Emerging Markets

Executive Summary Autocracy Hurts Productivity Over the next six-to-18 months, the Xi Jinping administration will “let 100 flowers bloom” – i.e., relax a range of government policies to secure China’s economic recovery from the pandemic. The first signs of this policy are already apparent via monetary and fiscal easing and looser regulation of Big Tech. However, investors should treat any risk-on rally in Chinese stocks with skepticism over the long run. Political risk and policy uncertainty will remain high until after Xi consolidates power this fall. Xi is highly likely to remain in office but uncertainty over other personnel – and future national policy – will be substantial. Next year China’s policy trajectory will become clearer. But global investors should avoid mistaking temporary improvements for a change of Xi’s strategy or China’s grand strategy. Beijing is driven by instability and insecurity to challenge the US-led world order. The result will be continued economic divorce and potentially military conflicts in the coming decade. Russia’s reversion to autocracy led to falling productivity and poor equity returns. China is also reverting to autocratic government as a solution to its domestic challenges. Western investors should limit long-term exposure to China and prefer markets that benefit from China’s recovery, such as in Southeast Asia and Latin America. Bottom Line: The geopolitical risk premium in Chinese equities will stay high in 2022, fall in 2023, but then rise again as global investors learn that China in the Xi Jinping era is fundamentally unstable and insecure. Feature Chart 1Market Cheers China's Hints At Policy Easing In 1957, after nearly a decade at the helm of the People’s Republic of China, Chairman Mao Zedong initiated the “Hundred Flowers Campaign.” The campaign allowed a degree of political freedom to try to encourage new ideas and debate among China’s intellectuals. The country’s innovative forces had suffered from decades of foreign invasion, civil war, and repression. Within three years, Mao reversed course, reimposed ideological discipline, and punished those who had criticized the party.  It turned out that the new communist regime could not maintain political control while allowing liberalization in the social and economic spheres.1 This episode is useful to bear in mind in 2022 as General Secretary Xi Jinping restores autocratic government in China. In the coming year, Xi will ease a range of policies to promote economic growth and innovation. Already his administration is relaxing some regulatory pressure on Big Tech. Global financial markets are cheering this apparent policy improvement (Chart 1). In effect, Xi is preparing to let 100 flowers bloom. However, China’s economic trajectory remains gloomy over the long run – not least because the US and China lack a strategic basis for re-engagement. Chinese Leaders Fear Foreign Encroachments Mao’s predicament was not only one of ideology and historical circumstance. It was also one of China’s geopolitics. Chinese governments have always struggled to establish domestic control, extend that control over far-flung buffer territories, and impose limits on foreign encroachments. Mao reversed his brief attempt at liberalization because he could not feel secure in his person or his regime. In 1959, the Chinese economy remained backward. The state faced challenges in administration and in buffer spaces like Tibet and Taiwan. The American military loomed large, despite the stalemate and ceasefire on the Korean peninsula in 1952. Russia was turning against Stalinism, while Hungary was revolting against the Soviet Union. Mao feared that the free exchange of ideas would do more to undermine national unity than it would to promote industrialization and technological progress. The 100 flowers that bloomed – intellectuals criticizing government policy – revealed themselves to be insufficiently loyal. They could be culled, strengthening the regime. However, what followed was a failed economic program and nationwide famine. Fast forward to today, when circumstances have changed but the Chinese state faces the same geopolitical insecurities. Xi Jinping, like all Chinese rulers, is struggling to maintain domestic stability and territorial integrity while regulating foreign influence. Although the People’s Republic is not as vulnerable as it was in Mao’s time, it is increasingly vulnerable – namely, to a historic downshift in potential economic growth and a rise in international tensions (Chart 2). The Xi administration has repeatedly shown that it views the US alliance system, US-led global monetary and financial system, and western liberal ideology as threats that need to be counteracted. Chart 2China: Less Stable, Less Secure In addition, Russia’s difficulties invading Ukraine suggest that China faces an enormous challenge in attempting to carve out its own sphere of influence without shattering its economic stability. Hence Beijing needs to slow the pace of confrontation with the West while pursuing the same strategic aims. Xi Stays, But Policy Uncertainty Still High In 2022  2022 is a critical political juncture for China. Xi was supposed to step down and hand the baton to a successor chosen by his predecessor Hu Jintao. Instead he has spent the past decade arranging to remain in power until at least 2032. He took a big stride toward this goal at the nineteenth national party congress in 2017, when he assumed the title of “core leader” of the Communist Party and removed term limits from its constitution. This year’s Omicron outbreak and abrupt economic slowdown have raised speculation about whether Xi’s position is secure. Some of this speculation is wild – but China is far less stable than it appears. Structurally, inequality is high, social mobility is low, and growth is slowing, forcing the new middle class to compromise its aspirations. Cyclically, unemployment is rising and the Misery Index is higher than it appears if one focuses on youth employment and fuel inflation (Chart 3). The risk of sociopolitical upheaval is underrated among global investors. Chart 3AStructurally China Is Vulnerable To Social Unrest Chart 3BCyclically China Is Vulnerable To Social Unrest Yet even assuming that social unrest and political dissent flare up, Xi is highly likely to clinch another five-to-ten years in power. Consider the following points: The top leaders control personnel decisions. The national party congress is often called an “election,” but that is a misnomer. The Communist Party’s top posts will be ratified, not elected. The Politburo and Politburo Standing Committee select the members of the Central Committee; the national party congress convenes to ratify these new members. The Central Committee then ratifies the line-up of the new Politburo and Politburo Standing Committee, which is orchestrated by Xi along with the existing Politburo Standing Committee (Diagram 1). Xi is the most important figure in deciding the new leadership. Diagram 1Mechanics Of The Chinese Communist Party’s National Congress There is no history of surprise votes. The party congress ratifies approximately 90% of the candidates put forward. Outcomes closely conform to predictions of external analysts, meaning that the leadership selection is not a spontaneous, grassroots process but rather a mechanical, elite-driven process with minimal influence from low-level party members, not to mention the population at large.2  The party and state control the levers of power: The Communist Party has control over the military, state bureaucracy, and “commanding heights” of the economy. This includes domestic security forces, energy, communications, transportation, and the financial system. Whoever controls the Communist Party and central government exerts heavy influence over provincial governments and non-government institutions. The state bureaucracy is not in a position to oppose the party leadership. Xi has conducted a decade-long political purge (“anti-corruption campaign”). Upon coming to power in 2012, Xi initiated a neo-Maoist campaign to re-centralize power in his own person, in the Communist Party, and in the central government. He has purged foreign influence along with rivals in the party, state, military, business, civil society, and Big Tech. He personally controls the military, the police, the paramilitary forces, the intelligence and security agencies, and the top Communist Party organs. There may be opposition but it is not organized or capable. Chart 4China: Big Tech Gets Relief ... For Now There are no serious alternatives to Xi’s leadership. Xi is widely recognized within China as the “core” of the fifth generation of Chinese leaders. The other leaders and their factions have been repressed. Xi imprisoned his top rivals, Bo Xilai and Zhou Yongkang, a decade ago. He has since neutralized their followers and the factions of previous leaders Hu Jintao and Jiang Zemin. Premier Li Keqiang has never exercised any influence and will retire at the end of this year. None of the ousted figures have reemerged to challenge Xi, but potential rivals have been imprisoned or disciplined, as have prominent figures that pose no direct political threat, such as tech entrepreneur Jack Ma (Chart 4).  Additional high-level sackings are likely before the party congress. China’s reversion to autocracy grew from Communist Party elites, not Xi alone. China’s slowing potential GDP growth and changing economic model raise an existential threat to the Communist Party over the long run. The party recognized its potential loss of legitimacy back in 2012, the year Xi was slated to take the helm. The solution was to concentrate power in the center, promoting Maoist nostalgia and strongman rule. In essence, the party needed a new Mao; Xi was all too willing to play the part. Hence Xi’s current position does not rest on his personal maneuvers alone. The party has invested heavily in Xi and will continue to do so. Characteristics of the political elite underpin the autocratic shift. Statistics on the evolving character traits of Politburo members show the trend toward leaders that are more rural, more bureaucratic, and more ideologically orthodox, i.e. more nationalist and communist (Chart 5). This trend underpins the party’s behavior and Xi’s personal rule. Chart 5China: From Technocracy To Autocracy Chart 6China: De-Industrialization Undermines Stability Xi has guarded his left flank. By cornering the hard left of the political spectrum Xi has positioned himself as the champion of poor people, workers, farmers, soldiers, and common folk. This is the political base of the Communist Party, as opposed to the rich coastal elites and westernizing capitalists, who stand to suffer from Xi’s policies. Ultimately de-industrialization – e.g. the sharp decline in manufacturing and construction sectors (Chart 6) – poses a major challenge to this narrative. But social unrest will be repressed and will not overturn Xi or the regime anytime soon. Xi still retains political capital. After centuries of instability, Chinese households are averse to upheaval, civil war, and chaos. They support the current regime because it has stabilized China and made it prosperous. Of course, relative to the Hu Jintao era, Xi’s policies have produced slower growth and productivity and a tarnished international image (Chart 7). But they have not yet led to massive instability that would alienate the people in general. If Chinese citizens look abroad, they see that Xi has already outlasted US Presidents Obama and Trump, is likely to outlast Biden, and that US politics are in turmoil. The same goes for Europe, Japan, and Russia – Xi’s leadership does not suffer by comparison.  Chart 7China’s Declining International Image External actors are neither willing nor able to topple Xi. Any outside attempt to interfere with China’s leadership or political system would be unwarranted and would provoke an aggressive response. The US is internally divided and has not developed a consistent China policy. This year the Biden administration has its hands full with midterm elections, Russia, and Iran, where it must also accept the current leadership as a fact of life. It has no ability to prevent Xi’s power consolidation, though it will impose punitive economic measures. Japan and other US allies have an interest in undermining Xi’s administration, but they follow the US’s lead in foreign policy. They also lack influence over the political rotation within the Communist Party. The Europeans will keep their distance but will not try to antagonize China given their more pressing conflict with Russia. Russia needs China more than ever and will lend material support in the form of cheaper and more secure natural resources. North Korean and Iranian nuclear provocations will help Xi stay under the radar.  There is no reason to expect a new leader to take over in China. The Xi administration’s strategy, revealed over the past ten years, will remain intact for another five-to-ten years at least. The real question at the party congress is whether Xi will be forced to name a successor or compromise with the opposing faction on the personnel of the Politburo and Politburo Standing Committee. But even that remains to be seen – and either way he will remain the paramount leader. Bottom Line: Xi Jinping has the political capability to cement another five-to-ten years in power. Opposing factions have been weakened over the past decade by Xi’s domestic political purge and clash with the United States. China is ripe for social unrest and political dissent but these will be repressed as China goes further down the path of autocracy. Foreign powers have little influence over the process. Policy Uncertainty Falls In 2023 … Only To Rise Again What will Xi Jinping do once he consolidates power? Xi’s administration has weighed heavily on China’s economy, foreign relations, and financial markets. The situation has worsened dramatically this year as the economy struggles with “A Trifecta Of Economic Woes” – namely a rampant pandemic, waning demand for exports, and a faltering housing market (Chart 8). In response the administration is now easing a range of policies to stabilize expectations and try to meet the 5.5% annual growth target. The money impulse, and potentially the credit impulse, is turning less negative, heralding an eventual upturn in industrial activity and import volumes in 2023. These measures will give a boost to Chinese and global growth, although stimulus measures are losing effectiveness over time (Chart 9).  Chart 8China's Trifecta Of Economic Woes Chart 9More Stimulus, But Less Effectiveness This pro-growth policy pivot will continue through the year and into next year. After all, if Xi is going to stay in power, he does not want to bequeath himself a financial crisis or recession at the start of his third term. Still, investors should treat any rally in Chinese equity markets with skepticism. First, political risk and uncertainty will remain elevated until Xi completes his power grab, as China is highly susceptible to surprises and negative political incidents this year (Chart 10). For example, if social unrest emerges and is repressed, then the West will impose sanctions. If China increases its support of Russia, Iran, or North Korea, then the US will impose sanctions.     Chart 10China: Policy Uncertainty And Geopolitical Risk To Stay High In 2022, Might Improve In 2023 Chart 11China Needs To Court Europe The regime will be extremely vigilant and overreact to any threats this year, real or perceived. Political objectives will remain paramount, above the economy and financial markets, and that means new economic policy initiatives will not be reliable. Investors cannot be confident about the country’s policy direction until the leadership rotation is complete and new policy guidance is revealed, particularly in December 2022 and March 2023. Second, after consolidating power, investors should interpret Xi’s policy shift as “letting 100 flowers bloom,” i.e., a temporary relaxation that aims to reboot the economy but does not change the country’s long-term policy trajectory. Economic reopening is inevitable after the pandemic response is downgraded – which is a political determination. Xi will also be forced to reduce foreign tensions for the sake of the economy, particularly by courting Europe, which is three times larger than Russia as a market (Chart 11). However, China’s declining labor force and high debt levels prevent its periodic credit stimulus from generating as much economic output as in the past. And the administration will not ultimately pursue liberal structural reforms and a more open economy. That is the path toward foreign encroachment – and regime insecurity. The US’s sanctions on Russia have shown the consequences of deep dependency on the West. China will continue diversifying away from the US. And, as we will see, the US cannot provide credible promises that it will reduce tensions. US-China: Re-Engagement Will Fail The Biden administration is focused on fighting inflation ahead of the midterm elections. But its confrontation with Russia – and likely failure to freeze Iran’s nuclear program – increases rather than decreases oil supply constraints. Hence some administration officials and outside observers argue that the administration should pursue a strategic re-engagement with China.3  Theoretically a US-China détente would buy both countries time to deal with their domestic politics by providing some international stability. Improved US-China relations could also isolate Russia and hasten a resolution to the war in Ukraine, potentially reducing commodity price pressures. In essence, a US-China détente would reprise President Richard Nixon’s outreach to China in 1972, benefiting both countries at the expense of Russia.4  This kind of Kissinger 2.0 maneuver could happen but there are good reasons to think it will not, or if it does that it will fall apart in one or two years. In 1972, China had nowhere near the capacity to deny the US access to the Asia Pacific region, expel US influence from neighboring countries, reconquer Taiwan, or project power elsewhere. Today, China is increasingly gaining these abilities. In fact it is the only power in the world capable of rivaling the US in both economic and military terms over the long run (Chart 12). Secretary of State Antony Blinken recently outlined the Biden administration’s China policy and declared that China poses “the most serious long-term challenge” to the US despite Russian aggression.5  Chart 12US-China Competition Sows Distrust, Drives Economic Divorce While another decade of US engagement with China would benefit the US economy, it would be far more beneficial to China. Crucially, it would be beneficial in a strategic sense, not just an economic one. It could provide just the room for maneuver that China needs – at this critical juncture in its development – to achieve technological and productivity breakthroughs and escape the middle-income trap. Another ten-year reprieve from direct American competition would set China up to challenge the US on the global stage. That would be far too high of a strategic price for America to pay for a ceasefire in Ukraine. Ukraine has limited strategic value for the US and it does not steer US grand strategy, which aims to prevent regional empires from taking shape. In fact Washington is deliberately escalating and prolonging the war in Ukraine to drain Russia’s resources. Ending the war would do Russia a strategic favor, while re-engaging with China would do China a strategic favor. So why would the defense and intelligence community advise the Biden administration to pursue Kissinger 2.0? Chart 13US Unlikely To Revoke Trump Tariffs Biden could still pursue some degree of détente with China, namely by repealing President Trump’s trade tariffs, in order to relieve price pressures ahead of the midterm election. Yet even here the case is deeply flawed. Trump’s tariffs on China did not trigger the current inflationary bout. That was the combined Trump-Biden fiscal stimulus and Covid-era supply constraints. US import prices are rising faster from the rest of the world than they are from China (Chart 13). Tariff relief would not change China’s Zero Covid policy, which is the current driver of price spikes from China. And while lifting tariffs on China would not reduce inflation enough to attract voters, it would cost Biden some political credit among voters in swing states like Pennsylvania, and across the US, where China’s image has plummeted in the wake of Covid-19 (Chart 14).   Chart 14US Political Consensus Remains Hawkish On China If Biden did pursue détente, would China be able to reciprocate and offer trade concessions? Xi has the authority to do so but he is unlikely to make major trade concessions prior to the party congress. Economic self-sufficiency and resistance to American pressure have become pillars of his support. Promises will not ease inflation for US voters in November and Xi has no incentive to make binding concessions because the next US administration could intensify the trade war regardless.  Bottom Line: The US has no long-term interest, and a limited short-term interest, in easing pressure on China’s economy. Continued US pressure, combined with China’s internal difficulties, will reinforce Xi Jinping’s shift toward nationalism and hawkish foreign policy. Hence there is little basis for a substantial US-China re-engagement that improves the global macroeconomic environment over the coming years. Investment Takeaways Chart 15Autocracy Hurts Productivity Xi Jinping will clinch another five-to-ten years in power this fall. To stabilize the economy, he will “let 100 flowers bloom” and ease monetary, fiscal, regulatory, and social policy at home. He will also court the West, especially Europe, for the sake of economic growth. However, he will not go so far as to compromise his ultimate aims: self-sufficiency at home and a sphere of influence abroad. The result will be a relapse into conflict with the West within a year or two. Ultimately a closed Chinese economy in conflict with the West will result in lower productivity, a weaker currency, a high geopolitical risk premium, and low equity returns – just as it did for Russia (Chart 15). Any short-term improvement in China’s low equity multiples will ultimately be capped. Over the long run, western investors should hedge against Chinese geopolitical risk by preferring markets that benefit from China’s periodic stimulus yet do not suffer from the break-up of the US-China and EU-Russia economic relationships, such as key markets in Latin America and Southeast Asia (Charts 16 & 17). Chart 16China Stimulus Creates Opportunity For … Latin America Chart 17China Stimulus Creates Opportunity For … Southeast Asia     Matt Gertken Chief Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1     Modern scholarship has shown that Mao intended to entrap the opposition through the 100 Flowers Campaign. For a harrowing account of this episode, see Jung Chang and Jon Halliday, Mao: The Unknown Story (New York: Anchor Books, 2006), pp. 409-17. 2     “At least 8% of CPC Central Committee nominees voted off,” Xinhua, October 24, 2017, english.www.gov.cn. 3    Christopher Condon, “Yellen Says Biden Team Is Looking To ‘Reconfigure’ China Tariffs,” June 8, 2022, www.bloomberg.com. 4       Niall Ferguson, “Dust Off That Dirty Word Détente And Engage With China,” Bloomberg, June 5, 2022, www.bloomberg.com. 5    See Antony J Blinken, Secretary of State, “The Administration’s Approach to the People’s Republic of China,” George Washington University, Washington D.C., May 26, 2022, state.gov. Additionally, see President Joe Biden’s third assertion of US willingness to defend Taiwan against China, in a joint press conference with Japan’s Prime Minister Kishida Fumio, “Remarks by President Biden and Prime Minister Kishida Fumio of Japan in Joint Press Conference,” Akasaka Palace, Tokyo, Japan, May 23, 2022, whitehouse.gov.

Executive Summary Natural Gas Markets Eerily Quiet An eerie calm in European natural gas markets belies the state of war in Ukraine that already is producing a cutoff of Russian natgas supplies in retaliation for the EU’s oil embargo. Such cutoffs will accelerate, and send natgas prices in Europe and Asia sharply higher if they occur sooner – as we expect – rather than later. The US will continue to send most of its LNG exports to Europe. These exports are expected to average 12 Bcf/d this year, up 22% from last year’s level. Planners in Europe and Asia will want to secure as much natgas supply as possible by the end of October to refill storage for the November-March withdrawal season, which is beginning to look like another La Niña winter. The US Climate Prediction Center makes the odds of such an event, which is associated with colder-than-normal winters in the Northern Hemisphere, just over 60%. Bottom Line: European governments are preparing their citizens for natgas rationing, in the event of a cutoff of Russian gas. This will occur sooner rather than later. In its wake, EU GDP will fall, and inflation will rise as knock-on effects constrict base metals, fertilizer and food supplies. At tonight’s close, we will be getting long 1Q23 TTF futures on the ICE, expecting prices to again exceed €225/MWh. Feature Related Report  Commodity & Energy StrategyHigher Gasoline, Diesel Prices Ahead Russia is at war with Ukraine. NATO military support for Ukraine – with the EU at the forefront – is being maintained at a high level, and Ukrainian forces are vigorously defending their homeland.1 The EU embargoed Russian oil imports to sharply reduce funding for Russia’s war machine. Russia will be compelled to follow through on its threat to cut off pipeline gas shipments to Europe, following the embargo.2 It is highly doubtful Russia will countenance the timetable envisioned in the EU embargo, which calls for a phase-out of oil imports by yearend that removes close to 3mm b/d, or 90% of Russia’s sales into its largest market (Chart 1). Equally doubtful is the notion the EU will countenance funding Russia’s war on Ukraine over the course of such a phase-out. Our colleague Matt Gertken, who runs BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy, demonstrated that while such a phase-out schedule may be optimal for both sides – i.e., it prolongs revenue flows to Russia and gas flows to the EU – it almost surely is not an equilibrium.3 An equilibrium in this prisoners’ dilemma obtains when both sides act immediately to end their vulnerability to the other unilaterally upsetting the optimal state – i.e., endure short-term pain for long-term gain (Diagram 1). For this reason, we believe Russia’s cutoff of natgas shipments to the EU will occur sooner rather than later, to inflict maximum pain on the EU going into the coming winter season. The EU knows this, and is preparing its citizens for rationing of natgas. Chart 1EU’s Russian Oil Embargo Cuts Sales By 90% By Year-end Diagram 1The EU, Russia Prisoners’ Dilemma Russian Natgas Cutoff To The EU Underway Russia already has begun reducing natural gas supplies to the EU (Chart 2). Russian gas flows to Finland, Poland, Bulgaria, Netherlands, and Denmark were embargoed after these states refused to pay for gas in rubles (Chart 3). Russia reduced gas shipments to Germany – albeit marginally – after Shell refused to pay for natgas supplied to Germany in rubles. While this only disrupted 1.3% of total natgas consumption in Germany, it showed Russia will quickly act against what it views as “unfriendly” customers.4 Ukraine was forced to shut a gas transit point through which 8% of total Russian gas flows reach Europe, after Russian occupying forces were found to be siphoning gas, according to Gas Transmission System Operator of Ukraine (GTSOU). As a result, gas flows from Russia have taken a further hit and have not recovered (Chart 4). EU member states whose supply of Russian gas has been disrupted will need to search for alternatives. Orsted, an energy company supplying natgas to Denmark, stated it will source gas from the EU market. Given supply constraints in Europe, an increase in the number of bids on the single EU market will raise the Dutch Title Transfer Facility (TTF), all else equal. Chart 2Russia Starts Cutting Gas Flows Chart 3Russian Gas Flows To EU Falling Overall... Chart 4...Particularly Via Ukraine Higher TTF prices will direct gas flows from the US to Europe, reducing gas available for domestic consumption. LNG gas exports to Europe have maintained their upward trend since 2016 and were up by 87% (674 BCF) in 1Q22 vs the same period in 2019 (Chart 5). Chart 5US LNG Exports To Europe Surge Simultaneously, the US witnessed its largest inventory withdrawal this winter in the last four years (Chart 6). Warmer-than-normal temperatures and drought conditions in the US also are increasing domestic demand, as electricity companies are forced to substitute hydroelectric power with natgas-fired generation. Increased exports and weather phenomena have combined to push the Henry Hub contract above $9.50/MMBtu this week, the highest level since 2008. Chart 6US Natgas Inventories Slowly Filling US LNG Exports To Europe Surge Higher European prices for US natgas have disincentivized shipments to Asia, where prices – measured by the Japan Korea Marker (JKM) – have been trading below the TTF so far this year on average (Chart 7). This has allowed European gas inventories to refill at a rapid pace. As of 4 June, the EU’s working gas inventories were ~49% full and are above last year’s level for this time of the year (Chart 8). Chart 7Natural Gas Markets Eerily Quiet Chart 8European Gas Storage Refill Off To A Good Start Shanghai’s reopening will propel Chinese economic activity and demand for natgas, making an already tight global natural gas market tighter. However, the risk of rolling lockdowns in China will keep Asia’s LNG demand in check.5 LNG vessel charter rates have increased sharply since the Russia-Ukraine war began, largely on the back of European demand (Chart 9). We expect this to be a regular feature of the international gas market going forward, as more LNG export capacity is added in the US – it will rise to 12.6 Bcf/d next year, e.g. – and global demand remains strong. Chart 9Surge in LNG Charter Rates   Europe Is Critically Short LNG Infrastructure Most of the EU’s existing 158 Bcm of annual regasification capacity is located around the Iberian Peninsula (Chart 10), which is not well-connected to the rest of Europe. As a result, to substitute Russian piped gas for LNG imports, investments for import terminals and regasification capacity will be required. In its REPowerEU program the European Commission expects to move closer to complete independence from Russian fossil fuels by importing an additional 50 Bcm of LNG per year, reducing demand, and ramping up renewable energy. Germany is aiming for independence from Russian gas flows by planning a shoreside LNG terminal and ordering four Floating Storage and Regasification Units (FSRUs). The FSRUs, which are expected to come online between year-end and the start of next year will have a combined capacity under 24 Bcm per year. Chart 10Europe Needs More Re-Gasification Capacity These plans, however, are not aligned with the nation’s pathway to go carbon neutral by 2045. An environmental activist group has filed a lawsuit to halt the construction of the LNG terminal. The group also is opposed to Germany’s draft LNG acceleration bill, which will allow imports until two years before 2045.6 This reflects two problems all EU nations will face as they transition to LNG from pipeline Russian gas imports. Firstly, member states will need to invest billions of euros in new LNG capacity, and given current politics, likely will have to decide to scrap or repurpose this infrastructure in during the transition to green energy. Opposing this possibility is the high likelihood that EU states will need to enter long-term LNG contracts to ensure supply security and shield themselves from volatile natgas prices. For the immediate future, the EU likely will kick this can down the road for as long as possible. Investment Implications Back in March, Germany and Austria began preparing their citizens for natgas rationing.7 Now the IEA is warning all of Europe the likelihood of such action is increasing rapidly.8 State and local planners throughout Europe will spend the next five months or so lining up as much LNG and pipeline gas as possible going into the coming winter season. While the inventory-injection in Europe is off to a good start, planners most likely hope to exceed their minimum target for filling 80% of storage in time for the November-March withdrawal season. In addition to the risk of a Russian cutoff of supplies, planners have to account for a higher likelihood of a colder-than-normal winter, given the odds of another La Niña winter, which is associated with colder-than-normal winters in the Northern Hemisphere. The US Climate Prediction Center makes the odds of such an event – the third such event in as many years – just over 60%. If European states are forced to implement rationing of natgas, knock-on effects resulting from prioritizing human needs over industrial concerns will, once again, restrict base metals, fertilizer and food supplies. We remain long energy, metals and grains exposure via the S&P GSCI and COMT ETF as the natural-gas drama in Europe plays out. In addition, we remain long the XOP, XME, PICK, and CRAK ETFs to maintain our equity exposure to industrial commodities. At tonight’s close, we will be getting tactically long 1Q22 futures on the ICE, expecting prices to again exceed €225/MWh. This will complement our existing tactical commodity exposures in 4Q22 TTF futures.     Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com Paula Struk Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy paula.struk@bcaresearch.com     Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish US refined product demand rose just under 4% for the week ended 3 June 2022, led by a surge in jet-fuel demand of 26.5% yoy – finishing at 1.6mm b/d vs. 1.26mm b/d the year earlier, according to the US EIA. This provides further evidence consumer pent-up demand for travel is being released, after the long shut-downs in travel caused by COVID-19 beginning in 1Q20. The surge in jet-fuel demand was enough to offset yoy declines in gasoline and distillates such as diesel fuel and heating oil of 0.9% and 2.8%, respectively. Gasoline inventories were down 800k barrels yoy, which put them 10% below their five-year average level at the end of the reporting week. Distillate inventories rose 2.6mm barrels, but this still left them 23% below their five-year average. Crude oil inventories in the US including those in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), which is being drawn down to provide charging stock to refiners, drew 7.3mm barrels, and stood at 519mm barrels. Versus year-ago levels, crude inventories including the SPR are down 17%. Base Metals: Bullish Copper production in Chile fell 9.8% yoy in April as state-owned copper giant Codelco’s monthly supply fell 6.1% yoy to 116,000 tons. In Peru, protests against mines by displaced communities have seen suspensions in copper mine production, including that of MMG-owned Las Bambas. Although the International Copper Study Group (ICSG) expects a physical surplus for refined copper markets next year, falling production in Chile and civil unrest in Peru continue to plague the rebuilding of stocks (Chart 11). Globally, a risk matrix we reproduced in a report last year showed that approximately 570 million Metric Tons of copper faced a significant ESG risk.9 This increases the risk of new copper projects being stymied by activist groups, and further curtailing future copper production.   Precious Metals: Bullish According to data from World Gold Council, gold ETFs faced net outflows in May as the USD and interest rates strengthened, following the Fed rate hikes (Chart 12). In his speech, Fed Governor Christopher Waller explained that by increasing interest rates, the Fed aims to match labor demand to supply and reduce wage growth, which in turn will lower inflation.10 This, however, does not deal with high inflation via the mechanism of elevated food and fuel prices, which will remain high as long as supply disruptions continue in these markets. Chart 11 Chart 12     Footnotes 1     Please see The Institute For The Study Of War for daily updates of the Russia-Ukraine war. 2     Please see Higher Gasoline, Diesel Prices Ahead, which we published last week, for further discussion of the EU’s embargo of Russian oil imports. The EU embargo initially will be on Russian seaborne oil imports, which will tighten global crude oil and refined-product markets further. Pipeline imports are due to phase out by year-end. Cumulatively, this will translate to a 90% decrease in Russian crude and product exports to the EU, representing ~ 3mm b/d of lost sales. Our report is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3    Please see Energy Cutoff Continues (GeoRisk Update), published by BCA Research’s Geopolitical Strategy on June 1, 2022. It is available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4    According to a recent report from Gemeinshcafts Diagnose institution prepared on behalf of Germany’s Federal Ministry of Economics and Climate Protection, if Russia embargos oil and gas to Germany immediately the German economy will fall into a sharp recession.  The cumulative loss to macroeconomic output in 2022 and 2023 will amount to 220 billion euros, or more than 6.5% of annual economic output. 5    For more on the risk of rolling lockdowns in China, please see Not The Time To Be A Contrarian, published by BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategy on May 19, 2022.   6    Please see Germany’s Cabinet Moves to Head Off Lawsuits Against LNG Terminals, published by The Maritime Executive on May 11, 2022 7     Please see Germany Closer To Rationing Natgas, which we published on March 31, 2022. 8    Please see Europe at risk of winter energy rationing, energy watchdog warns, published by ft.com on June 8, 2022. 9    Please see Renewables ESG Risk Grows With Demand, which we published on April 29, 2022 10   For the speech, please see  Responding to High Inflation with Some Thoughts on a Soft Landing.   Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Trades Closed in 2022

Executive Summary The Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH) is flawed. This Holy Grail of financial economics assumes that investors are a homogenous bunch with identical investment horizons, when the reality is that investors have a wide spectrum of time horizons. The alternative but less well-known Fractal Market Hypothesis (FMH) recognizes that investors with different time horizons interpret the same facts and information differently. The key conclusion of the FMH is that when the different investment horizons are all active in the market, the price reflects all available information, meaning that the market is efficient, liquid, and stable. But when the different investment horizons start to converge and coalesce, the market becomes inefficient, illiquid, and vulnerable to a trend reversal. Using the FMH over the past six months, 5 structured recommendations were closed in profit: Short ILS/GBP, Short Coffee versus Cocoa, Short World Basic Resources versus Market, Long EUR/CHF, and Short Semiconductors versus Tech. Against this, 3 structured recommendations were closed in loss: Short Nickel versus Silver, Long Polish Bonds versus US Bonds, and Short World Semiconductors versus Biotech. Within the 10 open trades, 3 are in healthy profit, 4 are flat, and 3 are in loss. The Efficient Market Hypothesis Does Not Describe The Truth; The Fractal Market Hypothesis Does Bottom Line: As few investors are aware of the Fractal Market Hypothesis, it gives a competitive advantage to those that use it to identify potential trend reversals. Feature For nations and societies, disagreement and conflict are unhealthy. But for financial markets, the opposite is true – it is the lack of disagreement and conflict that is unhealthy. This is because the market needs disagreement to generate liquidity, the ability to trade quickly and in large volume without destabilizing the market price. If I want to buy a share, then somebody must sell me that share. It follows that I and the seller must disagree about the attractiveness of the share at the current price. Likewise, if I and like-minded individuals want to buy ten million shares, it follows that lots of market participants must disagree with us. If lots of market participants do not disagree with us, there will be insufficient liquidity to complete the transaction without a price change. And if too many people are engaged in groupthink, the price change could be extreme. Markets Become Inefficient When There Is Not Enough Disagreement How can there be major disagreement about the attractiveness of an investment when we all have access to the same facts and information? According to the Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH) there cannot be, because asset prices always reflect all available information.1   Unfortunately, the Efficient Market Hypothesis is flawed. This Holy Grail of financial economics assumes that investors are a homogenous bunch with identical investment horizons, when the reality is that investors have a wide spectrum of time horizons – ranging from the milliseconds of momentum-driven high-frequency trading (HFT) to the decades of a value-driven pension fund. The market is efficient only when a wide spectrum of investment horizons is setting the price, signified by the market having a rich fractal structure. The alternative but less well-known Fractal Market Hypothesis (FMH) recognizes the reality of different time horizons. Crucially, the FMH acknowledges that investors with different time horizons interpret the same facts and information differently. In other words, they disagree (Box I-1). Box 1-1The Efficient Market Hypothesis Does Not Describe The Truth; The Fractal Market Hypothesis Does For example, the momentum-based high frequency trader might interpret a sharp one-day sell-off as a sell signal, but the value-based pension fund might interpret the same information as a buying opportunity. This disagreement will create liquidity without requiring a big price adjustment. Thereby it also fosters market stability. The key conclusion of the Fractal Market Hypothesis is that when the different investment horizons are all active in the market, the price does reflect all available information, meaning that the market is efficient, liquid, and stable. But when the different investment horizons start to converge and coalesce, the market becomes inefficient, illiquid, and vulnerable to a trend reversal. Buy and sell orders will no longer match without a price change, possibly extreme. Can we measure the loss of efficiency in a specific investment, and thereby anticipate a potential trend reversal? The answer is yes, by monitoring its fractal dimension, using the expression in the Appendix. Although many readers may find the concept of a fractal dimension intimidating, the idea is simple and intuitive. It just measures the complexity – or information content – in an object or structure. Thereby, when an investment’s fractal dimension reaches its lower limit, it warns that the information content of longer-term investors is missing from the price.  When the longer-term investors do ultimately re-enter the price setting process, the question is: will they endorse the recent trend because of some major change in the fundamentals – such as the start of the Russia/Ukraine war? Or will they reject it, as an unjustified deviation from a fundamental anchor. In most cases, it is the latter: a rejection and a trend reversal. As few investors are aware of the Fractal Market Hypothesis, it gives a competitive advantage to those that use it to identify potential trend reversals. Fractal Trading Update Using the Fractal Market Hypothesis over the past six months, 5 structured recommendations were closed in profit: Short ILS/GBP, Short Coffee versus Cocoa, Short World Basic Resources versus Market, Long EUR/CHF, and Short Semiconductors versus Tech. A fragile fractal structure warns of a crowded trade. One structured recommendation was closed flat: Short Personal Goods versus Consumer Services. Against this, 3 structured recommendations were closed in loss: Short Nickel versus Silver, Long Polish Bonds versus US Bonds, and Short World Semiconductors versus Biotech. Within the 10 open trades, 3 are in healthy profit, 4 are flat, and 3 are in loss. As for the unstructured recommendations, for which we do not define profit targets or expiry dates, we are pleased to report that out of 31 recommendations, only 2 failed to experience a countertrend reversal. Wins 1) November 18th: Short ILS/GBP Achieved its profit target of 4.2 percent. 2) November 25th: Short Coffee versus Cocoa (Chart I-1) Achieved almost half of its 30 percent profit target at expiry. Chart I-1Fractal Analysis Correctly Predicted A Reversal In Coffee Versus Cocoa 3) January 20th: Short World Semiconductors versus Tech (Chart I-2) Achieved its profit target of 6 percent. Chart I-2Fractal Analysis Correctly Predicted A Reversal In World Semiconductors Versus Technology 4) March 10th: Long EUR/CHF Achieved its profit target of 3.6 percent. 5)  April 14th: Short World Basic Resources versus Market (Chart I-3) Achieved its profit target of 11.5 percent. Chart I-3Fractal Analysis Correctly Predicted A Reversal In World Basic Resources Versus Market In addition, Short World Personal Goods versus Consumer Services which was opened on December 9th reached a high-water mark of 10.5 percent but expired flat. Losses 1) December 2nd: Short World Semiconductors versus Biotech Hit its stop loss of 9.5 percent. 2) January 13th: Long Poland versus US: 10-Year Government Bonds Reached a high-water mark of 3.7 percent, but then reversed to hit its stop loss of 8 percent. In the current geopolitical crisis, Poland has been a casualty due to its lengthy border with Ukraine. 3) February 3rd: Short Nickel versus Silver (Chart I-4) Hit its stop loss at 20 percent following an explosive short-squeeze rally in the Nickel price. Chart I-4Nickel's Short-Squeeze Rally Forced A Price Trend Prolongation Open Trades 1) January 27th: Long MSCI Korea versus All-Country World (Chart I-5) Open, in profit, having reached a high-water mark of 6 percent (versus an 8 percent target). Chart I-5Fractal Analysis Correctly Predicted A Rebound In Korea Versus All-Country World 2) February 24th: Long US Biotech versus US Tech Open, in profit, having reached a high-water mark of 10.5 (versus a 17.5 percent target). 3) March 3rd: Short World Banks versus Consumer Services Reached a high-water mark of 7.3 percent (versus a 12 percent target), but then reversed and is in loss. 4) March 24th: Long 5-Year T-bond Open, in modest loss. 5) April 7th: Short World Non-Life Insurance versus Homebuilders (Chart I-6) Open, in profit having reached a high-water mark of 12.4 percent (versus a 14 percent target). Chart I-6Fractal Analysis Correctly Predicted A Reversal In World Non-Life Insurance Versus Homebuilders 6) April 7th: Long JPY/CHF Reached a high-water mark of 3.4 percent versus a 4 percent target, but then reversed into modest loss. This suggests that the trade needed a narrower profit target. 7) April 28th: Short High Dividend ETF versus US 10-Year T-bond Open, in modest loss, having reached a high-water mark of 2.9 percent (versus a 6 percent target). 8) May 19th: Short FTSE 100 versus STOXX Europe 600 Open, and flat. 9) June 2nd: Long JPY/USD (Chart I-7) Open, and flat. Chart I-7The Sell-Off In JPY/USD Has Reached A Potential Turning Point 10) June 2nd: Short Australia Basic Resources versus World Market (Chart I-8) Open, and flat. Chart I-8The Australian Basic Resources Sector Is Vulnerable To Reversal   Our full watchlist of 29 investments that are at, or approaching turning points, is available on our website: cpt.bcaresearch.com Appendix: Calculating The Fractal Dimension Of A Financial Market Chart 1AUD/KRW Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 2Canada Versus Japan Is Reversing Chart 3Canada's TSX-60's Outperformance Might Be Over Chart 4US Healthcare Providers Vs. Software At Risk of Reversal Chart 5BRL/NZD At A Resistance Point Chart 6Homebuilders Versus Healthcare Services Has Turned Chart 7CNY/USD Has Reversed Chart 8CAD/SEK Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 9Financials Versus Industrials To Reverse Chart 10The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Biotech Has Started To Reverse Chart 11The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Healthcare Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 12FTSE100 Outperformance Vs. Euro Stoxx 50 Is Reversing Chart 13Netherlands Underperformance Vs. Switzerland Is Ending Chart 14The Sell-Off In The 30-Year T-Bond Is Approaching Fractal Fragility Chart 15The Sell-Off In The NASDAQ Is Approaching Fractal Fragility Chart 16Food And Beverage Outperformance Exhausted Chart 17The Strong Trend In The 18-Month-Out US Interest Rate Future Is Fragile Chart 18The Strong Trend In The 3 Year T-Bond Is Fragile Chart 19A Potential Switching Point From Tobacco Into Cannabis Chart 20Biotech Is A Major Buy Chart 21Norway's Outperformance Could End Chart 22Cotton Versus Platinum Is Reversing Chart 23Switzerland's Outperformance Vs. Germany Has Ended Chart 24The Rally In USD/EUR Has Ended Chart 25The Outperformance Of MSCI Hong Kong Versus China Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 26A Potential New Entry Point Into Petcare Chart 27Czech Outperformance Near Exhaustion Chart 28US REITS Are Oversold Versus Utilities Chart 29GBP/USD At A Turning Point Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Hadi Elzein Research Associate hadi.elzein@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  Strictly speaking, the EMH assumes there is some disagreement, but that this disagreement is random and follows a standard Gaussian (bell-curve) distribution. Therefore, the EMH assumes that a share price just follows a random walk until new (unpredictable) fundamental information arrives. Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - 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  

Executive Summary Chinese Infrastructure Investment Growth: A Slowdown Ahead Despite the authorities’ push, China’s infrastructure1  investment nominal growth2 will likely slow from the current rate of 8% to 1-3% in 2022H2, on a year-over-year basis.   Funding shortages will limit local governments’ capability to invest in traditional infrastructure fixed-asset investment (FAI), which will likely grow by only 1-2% in 2022H2. We expect China’s cheap green loans to support a 10-15% growth in tech infrastructure spending in the second half of this year. However, the scale of China’s tech infrastructure investment is too small in absolute terms to offset the weakness in traditional infrastructure spending.  Tech infrastructure plays will likely outperform traditional infrastructure plays in the long term as China continues its efforts to peak carbon emissions before 2030 and reach carbon neutrality before 2060. As new infrastructure investment will accelerate in the coming years, we are positive on the sectors of NEV and NEV charging poles. Given the still-high valuation of the sector and mounting downward pressure that the Chinese economy is currently facing, we look to buy these sectors at a better price entry point. Bottom Line: China’s infrastructure investment growth will likely slow from the current 8% rate to 1-3% in 2022H2 due to funding constraints and a shrinking pool of profitable infrastructure projects. Feature Infrastructure investment growth in China accelerated to 8% (nominal) in the first four months of this year (Chart 1, top panel). The authorities demanded that local governments execute infrastructure projects sooner and faster to offset the strong headwinds to the economy from COVID restrictions and continued property downturn. Nonetheless, China’s infrastructure investment growth will likely slow from the current annual rate (YoY) of 8% to 1-3% in 2022H2 due to funding constraints and a lack of financially feasible projects, bringing the whole year’s growth to slightly below 4%.  Although a 4% YoY growth in infrastructure investment this year would be an improvement from the 0.4% YoY contraction in 2021, it is far below the 12% average rate of infrastructure spending growth over the past decade (Chart 1). Moreover, we estimate that traditional infrastructure investment, which accounts for 95% of China’s total infrastructure spending, will only grow by 1-2% in 2022H2 (Chart 2, top panel). Chart 1Chinese Infrastructure Investment: Moderate Growth In 2022H2 Chart 2Investment Growth In 2022H2: Deceleration In Traditional Infrastructure While Acceleration In Tech Infrastructure For the tech infrastructure, we are more positive as building cutting-edge tech infrastructure– including 5G networks, data centers, artificial intelligence (AI) and Internet of Things (IoT) – has become a top development priority for China. With supportive policies and cheap green loans, we expect a 10-15% YoY growth in Chinese tech infrastructure in 2022H2 (Chart 2, bottom panel). However, the scale of China’s tech infrastructure investment is too small in absolute terms to offset the weakness in traditional infrastructure spending. After all, tech infrastructure currently only accounts for about 5% of the total Chinese nominal infrastructure FAI (Chart 3). Chart 3Breaking Down Chinese Infrastructure Investment Tech infrastructure plays will likely outperform their traditional infrastructure counterparts in the long term as China continues its efforts to peak carbon emissions before 2030 and reach carbon neutrality before 2060. As new infrastructure investment will accelerate in the coming years, we are positive on the sectors of NEV and NEV charging poles. Yet, considering China’s economy is still facing downward pressure and the sector’s valuations are still high, we look to buy these sectors at a better price entry point. Funding Constraints The recent strong rebound in Chinese infrastructure investment was mainly driven by a massive frontload of local government special purpose bond (SPB) sales, as well as funding from last year’s SPB proceeds – both funding resources will not sustain into the second half of this year.   According to the data from the Ministry of Finance, in the first five months of 2022, special bond issuance has already reached 2.03 trillion RMB, significantly higher than the 1.2 trillion RMB issued during the same period last year. In addition, there has been an estimated 1.2 trillion unused SPB proceeds from 2021 that have been carried over to 2022 to fund infrastructure spending. However, such a boost in local government funding of infrastructure investment is unsustainable. We expect Chinese infrastructure investment growth to fall back to the 1-3% range in 2022H2 due to limited financial availability and a shrinking pool of infrastructure projects. Chart 4 shows the breakdown of the major funding sources of Chinese infrastructure investment. Most of them are likely to face considerable constraints over the next six months. Chart 4Major Funding Sources Of Chinese Infrastructure Investment (1) Less Revenues Chinese local governments face tremendous shortfalls of cash, which will impede their ability to meet their nearly 30% contribution to overall infrastructure funding: Land sales by local governments contribute nearly 90% of government-managed funds (GMF3). The latter's revenues, excluding proceeds from SPB issuance, account for 16% of overall infrastructure funding. The deep contraction in home sales has depressed real estate developers’ land purchases, which has considerably reduced local government revenues (Chart 5). This will curb the ability of local governments to finance their infrastructure projects through GMFs. Although we expect a moderate rebound in property sales over the next six months from very depressed levels in recent months, the improvement in local government land sales will likely be very limited as real estate developers are still overleveraged and under severe funding constraints.   In addition to the slump in land sales, tax cuts for corporates and low-income households are also eroding local government revenues, and COVID-related expenses add to spending needs. Shrinking corporate profits will also pose downward risks to the tax revenues of local governments (Chart 6). Chart 5Government-Managed Funds: Headwinds From Falling Land Sales Chart 6Declining Government Tax##br## Revenues   The general budget of local governments,4 which contributes to about 14% of overall infrastructure financing, is extremely tight this year. In the first four months of the year,  revenues of local governments fell by about 18% from the same period last year, while their expenditures increased by 5%. As a result, the general government’s fiscal deficit will likely exceed both the 2.8% target set for this year and the 3.2% fiscal deficit of last year (Chart 7).   Chart 7Government General Budget: Large Deficit (2) Less SPB Available In H2 Chart 8Local Government Special Bond Issuance Will Decrease In 2022H2 Local government SPB issuance, which is used exclusively to fund infrastructure projects, has been another major source of financing for domestic infrastructure projects since 2016 (Chart 8).    As local governments frontloaded 56% of their 2022 SPB quota in the first five months of this year, they will have less fiscal support from SPBs in 2022H2. As net local government SPB issuance made up about 16% of overall infrastructure FAI on average in the past three years, there is quite a financing gap to be filled in 2022H2. (3) Contracting Domestic Loan Demand Domestic loans contribute to about 20% of overall infrastructure financing, with 14% from regular non-household medium-long-term (MLT) lending, and another 6% from domestic green loans. Infrastructure projects are generally long-term investments in nature and hence often require MTL loans. Presently, the impulse of non-household MLT lending is contracting (Chart 9). While not all MLT loans are used for infrastructure, sluggish MLT lending also reflects corporates’ reluctance to borrow for and invest in infrastructure projects. Strong economic headwinds due to COVID-induced lockdowns and the slumping property market, mounting local government debt, and low returns on infrastructure projects will continue to curb corporates’ demand for bank loans to fund infrastructure projects, particularly from the private sector. The “green loans”,5 which are used for but not limited to new energy infrastructure projects, will continue to grow strongly in 2022H2. In 2021, the increase in green loans for infrastructure was 1.64 trillion RMB, or a 62% increase from the previous year. In 2022, we expect new green loans could rise 50%-80% to 2.5-3 trillion RMB, with an increase of 0.6-1.1 trillion RMB in new green loans in the second half of the year. While green loans will help support the overall infrastructure investment, given their small size (green loans accounted for about 8% of China’s total infrastructure investment in 2021), they will unlikely fully offset the shortfall from other financing sources this year (Chart 10). Chart 9Sluggish Medium/Long-Term Bank##br## Lending Chart 10Green Loans: Strong Growth In 2022H2 But Still Small Amount Relative To Overall Infrastructure Investment In the long run, though, to reach peak carbon emissions by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2060, China will continue to lean heavily on its banking system to accelerate green projects and infrastructure investment. (4) Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) Since 2014, PPPs have become an important financing model for Chinese local governments to fund infrastructure investments. However, to control rising local government leverage, the central government has tightened regulations on PPP projects since early 2018. Heightened scrutiny has resulted in a sharp deceleration in both PPP investment and overall infrastructure investment growth. Consequently, PPP contributions to total infrastructure FAI have been consistently declining, from over 30% in 2017 to about 4% currently (Chart 11). So far this year, the amount of signed and implemented PPP investments has been falling. While the private sector’s propensity to invest has been extremely weak, a shrinking pool of profitable infrastructure projects could be another contributing factor. The number of projects – which are in the preparation stage in the national total project entries – has been falling from its peak of 2,550 in June 2017 to only 465 in March 2022 (Chart 12). Chart 11Public-Private Partnerships Funding: Limited Growth In 2022H2 Chart 12A Shrinking Pool Of Public-Private Partnership##br## Projects (5) Other Funding Sources Local government financing vehicles (LGFV) and shadow bank borrowing were major financing sources prior to 2018. However, following the 2017/2018 financial de-risking and anticorruption campaign, local governments have scaled back their shadow bank activities significantly. Shadow banking remains in deep contraction (Chart 13). We expect only a modest pick-up in LGFV leveraging during the rest of the year, given that both the anticorruption campaign and a reshuffling of local government officials are ongoing. Chart 13Shadow Banking Will Remain In Deep Contraction In addition, policy banks could sell special sovereign bonds to help fund domestic infrastructure projects. For example, in a recent State Council meeting, Premier Li Keqiang requested policy banks to provide 800 billion RMB ($120 billion) in funding for infrastructure projects. An 800-billion-RMB additional funding, if fully invested, would only add about 0.4% growth to this year’s infrastructure spending. Bottom line: Due to funding constraints and a shrinking pool of profitable infrastructure projects, China’s infrastructure investment growth rate will likely slow from the current 8% pace to 1-3% in 2022H2. Infrastructure Investment Focus: Shifting From Traditional To New Chart 14China Is Shifting Its Focus Away From Traditional Infrastructure Development… The pace of new infrastructure (including but not limited to tech infrastructure) is set to accelerate both cyclically (in the next 6 to 12 months) and structurally (in the next 3 to 5 years), while traditional infrastructure investment growth will slow. However, over a cyclical time horizon, infrastructure investment in new economy sectors is too small to offset the weakness in spending in traditional sectors. Decelerating Investment In Traditional Infrastructure In 2022H2 And Beyond Chart 14 shows the real growth rate of railways, highways and airports has all dropped to below 3% last year. Correspondingly, investment in transport infrastructure only grew 1.4% in 2020 and 1.6% in 2021, a distinctly slower pace from 3.9% in 2018 and 3.4% in 2019. Similar growth deceleration has also occurred in the Water Conservancy, Environment & Utility Management sector. Investment growth in nominal terms this sector fell from 3.3% in 2018 and 2.9% in 2019 to 0.2% in 2020 and saw a 1.2% contraction in 2021. Most Chinese cities with large populations and/or high population density have already upgraded their sewer system in recent years and, therefore, localities have only been maintaining rather than upgrading these systems. The Water Conservancy, Environment & Utility Management sector and the Transport, Storage and Postal Service sector together account for the lion’s share (78%) of total infrastructure investment. A growth deceleration in these two sectors will likely lead to slower growth in overall infrastructure investment, compared with the first four months of this year, when both sectors grew by 7.2% and 7.4%, respectively, in nominal terms. Accelerating Investment In New Infrastructure In 2022H2 And Beyond Chart 15...To New Infrastructure Development Investment in new economy sectors–such as Electricity, Gas & Water Production and Supply, which currently accounts for about 18% of overall infrastructure investment–will remain strong in 2022H2. Investment in the subsector of ultra-high-voltage electricity transmission (UHV electricity transmission) and smart grid, as well as new electricity infrastructure, such as wind and solar power, will also continue to accelerate. The construction of 5G base stations will grow strongly in the coming years but may see a moderation in growth this year. Network operators such as China Mobile, China Unicom and China Telecom plan to build about 600,000 5G base stations, slightly lower than last year’s 650,000. The construction of new electric vehicle (NEV) charging poles accelerated because of a significant increase in NEV sales (Chart 15). Elevated oil prices and technology improvement in NEV performance have boosted NEV sales in China. As such, investment growth in NEV charging infrastructure is set to rise in the coming years. Bottom line: China’s investment focus is shifting from traditional infrastructure to new economy infrastructure. As such, we expect new infrastructure investment in tech and green energy to rise at the expense of traditional infrastructure (Chart 16). Chart 16"Green Investment" Is Rising, “Dirty Thermal” Investment Is Falling Investment Implications The infrastructure sector accounts for about 10-15% of China’s total steel consumption and about 30-40% of cement consumption (Chart 17). Chart 17A Slowdown In Chinese Infrastructure Spending Will Weigh On Steel And Cement Prices We expect China’s infrastructure investment, particularly in traditional sectors like highway construction, to slow in the second half of the year. As such, steel prices are at risk of falling further. Moreover, sluggish construction activity in property markets will be a drag on steel prices (Chart 18). Slower growth in traditional infrastructure investment in the next six months, as well as structurally will pose downward pressures on the performance of both global and Chinese onshore machinery stocks (Chart 19). Chart 18Dismal Property Markets Will Be A Drag On##br## Steel Prices Chart 19Slower Growth In Traditional Infrastructure Investment Will Weigh On Global/Chinese Machinery Stocks Chart 20Look To Buy NEV Stocks We are positive on China’s NEV sector’s structural outlook and stock performance, based on an acceleration in new economy infrastructure investment in the coming years. However, the near-term outlook on the sector’s stock performance is neutral at best. The sector’s valuations are high, considering China’s economy is still facing downward pressure due to a faltering property market, sluggish household income growth and consumption, falling export demand, as well as heightened risks of further COVID-induced lockdowns. NEV stocks will likely have more shakeouts in the coming six months before any sustainable uptrend. Hence, we look to buy these sectors at a better price entry point (Chart 20).   Ellen JingYuan He Associate Vice President ellenj@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  Including both traditional infrastructure and tech infrastructure. For the purposes of this report, the composition of “infrastructure” includes “traditional infrastructure” and “tech infrastructure.” The “traditional infrastructure” comprises three categories – (1) Transport, Storage and Postal Service; (2) Water Conservancy, Environment & Utility Management; and (3) Electricity, Gas & Water Production and Supply. 2 Please note that all growth rates in this report are nominal growth rates. 3 According to the country’s Budget Law, the GMF budget refers to the budget for revenues and expenditures for the funds raised for specific developmental objectives. In brief, GMFs constitute de-facto off-balance-sheet government revenues and spending. 4 The general budget of local governments covers local governments’ day-to-day operation as well as local infrastructure development (mainly in four categories: Environment Protection,  Urban & Rural Community Affairs, and Affairs of Agriculture, Forest  & Irrigation and Transportation). In contrast, the government-managed funds (GMF) excluding proceeds from SPB issuance finances the big ang national-level important infrastructure projects. 5 Last November, the People’s Bank of China (PBoC) launched a carbon emission reduction facility (CERF) to offer low interest loans to financial institutions that help firms cut carbon emissions. The targeted green lending program will provide 60% of loan principals made by financial institutions for carbon emission cuts at a one-year lending rate of 1.75%. The funding will be available retroactively after the loans are made, and can be rolled over twice. Strategic Themes Cyclical Recommendations

Highlights Chart 1Wage Growth Is Cooling In a speech last week, Fed Governor Christopher Waller presented the theoretical underpinnings for how the Fed plans to achieve a soft landing for the US economy.1 The Fed’s hope is that tighter monetary policy will slow demand enough to reduce the number of job openings – of which there are currently almost two for every unemployed person – without leading to a significant increase in layoffs and the unemployment rate. A reduction in the ratio of job openings to unemployed will lead to softer wage growth and lower inflation. The May employment report – released last Friday – provides some evidence that the Fed’s plan may be working. In May, an increase in labor force participation led to strong employment gains and kept the unemployment rate flat. We also saw continued evidence of a deceleration in average hourly earnings (Chart 1). Fifty basis point rate hikes are all but assured at the June and July FOMC meetings, but softer wage growth and falling inflation make it more likely that the Fed will downshift to a pace of 25 bps per meeting starting in September. Feature Table 1 Recommended Portfolio Specification Table 2Fixed Income Sector Performance Investment Grade: Underweight Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 79 basis points in May, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -215 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread tightened 5 bps on the month and it currently sits at 131 bps. Similarly, our quality-adjusted 12-month breakeven spread downshifted to its 45th percentile since 1995 (Chart 2). A recent report made the case for why investors should underweight investment grade corporate bonds on a 6-12 month horizon.2 The main rationale for this recommendation is that the slope of the Treasury curve is very flat, signaling that we are in the mid-to-late stages of the credit cycle. Corporate bond performance tends to be weak during such periods unless spreads start from very high levels. Despite our underweight 6-12 month investment stance, we see a high likelihood that spreads will narrow during the next few months as inflation falls and the Fed tightens by no more than what is already priced in the curve. That said, the persistent removal of monetary accommodation and flatness of the yield curve will limit how much spreads can compress. Last week’s report dug deeper into the corporate bond space and concluded that investment grade-rated Energy bonds offer exceptional value on a 6-12 month horizon.3  That report also concluded that long maturity investment grade corporates are attractively priced relative to short maturity bonds. Table 3A Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* High-Yield: Neutral Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 35 basis points in May, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -316 bps. More specifically, high-yield sold off dramatically early in the month – the junk index lagged Treasuries by 368 bps between May 1 and May 20 – but then staged a rally near the end of May, outperforming Treasuries by 333 bps between May 20 and May 31. The 12-month spread-implied default rate – the default rate that is priced into the junk index assuming a 40% recovery rate on defaulted debt and an excess spread of 100 bps – moved higher in May. It currently sits at 5.1% (Chart 3). Last week’s report reiterated our view that investors should favor high-yield over investment grade within an overall underweight allocation to spread product versus Treasuries.4 Our main rationale for this view is that there are historical precedents for high-yield bonds outperforming investment grade during periods when the yield curve is very flat but when corporate balance sheet health is strong. The 2006-07 period is a prime example. With that in mind, our outlook for corporate profit and debt growth is consistent with a default rate of 2.7% to 3.7% during the next 12 months, well below the 5.1% that is currently priced in the index. MBS: Underweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 70 basis points in May, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -109 bps. We discussed the outlook for Agency MBS in a recent report.5 We noted that MBS’s poor performance in 2021 and early-2022 was driven by duration extension. Fewer homeowners refinanced their loans as mortgage rates rose, and the MBS index’s average duration increased (Chart 4). But now, the index’s duration extension is at its end. The average convexity of the MBS index is close to zero (panel 3), meaning that duration is now insensitive to changes in rates. This is because hardly any homeowners have the incentive to refinance at current mortgage rates (panel 4). The implication is that excess MBS returns will be stronger going forward. That said, we still don’t see enough value in MBS spreads to increase our recommended allocation. The average index spread for conventional 30-year Agency MBS remains close to its lowest level since 2000 (bottom panel). At the coupon level, we observe that low-coupon MBS have much higher duration than high-coupon MBS and that convexity is close to zero for the entire coupon stack. This makes the relative coupon trade a direct play on bond yields. Given that we see some potential for yields to fall somewhat during the next six months, we recommend favoring low-coupon MBS (1.5%-2.5%) within an overall underweight allocation to the sector.ext 12 months, well below the 5.1% that is currently priced in the index. Emerging Market Bonds (USD): Underweight Chart 5Emerging Markets Overview Emerging Market (EM) bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 29 basis points in May, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -565 bps. EM sovereigns outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 125 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -664 bps. The EM Corporate & Quasi-Sovereign Index underperformed by 28 bps, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -501 bps. The EM Sovereign Index underperformed the duration-equivalent US corporate bond index by 27 bps in May. The yield differential between EM sovereigns and duration-matched US corporates remains negative (Chart 5). As such, we continue to recommend a maximum underweight allocation to EM sovereigns. The EM Corporate & Quasi-Sovereign Index underperformed duration-matched US corporates by 109 bps in May, but it continues to offer a significant yield advantage (panel 4). As such, we maintain our neutral allocation (3 out of 5) to the sector. Despite modest weakness in the trade-weighted US dollar in May, EM currencies continue to struggle (bottom panel). If the Fed tightens no more quickly than what is already priced in the curve for the next six months – as we expect – it could limit the upward pressure on the US dollar and benefit EM spreads in the near term. Municipal Bonds: Overweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 61 basis points in May, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -78 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). We view the municipal bond sector as better placed than most to cope with the recent bout of spread product volatility. As we noted in a recent report, state & local government revenue growth has been strong and yet governments have also been slow to hire.6 The result is that net state & local government savings are incredibly high (Chart 6) and it will take some time to deplete those coffers even as economic growth slows and federal fiscal thrust turns to drag. On the valuation front, munis have cheapened up relative to both Treasuries and corporates during the past few months. The 10-year Aaa Muni/Treasury yield ratio is currently 83%, up significantly from its 2021 trough of 55%. The yield ratio between 12-17 year munis and duration-matched corporate bonds is also up significantly off its lows (panel 2). We reiterate our overweight allocation to municipal bonds within US fixed income portfolios, and we continue to have a strong preference for long-maturity munis. The yield ratio between 17-year+ General Obligation Municipal bonds and duration-matched corporates is 85%. The same measure for 17-year+ Revenue bonds stands at 92%, just below parity even without considering municipal debt’s tax advantage. Treasury Curve: Buy 5-Year Bullet Versus 2/10 Barbell Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve bull-steepened in May. The 2-year/10-year Treasury slope steepened 13 bps on the month and the 5-year/30-year slope steepened 22 bps. The 2/10 and 5/30 slopes now stand at 30 bps and 16 bps, respectively. In a recent Special Report we noted the unusually large divergence between flat slopes at the long end of the curve and steep slopes at the front end.7 For example, the 5-year/10-year Treasury slope is currently 1 bp while the 3-month/5-year slope is 178 bps. The divergence is happening because the market has moved quicky to price-in a rapid near-term pace of rate hikes. However, so far, the Fed has only delivered 75 bps of tightening and this is holding down the very front-end of the curve. The oddly shaped curve presents us with an excellent trading opportunity. Specifically, we recommend buying the 5-year Treasury note versus a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 2-year and 10-year notes. This trade looks attractive on our model (Chart 7) and will profit if the rate hike cycle moves more slowly than what is currently priced but lasts longer. We also continue to recommend a position long the 20-year bullet versus a duration-matched 10/30 barbell as an attractive carry trade. TIPS: Underweight Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS underperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 144 basis points in May, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +237 bps. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate fell 25 bps last month, but it remains above the Fed’s 2.3% - 2.5% comfort zone (Chart 8). Our TIPS Breakeven Valuation Indicator shows that TIPS remain “expensive”, but not as expensive as they were a month ago (panel 2). While TIPS have become less expensive during the past month, we think TIPS breakeven inflation rates will continue to fall during the next few months as inflation moves lower. This will be particularly true at the front-end of the curve where breakevens remain disconnected from the Fed’s target (panel 4) and where breakevens exhibit a stronger correlation with the incoming inflation data. To take advantage of falling inflation between now and the end of the year, investors should position for a steeper TIPS breakeven curve (bottom panel) and/or a flatter real (TIPS) curve. We also recommend that investors hold outright short positions in 2-year TIPS.     ABS: Overweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 26 basis points in May, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -63 bps. Aaa-rated ABS underperformed by 26 bps on the month, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -59 bps. Non-Aaa ABS underperformed by 22 bps on the month, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -88 bps. During the past two years, substantial federal government support for household incomes caused US households to build up an extremely large buffer of excess savings. Nowhere is this more evident than in the steep drop in the amount of outstanding credit card debt that was witnessed in 2020 and 2021 (Chart 9). In 2022, consumers have started to re-lever. The personal savings rate was just 4.4% in April, the lowest print since September 2008, and the amount of outstanding credit card debt has almost recovered its pre-COVID level. But while household balance sheets are starting to deteriorate, they remain exceptionally strong in level terms. In other words, it will be some time before we see enough deterioration to cause a meaningful uptick in consumer credit delinquencies. Investors should remain overweight consumer ABS and should take advantage of the high quality of household balance sheets by moving down the quality spectrum, favoring non-Aaa rated securities over Aaa-rated ones. Non-Agency CMBS: Overweight Chart 10CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 105 basis points in May, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -189 bps. Aaa Non-Agency CMBS underperformed Treasuries by 84 bps on the month, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -152 bps. Non-Aaa Non-Agency CMBS underperformed by 165 bps on the month, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -290 bps. CMBS spreads remain wide compared to other similarly risky spread products. However, after several quarters of easing, commercial real estate lending standards shifted closer to ‘net tightening’ territory in Q1 (Chart 10). This trend will bear monitoring in the coming quarters.  Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 19 basis points in May, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -23 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread tightened 2 bps on the month. It currently sits at 49 bps, not that far from its average pre-COVID level (bottom panel). Agency CMBS spreads also continue to look attractive compared to other similarly risky spread products. Stay overweight. Appendix A: The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing We follow a two-step process to formulate recommendations for bond portfolio duration. First, we determine the change in the federal funds rate that is priced into the yield curve for the next 12 months. Second, we decide – based on our assessments of the economy and Fed policy – whether the change in the fed funds rate will exceed or fall short of what is priced into the curve. Most of the time, a correct answer to this question leads to the appropriate duration call. We call this framework the Golden Rule Of Bond Investing, and we demonstrated its effectiveness in the US Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing”, dated July 24, 2018. Chart 11 illustrates the Golden Rule’s track record by showing that the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury Master Index tends to outperform cash when rate hikes fall short of 12-month expectations, and vice-versa. At present, the market is priced for 251 basis points of rate hikes during the next 12 months. Chart 11The Golden Rule's Track RecordWe can also use our Golden Rule framework to make 12-month total return and excess return forecasts for the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury index under different scenarios for the fed funds rate. Excess returns are relative to the Bloomberg Barclays Cash index. To forecast total returns we first calculate the 12-month fed funds rate surprise in each scenario by comparing the assumed change in the fed funds rate to the current value of our 12-month discounter. This rate hike surprise is then mapped to an expected change in the Treasury index yield using a regression based on the historical relationship between those two variables. Finally, we apply the expected change in index yield to the current characteristics (yield, duration and convexity) of the Treasury index to estimate total returns on a 12-month horizon. The below tables present those results, along with excess returns for a front-loaded and a back-loaded rate hike scenario. Excess returns are calculated by subtracting assumed cash returns in each scenario from our total return projections. Appendix B: Butterfly Strategy Valuations The following tables present the current read-outs from our butterfly spread models. We use these models to identify opportunities to take duration-neutral positions across the Treasury curve. The following two Special Reports explain the models in more detail: US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com US Bond Strategy Special Report, “More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Table 4 shows the raw residuals from each model. A positive value indicates that the bullet is cheap relative to the duration-matched barbell. A negative value indicates that the barbell is cheap relative to the bullet. Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Raw Residuals In Basis Points (As Of May 31, 2022) Table 5 scales the raw residuals in Table 4 by their historical means and standard deviations. This facilitates comparison between the different butterfly spreads. Table 5Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals (As Of May 31, 2022) Table 6 flips the models on their heads. It shows the change in the slope between the two barbell maturities that must be realized during the next six months to make returns between the bullet and barbell equal. For example, a reading of -51 bps in the 5 over 2/10 cell means that we would expect the 5-year to outperform the 2/10 if the 2/10 slope flattens by less than 51 bps during the next six months. Otherwise, we would expect the 2/10 barbell to outperform the 5-year bullet. Table 6Discounted Slope Change During Next 6 Months (BPs) Appendix C: Excess Return Bond Map The Excess Return Bond Map is used to assess the relative risk/reward trade-off between different sectors of the US bond market. It is a purely computational exercise and does not impose any macroeconomic view. The Map’s vertical axis shows 12-month expected excess returns. These are proxied by each sector’s option-adjusted spread. Sectors plotting further toward the top of the Map have higher expected returns and vice-versa. Our novel risk measure called the “Risk Of Losing 100 bps” is shown on the Map’s horizontal axis. To calculate it, we first compute the spread widening required on a 12-month horizon for each sector to lose 100 bps or more relative to a duration-matched position in Treasury securities. Then, we divide that amount of spread widening by each sector’s historical spread volatility. The end result is the number of standard deviations of 12-month spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps or more versus a position in Treasuries. Lower risk sectors plot further to the right of the Map, and higher risk sectors plot further to the left. Chart 12Excess Return Bond Map (As Of May 31, 2022) Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/waller20220530a.htm 2 Please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “Turning Defensive On US Corporate Bonds”, dated April 12, 2022. 3 Please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “Looking For Opportunities In US & European Corporates After The Recent Selloff”, dated May 31, 2022. 4  Please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “Looking For Opportunities In US & European Corporates After The Recent Selloff”, dated May 31, 2022. 5 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Bond Market Implications Of A 5% Mortgage Rate”, dated April 26, 2022. 6 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Echoes Of 2018”, dated May 24, 2022. 7 Please see US Bond Strategy / US Investment Strategy / US Equity Strategy Special Report, “The Yield Curve As An Indicator”, dated March 29, 2022.       Recommended Portfolio Specification Other Recommendations Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns