavening in the near future. Intentional or accidental engagement could let slip the dogs of war and spike oil prices briefly. Finally, OPEC 2.0 is going to have to accommodate the “official” return of Iran as a bona fide oil exporter, if, as we expect, it is able to reinstate its nuclear deal – i.e., the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – with Western states, which was abrogated by then-President Donald Trump in 2018. This may prove difficult, given our view that the oil-price collapse of 2014-16 was the result of the Saudis engineering a market-share war to tank prices, in an effort to deny Iran $100+ per-barrel prices that had prevailed between end-2010 and mid-2014. OPEC 2.0, particularly KSA, has not publicly involved itself in the US-Iran negotiations. However, it is worthwhile recalling that following the disastrous market-share war launched in 2014, KSA and the rest of OPEC 2.0 did accommodate Iran’s return to markets post-JCPOA.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com   Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish Brent and WTI prices rallied sharply following the release of the EIA’s Weekly Petroleum Status Report showing a 9.1mm-barrel decline in US crude and product stocks for the week ended 9 April 2021. This was led by a huge draw in commercial crude and distillate inventories (5.9mm barrels and 2.1mm barrels, respectively). These draws came on the back of generally bullish global demand upgrades by the major data services (EIA, IEA and OPEC) over the past week. These assessments were supported by EIA data showing refined-product demand – i.e., “product supplied” – jumped 1.1mm b/d for the week ended 9 April. With vaccine distributions picking up steam, despite setbacks on the Johnson & Johnson jab, the storage draws and improved demand appear to have catalyze the move higher. Continued weakness in the USD also provided a tailwind, as did falling real interest rates in the US. Base Metals: Bullish Nickel prices fell earlier this week, as China’s official Xinhua news agency reported that Chinese Premier, Li Keqiang stressed the need to strengthen raw materials’ market regulation, amidst rising commodities prices, which been pressuring corporate financial performance (Chart 9). This statement came after China’s top economic advisor, Liu He also called for authorities to track commodities prices last week. Nickel prices fell by around $500/ ton earlier this week on this news, and were trading at $16,114.5/MT on the London Metals exchange as of Tuesday’s close. Other base metals were not affected by this news. Precious Metals: Bullish The US dollar and 10-year treasury yields fell after March US inflation data was released earlier this week. US consumer prices rose by the most in nearly nine years. The demand for an inflation hedge, coupled with the falling US dollar and treasury yields, which reduce the opportunity cost of purchasing gold, caused gold prices to rise (Chart 10). This uncertainty, coupled with the increasing inflationary pressures due to the US fiscal stimulus will increase demand for gold. Spot COMEX gold prices were trading at $1,746.20/oz as of Tuesday’s close. Ags/Softs: Neutral The USDA reported ending stocks of corn in the US stood at 1.35 billion bushels, well below market estimates of 1.39 billion and the 1.50 billion-bushel estimate by the Department last month, according to agriculture.com’s tally.  Global corn stocks ended at 283.9mm MT vs a market estimate of 284.5mm MT and a Department estimate of 287.6mm MT.  Chart 9Base Metals Are Being Bullish Chart 10Gold Prices To Rise   Footnotes 1     Please see US-Russia Pipeline Standoff Could Push LNG Prices Higher, which we published on 8 April 2021 re the IMF’s latest forecast for global growth.  Briefly, the Fund raised its growth expectations for this year and next to 6% and 4.4%, respectively, nearly a full percentage-point increase versus its January forecast update for 2021 2     A backwardated forward curve – prompt prices trading in excess of deferred prices – is the market’s way of signaling tightness.  It means refiners of crude oil value crude availability right now over availability a year from now.  This is exactly the same dynamic that drives an investor to pay $1 today for a dollar bill delivered tomorrow than for that same dollar bill delivered a year from now (that might only fetch 98 cents today, e.g.). 3    Please see When will the COVID-19 pandemic end?, published 26 March 2021 by McKinsey & Co. 4    Please see The Arsenal Of Democracy, a prescient analysis published 2 April 2021 by BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy.  The report notes the Biden administration “still faces early stress-tests on China/Taiwan, Russia, Iran, and even North Korea.  Game theory helps explain why financial markets cannot ignore the 60% chance of a crisis in the Taiwan Strait. A full-fledged war is still low-probability, but Taiwan remains the world’s preeminent geopolitical risk.”   Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2021 Summary of Closed Trades

Underweight (High-Conviction) Pharmaceutical stocks are melting in line with the broader macro-economic rebound, and given our cyclical and structural bullish market outlooks, we continue to recommend investors fade this defensive sector (CLI and ZEW shown inverted, middle & bottom panels). JNJ’s recent negative blood clotting vaccine news further accelerated the wholesale liquidation of this key health care sub-group. Should the number of vaccine-caused fatal cases rise, more and more countries will be banning this US-manufactured vaccine, putting additional earnings strains on drug stocks. As a reminder, we are currently underweight the S&P pharma index both within our cyclical and high-conviction universes and the positions are up 12.4% and 10%, respectively. Bottom Line: Stay underweight the S&P pharma index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5PHAR – JNJ, PFE, MRK, LLY, BMY, ZTS, CTLT, VTRS, PRGO.  

Highlights On a timeframe of a few years, a net deflationary shock is a near-certainty even if we do not know its precise nature or its precise timing. Hence, investors must build such a deflationary shock or shocks into their long-term investment strategy. Specifically: The 10-year T-bond yield will ultimately reach zero, and the 30-year T-bond yield will ultimately reach 0.5 percent. For patient investors, this presents a mouth-watering 100 percent return on the long-duration T-bond. The structural bull market in equities will continue until T-bond yields reach their ultimate low. Patient equity investors should steer towards ‘growth’ sectors that will surge on the ultimate low in T-bond yields. Fractal trade shortlist: Taiwan versus China, Netherlands versus China, and Sweden versus Finland. Feature Chart I-1For Long-Term Investors, A Shock Is A Near-Certainty Predicting shocks is easy. The precise nature and timing of shocks is not predictable, but the statistical distribution of shocks is highly predictable. This means that the longer our investment timeframe, the more certain we are of encountering at least one shock – even if we cannot predict its precise nature or timing. Many economists and strategists blame their forecasting errors on shocks, such as the pandemic, which they point out are ‘unforecastable.’ Absent the shocks, they argue, their predictions of the economy and the markets would have turned out right. This is a valid excuse for short-term forecasting errors, but it is not a valid excuse for long-term forecasting errors. On a long-term horizon, encountering a major shock, or several major shocks, is a near-certainty. Hence, economists and strategists who are not incorporating the well-defined statistical distribution of shocks into their long-term investment forecasts and strategies are making a mistake. Individual Shocks Are Not Predictable In the 21 years of this century so far, there have been five shocks whose economic/financial consequences have been felt worldwide: the dot com bust (2000); the global financial crisis (2007/8); the euro debt crisis (2011/12); the emerging markets recession (2014/15); and the global pandemic (2020). To these we can add two wide-reaching political shocks: the Brexit vote (2016); and Donald Trump’s shock victory in the US presidential election (2016). In total, this constitutes seven shocks, four economic/financial, two political, and one natural (Chart I-2). Chart I-2The Seven Global Shocks Of The Century (So Far) Some people argue that economic/financial shocks are predictable, because they arise from vulnerabilities in the economy or financial markets, which should be easy to spot. Unfortunately, though such vulnerabilities are obvious in hindsight, the greatest economic minds cannot see them in real time. The greatest economic minds cannot see economic vulnerabilities. Infamously, on the eve of the global financial crisis, Ben Bernanke was insisting that “there’s not much indication that subprime mortgage issues have spread into the broader mortgage market.” Equally infamously, on the eve of the euro debt crisis, Mario Draghi was asking “what makes you think that the ECB must become lender of last resort to governments to keep the eurozone together?” (Chart I-3 and Chart I-4) Chart I-3Bernanke Couldn't See The GFC Chart I-4Draghi Couldn't See The Euro Debt Crisis Which begs the question, what is the current vulnerability that today’s great economic minds cannot see? As we have documented many times, most recently in The Rational Bubble Is Turning Irrational, the current vulnerability is the exponential relationship between rising bond yields and the risk premiums on equities and other risk-assets (Chart I-5 and Chart I-6). Meaning that $500 trillion of risk-assets are vulnerable to any substantial further rise in bond yields. Chart I-5A 1.5 Percent Decline In The Bond Yield Had A Smaller Impact On The Earnings Yield When The Bond Yield Started At 4 Percent... Chart I-6...Than When The Bond Yield Started ##br##At 3 Percent The second type of shock – political shocks – should be predictable as they mostly arise from well-defined events such as elections and referenda, which an army of political experts analyses ad nauseam. Yet the greatest political minds could not see Brexit or President Trump coming. Indeed, even ‘Team Brexit’ didn’t see Brexit coming, because it had no plan on how to implement Brexit once the vote was won. The third type of shocks – natural shocks – are clearly unpredictable as individual events. Nobody knows when the next major pandemic, earthquake, volcano eruption, tsunami, solar flare, or asteroid strike is going happen. Yet, to repeat, while the precise nature and timing of shocks is not predictable, the statistical distribution of shocks is highly predictable. The Statistical Distribution Of Shocks Is Highly Predictable The good news is that shocks follow well-defined statistical ‘power laws’ which allow us to accurately forecast how many shocks to expect in any long timeframe. The 7 shocks experienced through the past 21 years equates to a shock every three years on average, or 3.33 shocks in any 10-year period. The expected wait to the next shock is three years. The next few paragraphs delve into some necessary mathematics, but don’t worry, you don’t need to understand the maths to appreciate the key takeaways. If the past 21 years is representative, we propose that the number of shocks in any 10-year period follows a so-called Poisson distribution with parameter 3.33. From this distribution, it follows that the probability of going through a 5-year period without a shock is just 19 percent, and the probability of going through a 10-year period without a shock is a negligible 4 percent (Chart of the Week). The result is that if you are a long-term investor, then encountering a shock is a near-certainty and should be built into your investment strategy. How can we test our assumption that the number of shocks follows a Poisson distribution? The maths tells us that if the number of shocks follows a Poisson distribution with parameter 3.33, then the ‘waiting time’ between shocks follows a so-called Exponential distribution also with parameter 3.33. On this basis, 63 percent of the waits between shocks should be up to three years, 23 percent should be four to six years, and 14 percent should be over six years. Now we can compare this expected distribution with the actual distribution of waits between the 7 shocks encountered so far in this century. We find that the theory lines up closely with the practice, validating our assumption of a Poisson distribution (Chart I-7 and Chart I-8). Chart I-7The Theoretical Waiting Time Between Shocks… Chart II-8…Is Close To The Actual Waiting Time Between Shocks To repeat the key takeaways, on a long-term timeframe, encountering at least one shock is a near-certainty, and the expected wait to the next shock is three years. A Shock Is A Near-Certainty, And It Will End Up Deflationary Nevertheless, there remains a pressing question: Will the next shock(s) be deflationary or reflationary? It turns out that all shocks end up with both deflationary and reflationary components: either a deflationary impulse followed by a reflationary backlash or, as we highlighted in The Road To Inflation Ends At Deflation, a reflationary impulse followed by a deflationary backlash. But the crucial point is that the deflationary component will swamp the reflationary component. In the seven shocks of this century so far, six have been deflationary impulses with a weaker reflationary backlash; and one – the reflation trade of 2017-18 – was a reflationary impulse with a stronger deflationary backlash. It is our high conviction view that in the next shock(s), the deflationary component will continue to hold the upper hand (Chart I-9). Chart I-9Each Shock Has A Deflationary And Reflationary Component... But The Deflationary Component Tends To Dominate The simple reason is that as financial asset prices, real estate prices, and debt servicing costs get addicted to ever lower bond yields, the economy and financial markets cannot tolerate bond yields reaching previous tightening highs and, just like all addicts, need a new extreme loosening to feel any stimulus. This means that when the next shock comes – as it surely will – it will require lower lows and lower highs in the bond yield cycle. Let’s sum up. On a timeframe of a few years, a shock is a near-certainty even if we do not know its precise nature – economic/financial, political, or natural – or its precise timing. Furthermore, the shock will be net deflationary. Hence, investors must build such a deflationary shock or shocks into their long-term investment strategy. Specifically: The 10-year T-bond yield will eventually reach zero, and the 30-year T-bond yield will ultimately reach 0.5 percent. For patient investors, this constitutes a mouth-watering 100 percent return on the long-duration T-bond. The 10-year T-bond yield will eventually reach zero. The structural bull market in equities will continue until T-bond yields reach their ultimate low. Patient equity investors should tilt towards ‘growth’ sectors that will surge on the ultimate low in T-bond yields. Candidates For Countertrend Reversals This week we have noticed an unusual decoupling among the tech-heavy markets of Taiwan, Netherlands, and China (Chart I-10). Chart I-10An Unusual Decoupling Between Tech-Heavy Netherlands And China Among these three markets, the strong short-term outperformance of both Taiwan and Netherlands are due to supply bottlenecks in the semiconductor sector that have boosted Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing and ASML, but we expect these bottlenecks ultimately to resolve.  On this basis and combined with extremely fragile 130-day fractal structures, Taiwan versus China and Netherlands versus China are vulnerable to reversals (Chart I-11 and Chart I-12). Chart I-11Underweight Taiwan Versus China Chart I-12Underweight Netherlands Versus China Our first recommended trade is to underweight Netherlands versus China, setting a profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 5 percent. Another outperformance that looks fragile on its 130-day fractal structure is Sweden versus Finland, driven by industrials and financials versus energy and materials (Chart I-13). Chart I-13Underweight Sweden Versus Finland Our second recommended trade is to underweight Sweden versus Finland, setting a profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 4.7 percent.   Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Asset Performance Equity Market Performance   Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - ##br##Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - ##br##Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - ##br##Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - ##br##Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations    

Highlights Biden will host a global summit for Earth Day on April 22-23, giving public attention to his climate change policy push. Investors should count on Biden’s green infrastructure package becoming the bulk of his climate push, given uncertainty over the 2022 midterm elections. However, over the long run, American public opinion is shifting in favor of renewables and the US will seek to maintain its technological edge via participating in the green tech race. Go long our “Biden Fiscal Advantage Basket” versus the Nasdaq 100.  Feature The Biden administration’s $2.3 trillion American Jobs Plan is often referred to as a “green infrastructure” package and in this report we take a look at what makes it green – and what are the investment implications. Biden will virtually host a global climate summit on April 22-23, Earth Day, which the Chinese President Xi Jinping is expected to attend, thus providing momentum to the green investment theme. The stock market anticipated Biden’s electoral victory last year and renewable energy stocks rallied exorbitantly, with ultra-easy monetary and fiscal policy as a fundamental support. The market’s reaction to Biden’s official outline of his plan last month suggests that investors are energized about Biden’s infrastructure package but already suffering from some green fatigue (Chart 1). However, this bill’s passage will initiate the US’s official entrance into the global green energy race and from that point of view renewable plays should recover. Once the American Jobs Plan passes, likely sometime this fall, Biden’s climate agenda will be virtually finished, from an investment perspective. Investors have little visibility beyond 2022 as the president’s party rarely hangs onto the House of Representatives in his first midterm election. However, over the long run, American public opinion is shifting in favor of renewable energy. And Biden also has regulatory tools to push the Democratic Party’s climate agenda from 2022-24 regardless. Chart 1Biden's AJP Already Priced Chart 2Biden’s First Budget: Boom In Non-Defense Discretionary Spending Biden’s first presidential budget, released on April 13, also highlights the US’s attempt to boost climate policy (the Environmental Protection Agency’s funding would go up by 21%). More broadly it highlights the US’s ongoing sea change in fiscal policy. Discretionary spending turned around under President Trump’s populism and will continue under Biden’s populism. The difference lies in social spending versus defense. Biden proposes a 15.2% increase in non-defense discretionary spending, with education, commerce, health, and environment while the departments of defense and justice see much smaller increases (Chart 2). But we doubt that even defense spending will be curtailed given the US’s global strategic challenges. The president’s budget proposals are drops in the bucket compared to the trillions in his economic stimulus packages. Biden’s American Family Plan will be outlined in detail later this month but it only has a 50/50 chance of passing by the 2022 midterm election. This leaves us with the American Jobs Plan as the real macro policy factor to watch. And in the case of green energy, in particular, the Democrats may not have another opportunity to pass major legislation for many years. The US’s Strategic Basis For Green Energy The American Jobs Plan is billed as a $2.3 trillion green infrastructure package but in reality the package should be broken into traditional infrastructure ($784 billion for roads and bridges), social welfare ($647 billion  for elderly care, education, etc), green initiatives ($370 billion for electrical grid and retrofits, etc), tech initiatives ($280 billion for broadband, semiconductors, research and development), and small business support, in order of dollar value (Chart 3). The implication is that climate policy is important but not the top priority. Still, $370 billion is the biggest green package the US has ever launched. It consists of $150 billion for “hard” green infrastructure, such as new electricity grid and $220 billion for “soft” green infrastructure, such as tax credits for buying EVs (Chart 4). Chart 3Biden’s AJP: Green Initiatives Total $370 Billion Chart 4Biden’s AJP: Green Initiatives Mostly Rebates/Incentive The US has moved slowly on green energy policy – relative to Europe or China – because it does not face the same strategic necessity. China faces domestic social unrest if it does not reduce pollution, it faces American strategic containment if it does not reduce its dependency on the Middle East (35% of total oil consumption), and it faces the middle-income trap if it does not increase innovation and productivity. Europe is similarly dependent on a geopolitical enemy for its energy supply – Russia provides 35% of its oil consumption and 38% of its natural gas – and it must also increase productivity. Europe and China are net energy importers who have a great strategic interest in making energy supply a matter of manufacturing prowess rather than divine natural resource endowment (Chart 5). The US is late to the green energy game in part because it does not share the same degree of strategic necessity. Like the EU, the US took care of its most pressing pollution problems decades ago. But unlike the EU, the US is a net energy exporter thanks to the fracking revolution. However, the US is not truly energy independent – an Iranian closure of the Strait of Hormuz would cause global oil prices to spike and trigger a recession. And the US also has a powerful strategic interest in maintaining its global leadership and its edge in technology, innovation, and productivity (Chart 6). The US cannot afford to miss out on the green tech race even if starting from a more secure natural resource base. Chart 5US Green Focus Less Motivated By Energy Security Than China, EU US public opinion is also following European opinion regarding climate change and environmental protection. True, voters are more urgently concerned about the economy, jobs, and health care over the environment – as we showed in our Special Report on health care earlier this year. But the administration has decided not to rehash the health care battles of the Obama administration – having seen Republicans fail to repeal Obamacare – and instead to open up a new policy domain with climate change. Even if the environment is low priority for most voters, they do not oppose green projects in principle – in fact, they favor renewable energy over fossil fuels when it comes to the US’s energy future (Chart 7). And voters strongly favor infrastructure, which means they are more susceptible to green energy projects when presented as part of a broader infrastructure buildout – as opposed to a transformative “Green New Deal” designed to revolutionize every aspect of US life. Chart 6US Green Focus Motivated By Global Innovation/Tech Race Chart 7US Public Supports Renewable Energy The US shift to green energy is well underway, with renewables ready to surpass coal in the national energy mix (Chart 8). The natural gas boom of the past decade has worked wonders in reducing coal dependency and hence overall carbon emissions (Chart 9). Chart 8Shift To Renewables Well Underway Chart 9US Carbon Emissions To Fall Further Bottom Line: The US does not have the same energy security problems as China and the EU, which is one reason the US trails these competitors in green energy production and policy. But the US has a powerful interest in maintaining its technological edge and productivity growth. So policymakers will continue to push the green agenda even as the public follows Europe in becoming more favorable toward it over the long run. US Climate Policy Will Advance In Fits And Starts The fact that the US lacks the same strategic urgency as Europe and China suggests that the green energy push in the US will progress in fits and starts rather than in a straight line. Popular opinion cited above is supportive enough to allow a political party to push a green agenda if it has control of both the White House and Congress. The Biden administration has moderate-to-strong political capital based on our Political Capital Index (Appendix). But this could change with the next election, which would introduce a ruffle in the current narrative in which Biden saves planet earth. One factor that helps Biden is that his presidency is entirely about economic stimulus and recovery, which enables him to minimize the regulatory and punitive side of his party’s energy agenda. While the American Jobs Plan includes corporate tax hikes, his climate policy in itself is all about spending rather than taxation. There is no carbon pricing scheme anywhere to be seen. And Biden’s Transportation Secretary, Pete Buttigieg (“Mayor Pete,” a center-left politician from Indiana), immediately reversed his recent suggestion that the government levy a gasoline tax or vehicle mileage tax. Biden cannot get any revolutionary green measures passed through the Senate, given that moderate Democrats like Senators Joe Manchin of West Virginia and John Tester of Montana hail from coal-heavy states. The Democrats must also pay heed to the swing states for future elections. Biden only narrowly won his home state of Pennsylvania, after pledging to phase out oil and natural gas in the last presidential debate. True, Biden’s American Jobs Plan will remove subsidies for the oil and gas sector – but these subsidies are not very large. Notably, subsidies for renewables already overwhelm those for traditional infrastructure, even under the Trump administration (Chart 10). Chart 10Subsidy Reform Will Promote Renewables Chart 11Green Policy At Risk In 2022 Midterm These points underscore the fact that US climate policy is uncertain over the medium term, when the pandemic fades and the Democrats attempt more ambitious climate proposals. The Republican Party supports the traditional energy sector and is skeptical about climate change. The GOP could easily make a net gain of five seats in the 2022 midterm elections and take back control of the House of Representatives. They would not be able to repeal Biden’s laws or regulations, given his veto and likely Democratic majority in the Senate, but they would be able to pare back green funding. Republicans are not uniform on the issue of climate but more than half of Trump supporters in 2020 considered climate change unimportant. Young party members, moderates, and women were more split on the issue, with 60% of moderate Republicans viewing climate change as somewhat or very important (Chart 11). The takeaway is that Republicans would obstruct but not repeal future climate policy. Climate policy would be limited to Biden’s regulations until at least 2024. Hence investors can expect US climate policy to plow forward in the short run but to encounter resistance in the medium run. This is also likely to be the case as various other crises will emerge and soak up government attention and resources (most likely geopolitical conflicts). Chart 12Green Policy More Likely Over Long Term Over the long run climate policy will have more reliable support. Younger Republicans support federal environmental policy more than their elders, are increasingly favorable toward government regulation to that end, and prefer renewables to fossil fuels (Chart 12). The millennials and younger generations will make up more than half of the electorate by around 2028. Even then the government’s focus on climate will wax and wane given the other pressing matters of the day. Investment Takeaways A tsunami of money has been created, a lot of it is finding its way into the stock market, and a lot of it is finding its way into green and sustainable energy companies – companies that now have a privileged position in terms of both government support and conspicuous consumption. Combine this with a tidal wave of institutional funds pouring into anything and everything labeled ESG (environmental, social, and governance) – and the stigma attached to climate skepticism and denialism – and investors should fully expect irrational exuberance and stock bubbles. Consider the US’s premier EV maker, Tesla. The vertical run-up in Tesla stock has occurred alongside the run-up in US money supply. Tesla’s price trend conforms with the profile of a range of stock market bubbles of the past (Chart 13), as shown by our US Equity Strategy. Chart 13ALow Rates And Vast Money Growth... Chart 13B...Will Fuel Green Bubble That being said, renewables stocks surged throughout 2020 on the back of stimulus and Biden’s likely election – and have since fallen back. They have underperformed cyclical and defensive sectors alike this year to date (Chart 14). As highlighted above, the Democrats’ climate ambitions could yet be pared back in the Senate. However, given the argument in this report, there is sufficient political capital for the climate provisions of the American Jobs Plan to pass. Renewable plays should recover, at least on a tactical, “buy the rumor, sell the news” basis. To play Biden’s American Jobs Plan, our US Equity Strategist Anastasios Avgeriou constructed a “Biden Fiscal Advantage Basket” comprising eight ETFs and one stock, all equal weighted (Chart 15, top panel). Instead of buying specific stocks, Anastasios opted for ETFs so as to diversify away company-specific risk. Chart 14Renewables Corrected But Will Recover Chart 15Introducing The Biden Fiscal Advantage Basket The goal was to filter for ETFs that hold mostly US companies and that offered the highest possible liquidity. From a portfolio construction perspective, he aimed to match the different spending segments of Biden’s White House proposal with an ETF. The ticker symbols included in the basket are: PAVE, PHO, QCLN, TAN, WOOD, SOXX, HAIL, GRID and SU. We choose SU as there is no pure play Canadian oil sands ETF trading in USD. Granted there is some replication of stocks included in these ETFs. In certain ETFs there is also a sizable international stock exposure, including EM and Chinese stocks. One final caveat is that these ETFs have a high concentration of technology stocks. Our sense is that this basket should outperform the S&P500 on a cyclical and structural basis albeit not tactically (Chart 15, middle panel). However, given the high-tech exposure, our preferred way to express this trade is via a long/short pair trade versus the QQQ high-tech ETF, which tracks the largest 100 companies on the Nasdaq stock exchange (Chart 15, bottom panel). Table 1 shows a number of related ETFs that did not make the cut but that readers may find intriguing and that deserve further research. Later this month we will publish a joint special report with our US Equity Strategy service, updating our views on Biden’s proposals and elaborating on this equity basket. Table 1Infrastructure and Renewables Related ETFs More broadly, US equities are still enjoying a positive cyclical backdrop, whereas the passage of the American Jobs Plan later this year has a 50% chance of marking peak stimulus (the American Families Plan may not pass). Tactically, however, we are more cautious. There are also several pronounced foreign policy stress tests facing the Biden administration imminently, including serious Russia/Ukraine, Israel/Iran, and China/Taiwan saber-rattling that we fully expect to engender volatility and safe-haven flows. At least one FOMC member, Saint Louis Fed President Jim Bullard, is now openly thinking about thinking about the Fed’s tapering asset purchases – that is, once the US vaccination rate reaches 75%. Our US Investment Strategy recently showed that this rate of vaccination could be reached as early as September.     Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri Associate Editor jesse.Kuri@bcaresearch.com Anastasios Avgeriou US Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com   Appendix Table A1Political Risk Matrix Table A2Political Capital Index Table A3APolitical Capital: White House And Congress Table A3BPolitical Capital: Household And Business Sentiment Table A3CPolitical Capital: The Economy And Markets Table A4Biden’s Cabinet Position Appointments