Emerging Markets

Highlights Short-term inflation risk will escalate further if politics causes new supply disruptions. Long-term inflation risk is significant as well. There is a distinct risk of a geopolitical crisis in the Middle East that would push up energy prices: the US’s unfinished business with Iran. The primary disinflationary risk is China’s property sector distress. However, Beijing will strive to maintain stability prior to the twentieth national party congress in fall 2022. South Asian geopolitical risks are rising. The Indo-Pakistani ceasefire is likely to break down, while Afghani terrorism will rebound. Book gains on our emerging market currency short targeting “strongman” regimes. Feature Investors are underrating the risk of a global oil shock. This was our geopolitical takeaway from the BCA Conference this year. Investors are focused on the risk of inflation and stagflation, always with reference to the 1970s. The sharp increase in energy prices due to the Arab Oil Embargo of 1973 and the Iranian Revolution of 1979 are universally cited as aggravating factors of stagflation at that time. But these events are also given as critical differences between the situation in the 1970s and today. Unfortunately, there could be similarities. From a strictly geopolitical perspective, the risk of a conflict in the Middle East is significant both in the near term and over the coming year or so. The risk stems from the US’s unfinished business with Iran. More broadly, any supply disruption would have an outsized impact as global energy inventories decline. OPEC’s spare capacity at present can cover a 5 million barrel shock (Chart 1). In this week’s report we also provide tactical updates on China, Russia, and India. Geopolitics And The 1970s Inflation Chart 2Wage-Price Spiral, Stagflation In 1970s Fundamentally the stagflation of the 1970s occurred because global policymakers engendered a spiral of higher wages and higher prices. The wage-price spiral was exacerbated by a falling dollar, after President Nixon abandoned the gold standard, and a commodity price surge (Chart 2). Monetary policy clearly played a role. It was too easy for too long, with broad money supply consistently rising relative to nominal GDP (Chart 3). Central banks including the Federal Reserve were focused exclusively on employment. Policymakers saw the primary risk to the institution’s credibility as recession and unemployment, not inflation. Fear of the Great Depression lurked under the surface. Fiscal policy also played a role. The size of the US budget deficit at this time is often exaggerated but there is no question that they were growing and contributed to the bout of inflation and spike in bond yields (Chart 4). The reason was not only President Johnson’s large social spending program, known as the “Great Society.” It was also Johnson’s war – the Vietnam war. Chart 3Central Banks Focused On Employment, Not Prices, In 1970s On top of this heady mix of inflationary variables came geopolitics. The Yom Kippur war in 1973 prompted Arab states to impose an embargo on Israel’s supporters in the West. The Arab embargo cut off 8% of global oil demand at the time. Oil prices skyrocketed, precipitating a deep recession (Chart 5). Chart 4Johnson's 'Great Society' And Vietnam War Spending The embargo came to a halt in spring of 1974 after Israeli forces withdrew to the east of the Suez Canal. The oil shock exacerbated the underlying inflationary wave that continued throughout the decade. The Iranian revolution triggered another oil shock in 1979, bringing the rise in general prices to their peak in the early 1980s, at which point policymakers intervened decisively. Chart 5Arab Oil Embargo And Iranian Revolution There is an analogy with today’s global policy mix. Fear of the Great Recession and deflation rules within policymaking circles, albeit less so among the general public. The Fed and the European Central Bank have adjusted their strategies to pursue an average inflation target and “maximum employment.” Chart 6Wage-Price Spiral Today?​​​​​​ The Biden administration is reviving big government with a framework agreement of around $1.2 trillion in new deficit spending on infrastructure, green energy, and social programs likely to pass Congress before year’s end. In short, the macro and policy backdrop are changing in a way that is reminiscent of the 1970s despite various structural differences between the two periods. It is too early to declare that a wage-price spiral has developed but core inflation is rising and investors are right to be concerned about the direction and potential for inflation surprises down the road (Chart 6). These trends would not be nearly as concerning if they were not occurring in the context of a shift in public opinion in favor of government versus markets, labor versus capital, onshoring versus offshoring, and protectionism versus free trade. Investors should note that the last policy sea change (in the opposite direction) lasted roughly 30-40 years. The global savings glut – shown here as the combined current account balances of the world’s major economies – has begun to decline, implying that a major deflationary force might be subsiding. Asian exporters apparently have substantial pricing power, as witnessed by rising export prices, although they have yet to break above the secular downtrend of the post-2008 period (Chart 7). Chart 7Hypo-Globalization Is Inflationary A commodity price surge is also underway, of course, though it is so far manageable. The US and EU economies are less energy-intensive than in the 1970s and there is considerable buffer between today’s high prices and an economic recession (Chart 8). Chart 8Wage-Price Spiral Today? The problem is that there is a diminishing margin of safety. Furthermore, a crisis in the Middle East is not far-fetched, as there is a concrete and distinct reason for worrying about one: the US’s unresolved collision course with Iran. A crisis in the Persian Gulf would greatly exacerbate today’s energy shortages. Iran: The Risk Of An Oil Shock Iran now says it will rejoin diplomatic talks over its nuclear program in late November. This development was expected, and is important, but it masks the urgent and dangerous trajectory of events that could blow up any day now. It is emphatically not an “all clear” sign for geopolitical risk in the Persian Gulf. The US is hinting, merely hinting, that it is willing to use military force to prevent Iran from going nuclear. The Iranians doubt US appetite for war and have every reason to think that nuclear status will guarantee them regime survival. Thus the Iranians are incentivized to use diplomacy as a screen while pursuing nuclear weaponization – unless the US and Israel make a convincing display of military strength to force Iran back to genuine diplomacy. A convincing display is hard to do. A secret war is taking place, of sabotage and cyber-attacks. On October 26 a cyber-attack disrupted Iranian gas stations. But even attacks on nuclear scientists and facilities have not dissuaded the Iranians from making progress on their nuclear program yet. Iran does not want to be attacked but it knows that a ground invasion is virtually impossible and air strikes alone have a poor record of winning wars. The Iranians have achieved 60% highly enriched uranium and are expected to achieve nuclear breakout capacity – the ability to make a nuclear device – sometime between now and December (Table 1). The IAEA no longer has any visibility in Iran. The regime’s verified production of uranium metal can only be used for the construction of a warhead. Recent technical progress may be irreversible, according to the Institute for Science and International Security.1 If that is true then the upcoming round of diplomatic negotiations is already doomed. Table 1Iran’s Compliance With Nuclear Deal And Time Until Breakout (Oct 2021) American policymakers seem overconfident in the face of this clear nuclear proliferation risk. This is strange given that North Korea successfully manipulated them over the past three decades and now has an arsenal of 40-50 nuclear weapons. The consensus goes as follows: Regime instability: Americans emphasize that the Iranian regime is unstable, lacks genuine support, and faces a large and restive youth population. This is all true. Indeed Iran is one of the most likely candidates for major regime instability in the wake of the COVID-19 shock. Chart 9AIran's Economy Sees Inflation Spike ...​​​​​​ Chart 9B... Yet Some Green Shoots Are Rising However, popular protest has not had any effect on the regime over the past 12 years. Today the economy is improving and illicit oil revenues are rising (Chart 9). A new nationalist government is in charge that has far greater support than the discredited reformist faction that failed on both the economic and foreign policy fronts (Chart 10). The sophisticated idea that achieving nuclear breakout will somehow weaken the regime is wishful thinking.  If it provokes US and/or Israeli air strikes, it will most likely see the people rally around the flag and convince the next generation to adopt the revolutionary cause.2 If it does not provoke a war, then the regime’s strategic wisdom will be confirmed. American military and economic superiority: Americans tend to think that Iran will back down in the face of the US’s and Israel’s overwhelming military and economic superiority. It is true that a massive show of force – combined with the sale of specialized weaponry to Israel to enable a successful strike against extremely hardened nuclear facilities – could force Iran to pause its nuclear quest and go back to negotiations. Yet the US’s awesome display of military power in both Iraq and Afghanistan ended in ignominy and have not deterred Iran, just next door, after 20 years. Nor have American economic sanctions, including “maximum pressure” sanctions since 2019. The US is starkly divided, very few people view Iran as a major threat, and there is an aversion to wars in the Middle East (Chart 11). The Iranians could be forgiven for doubting that the US has the appetite to enforce its demands. ​​​​​​ ​​​​​​ In short the US is attempting to turn its strategic focus to China and Asia Pacific, which creates a power vacuum in the Middle East that Iran may attempt to fill. Meanwhile global supply and demand balances for energy are tight, with shortages popping up around the world, giving Iran greater leverage. From an investment point of view, a crisis is likely in the near term regardless of what happens afterwards. A crisis is necessary to force the US and Iran to return to a durable nuclear deal like in 2015. Otherwise Iran will reach nuclear breakout and an even bigger crisis will erupt, potentially forcing the US and Israel (or Israel alone) to take military action. Diplomatic efforts will need to have some quick and substantial victories in the coming months to convince us that the countries have moved off their collision course. A conflict with Iran will not necessarily go to the extreme of Iran shutting down the Strait of Hormuz and cutting off 21% of the world’s oil and 26% of liquefied natural gas (Chart 12). If that happens a global recession is unavoidable. It would more likely involve lesser conflicts, at least initially, such as “Tanker War 2.0” in the Persian Gulf.3 Or it could involve a flare-up of the ongoing proxy war by missile and drone strikes, such as with the Abqaiq attack in 2019 that knocked 5.7 million barrels per day offline overnight. The impact on oil markets will depend on the nature and magnitude of the event. What are the odds of a military conflict? In past reports we have demonstrated that there is a 40% chance of conflict with Iran. The country’s nuclear program is at a critical juncture. The longer the world goes without a diplomatic track to defuse tensions, the more investors should brace for negative surprises. Bottom Line: There is a clear and present danger of a geopolitical oil shock. The implication is that oil and LNG prices could spike in the coming zero-to-12 months. The implication would be a dramatic “up then down” movement in global energy prices. Inflation expectations should benefit from simmering tensions but a full-blown war would cause an extreme price spike and global recession. China: The Return Of The Authoritative Person Another reason that today’s inflation risk could last longer than expected is that China’s government is likely to backpedal from overtightening monetary, fiscal, and regulatory policy. If this is true then China will secure its economic recovery, the global recovery will continue, commodity prices will stay elevated, and the inflation expectations and bond yields will recover. If it is not true then investors will start talking about disinflation and deflation again soon. We are not bullish on Chinese assets – far from it. We see China entering a property-induced debt-deflation crisis over the long run. But over the 2021-22 period we have argued that China would pull back from the brink of overtightening. Our GeoRisk Indicator for China highlights how policy risk remains elevated (see Appendix). So far our assessment appears largely accurate. The government has quietly intervened to prevent the troubled developer Evergrande from suffering a Lehman-style collapse. The long-delayed imposition of a nationwide property tax is once again being diluted into a few regional trial balloons. Alibaba founder Jack Ma, whom the government disappeared last year, has reappeared in public view, which implies that Beijing recognizes that its crackdown on Big Tech could cause long-term damage to innovation. At this critical juncture, a mysterious “authoritative” commentator has returned to the scene after five years of silence. Widely believed to be Vice Premier Liu He, a Politburo member and Xi Jinping confidante on economic affairs, the authoritative person argues in a recent editorial that China will stick with its current economic policies.4 However, the message was not entirely hawkish. Table 2 highlights the key arguments – China is not oblivious to the risk of a policy mistake. Table 2Messages From China’s ‘Authoritative Person’ On Economic Policy (2021) Readers will recall that a similar “authoritative Person” first appeared in the People’s Daily in May 2016. At that time, the Chinese government had just relented in the face of economic instability and stimulated the economy. It saw a 3.5% of GDP increase in fiscal spending and a 10.0% of GDP increase in the credit impulse from the trough in 2015 to the peak in 2016. The authoritative person was explaining that the intention to reform would persist despite the relapse into debt-fueled growth. So one must wonder today whether the authoritative person is emerging because Beijing is sticking to its guns (consensus view) or rather because it is gradually being forced to relax policy by the manifest risk of financial instability. To be fair, a recent announcement on government special purpose bonds does not indicate major fiscal easing. If local governments accelerate their issuance of new special purpose bonds to meet their quota for the year then they are still not dramatically increasing the fiscal support for the economy. But this announcement could protect against downside growth risks. The first quarter of 2022 will be the true test of whether China will remain hawkish. Going forward there are two significant dangers as we see it. The first is that policymakers prove ideological rather than pragmatic. An autocratic government could get so wrapped up in its populist campaign to restrain high housing costs that it refuses to slacken policies enough and causes a crash. The second danger is that inflation stays higher for longer, preventing authorities from easing policy even when they know they need to do so to stabilize growth. The second danger is the bigger of the two risks. As for the first risk, ideology will take a backseat to necessity. Xi Jinping needs to secure key promotions for his faction in the top positions of the Communist Party at the twentieth national party congress in 2022. He cannot be sure to succeed if the economy is in free fall. A self-induced crash would be a very peculiar way of trying to solidify one’s stature as leader for life at the critical hour. Similarly China cannot maintain a long-term great power competition with the United States if it deliberately triggers property deflation and financial turmoil. It can and will continue modernizing and upgrading its military, e.g. developing hypersonic missiles, even if it faces financial turmoil. But it will have a much greater chance of neutralizing US regional allies and creating a regional buffer space if its economic growth is stable. Ultimately China cannot prevent financial instability, economic distress, and political risk from rising in the coming years. There will be a reckoning for its vast imbalances, as with all countries. It could be that this reckoning will upset the Xi administration’s best-laid plans for 2022. But before that happens we expect policy to ease. A policy mistake today would mean that very negative economic outcomes will arrive precisely in time to affect sociopolitical stability ahead of the party congress next fall. We will keep betting against that. Bottom Line: China’s “authoritative” media commentator shows that policymakers are not as hawkish as the consensus holds. The main takeaway is that policymakers will adjust the intensity of their reform efforts to maintain stability. This is standard Chinese policymaking and it is more important than usual ahead of the political rotation in 2022. Otherwise global inflation risk will quickly give way to deflation risk as defaults among China’s property developers spread and morph into broader financial and economic instability. Indo-Pakistani Ceasefire: A Breakdown Is Nigh India and Pakistan agreed to a ceasefire along the line of control in February 2021. While the agreement has held up so far, a breakdown is probably around the corner. It was never likely to last for long. Over the short run, the ceasefire made sense for both countries: COVID-19 Risks: The first wave of the pandemic had abated but COVID-19-related risks loomed large. India had administered less than 15 million vaccine doses back then and Pakistan only 100,000. Dangerous Transitions Were Underway: With America’s withdrawal from Afghanistan in the works, Pakistan was fully focused on its western border. India was pre-occupied with its eastern front, where skirmishes with Chinese troops forced it to redirect some of its military focus. As we now head towards the end of 2021, these constraints are no longer binding. COVID-19 Risks Under Control: The vaccination campaign in India and Pakistan has gathered pace. More than 50% of India’s population and 30% of Pakistan’s have been given at least one dose. Pakistan’s Ducks Are Lined-up In Afghanistan: America’s withdrawal from Afghanistan has been completed. Afghanistan is under Taliban’s control and Pakistan has a better hold over the affairs of its western neighbor. One constraint remains: India and China remain embroiled in border disputes. Conciliatory talks between their military commanders broke down a fortnight ago. Winter makes it nearly impossible to undertake significant operations in the Himalayas but a failure of coordination today could set up a conflict either immediately or in the spring. While India may see greater value in maintaining the ceasefire than Pakistan, India has elections due in key northern states in 2022. India’s northern states harbor even less favorable views of Pakistan than the rest of India. Hence any small event could trigger a disproportionate response from India. Bottom Line: While it is impossible to predict the timing, a breakdown in the Indo-Pakistani ceasefire may materialize in 2022 or sooner. Depending on the exact nature of any conflict, a geopolitically induced selloff in Indian equities could create a much-needed consolidation of this year’s rally and ultimately a buying opportunity. Russia, Global Terrorism, And Great Power Relations Part of Putin’s strategy of rebuilding the Russian empire involves ensuring that Russia has a seat at the table for every major negotiation in Eurasia. Now that the US has withdrawn forces from Afghanistan, Russia is pursuing a greater role there. Most recently Russia hosted delegations from China, Pakistan, India, and the Taliban. India too is planning to host a national security advisor-level conference next month to discuss the Afghanistan situation. Do these conferences matter for global investors? Not directly. But regional developments can give insight into the strategies of the great powers in a world that is witnessing a secular rise in geopolitical risk. China, Russia, and India have skin in the game when it comes to Afghanistan’s future. This is because all three powers have much to lose if Afghanistan becomes a large-scale incubator for terrorists who can infiltrate Russia through Central Asia, China through Xinjiang, or India through Pakistan. Hence all three regional powers will be constrained to stay involved in the affairs of Afghanistan. Terrorism-related risks in South Asia have been capped over the last decade due to the American war (Chart 13). The US withdrawal will lead to the activation of latent terrorist activity. This poses risks specifically for India, which has a history of being targeted by Afghani terrorist groups. And yet, while China and Russia saw the Afghan vacuum coming and have been engaging with Taliban from the get-go, India only recently began engaging with Taliban. The evolution of Afghanistan under the Taliban will also influence the risk of terrorism for the rest of the world. In the wake of the global pandemic and recession, social misery and regime failures in areas with large youth populations will continue to combine with modern communications technology to create a revival of terrorist threats (Chart 14). American officials recently warned of the potential for transnational attacks based in Afghanistan to strike the homeland within six months. That risk may be exaggerated today but it is real over the long run, especially as US intelligence turns its strategic focus toward states and away from non-state actors. India, Europe, and other targets are probably even more vulnerable than the United States. If Russia and China succeed in shaping the new Afghanistan’s leadership then the focus of militant proxies will be directed elsewhere. Beyond terrorism, if Russia and China coordinate closely over Afghanistan then India may be left in the cold. This would reinforce recent trends in which a tightening Russo-Chinese partnership hastens India’s shift away from neutrality and toward favoring the US and the West in strategic matters. If these trends continue to the point of alliance formation, then they increase the risk that any conflicts between two powers will implicate others. Bottom Line: Afghanistan is now a regional barometer of multilateral cooperation on counterterrorism, the exclusivity of Russo-Chinese cooperation, and India’s strategic isolation or alignment with the West. Investment Takeaways It is too soon to play down inflation risks. We share the BCA House View that they will subside next year as pandemic effects wane. But we also see clear near-term risks to this view. In the short run (zero to 12 months), a distinct risk of a Middle Eastern geopolitical crisis looms. A gradual escalation of tensions is inflationary whereas a sharp spike in conflict would push energy prices into punitive territory and kill global demand. Over the next 12 months, China’s economic and financial instability will also elicit policy easing or fiscal stimulus as necessary to preserve stability, as highlighted by the regime’s mouthpiece. Obviously stimulus will not be utilized if the economic recovery is stable, given elevated producer prices. In a future report we will show that Russia is willing and able to manipulate natural gas prices to increase its bargaining leverage over Europe. This dynamic, combined with the risk of cold winter weather exacerbating shortages, suggests that the worst is not yet over. Geopolitical conflict with Russia will resume over the long run. Stay long gold as a hedge against both inflation and geopolitical crises involving Iran, Taiwan/China, and Russia. Maintain “value” plays as a cheap hedge against inflation. Book a profit of 2.5% on our short trade for currencies of emerging market “strongmen,” Turkey, Brazil, and the Philippines. Our view is still negative on these economies. Stay long cyber-security stocks. Over the long run, inflation risk must be monitored. We expect significant inflation risk to persist as a result of a generational change in global policy in favor of government and labor over business and capital. But the US is maintaining easy immigration policy and boosting productivity-enhancing investments. Meanwhile China’s secular slowdown is disinflationary. The dollar may remain resilient in the face of persistently high geopolitical risk. The jury is still out.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Ritika Mankar, CFA Editor/Strategist ritika.mankar@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      David Albright and Sarah Burkhard, "Iran’s Recent, Irreversible Nuclear Advances," Institute for Science and International Security, September 22, 2021, isis-online.org. 2     Ray Takeyh, "The Bomb Will Backfire On Iran," Foreign Affairs, October 18, 2021, foreignaffairs.com. 3     See Aaron Stein and Afshon Ostovar, "Tanker War 2.0: Iranian Strategy In The Gulf," Foreign Policy Research Institute, August 10, 2021, fpri.org. 4     "Ten Questions About China’s Economy," Xinhua, October 24, 2021, news.cn.     Section II: Appendix: GeoRisk Indicator China Russia United Kingdom Germany France Italy Canada Spain Taiwan Korea Turkey Brazil Australia South Africa Section III: Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights The 26th Conference of the Parties (COP26) will open this weekend in Glasgow, Scotland, amid a global crisis induced in no small measure by policies and regulations that led to energy-market failures. Price-distorting regulations and ad hoc fixes – e.g., retail price caps, "windfall profits" taxes – will compound the current crisis. Mad rushes to cover energy and space-heating demand in spot coal and gas markets when renewable-energy output falters will be repeated, given utility-scale battery storage will continue to be insufficient to replace hydrocarbons in the transition to a low-carbon economy.  On the back of higher coal, gas and oil demand, CO2 emissions will return to trend growth or higher this year (Chart of the Week). Base metals capex will have to increase at the mining and refining levels to meet renewables and EV demand.  This includes the need to diversify metals' production and refining concentration risks more broadly.1 We remain strategically long the COMT ETF and the S&P GSCI index, as these fundamental imbalances are addressed.  We also are initiating a resting buy order on the XME ETF if this basic materials ETF trades down to $40/share. Feature Going into the COP26 meetings starting this weekend, delegates no doubt will be preoccupied with the global energy crisis engulfing markets as the Northern Hemisphere winter approaches. In no small measure, the crisis is a product of poor policy design and regulatory measures meant to accelerate the transition to low-carbon economies globally. This is most apparent in China, the UK and the EU. China and the UK use retail price-caps to control the cost of energy to households. In China, the price caps recently brought state-owned electricity providers to the brink of bankruptcy, because suppliers were not able to pass through higher wholesale prices for coal and natural gas to retail consumers. In the UK, retail price caps actually did result in bankruptcies of smaller electricity providers. In the EU, price caps and "windfall profits" taxes are being imposed on retail energy providers in different states in the wake of the energy crisis.2 China's Impressive Renewables Push China has been making significant progress in introducing renewable energy to their energy supply mix, particularly wind and solar (Chart 2), accounting for 81.5% of Asia-Pacific's wind generation last year, and 55.5% of the region's solar generation. China generates just 11% of its energy from renewables. This has been insufficient to meet demand over the past year, owing to a combination of reduced coal supplies; colder-than-normal temperatures last winter, and hotter-than-normal temps during the summer brought on by a La Niña event. While energy demand was expanding over the course of the year due to strong economic growth in 1H21 and weather-related demand over the course of the year (for heating and cooling), provincial officials were vigorously enforcing the state-mandated "dual-control policy," which in some instances led to overly aggressive shutdowns of coal mines that left local markets short of the fuel needed to supply ~ 63% of the country's electricity.3 Chinese authorities have said that they would “go all out” to boost coal production in a bid to tackle widespread power cuts. Some 20 provinces in China have experienced electricity rationing and blackouts over the past month due to power-production shortfalls driven by a lack of coal. The power rationing was imposed due to a shortage of coal supply, which led to the surge in coal prices. The high coal prices, in turn, forced coal-power companies to cut back their production to avoid losses that threatened to bankrupt them.4 To be able to ensure coal and electricity supplies this winter, state authorities released new rules to enforce a policy scheme that includes increasing coal production capacity and revising the electricity pricing mechanism. China's state-owned Global Times news service reported more than 150 coal mines have been approved to re-open.5 The regional governments can prioritize their energy intensity targets over energy consumption. Coal-fired power prices, which are largely state-controlled, will be allowed to fluctuate by up to 20% from baseline levels. However, raising household tariffs is seen as a difficult task politically, given that China's per-capita income remains low.6 UK, EU Market-Distortions The UK electricity production and supply market consists of three segments – producing, distributing, and selling electricity. Entities can operate in any or all of these areas. As in many things, the UK punches way above its weight in renewables, accounting for 15% of wind generation and 7.5% of solar produced in Europe, as seen in Chart 2. Wind can supply ~ 25% of UK power, depending on weather conditions. For all renewables, the UK accounts for 14% of Europe's total generation capacity. Twice a year, the national energy regulator, The Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem) sets a cap on the price at which electricity sellers or retailers can supply power to the final consumer. While the maximum price retailers can sell electricity to consumers is capped, the price they can buy it from the electricity producer is not. This price depends on market factors, including fuel costs. When wind power dropped sharply this past summer, electric suppliers were forced to scramble for natgas as a generation fuel, and, at the margin, coal. In the UK, natural gas powers more than 35% of the electricity mix, and accounts for 15% of Europe's natgas-fired generation. Coal generation in the UK accounts for 1% of Europe's coal fueled electricity generation. China's push to secure additional coal and natgas places it in direct competition for limited supplies with European buyers. High demand, stiff competition, reduced supply, and low inventories all contribute to higher gas prices globally (Chart 3). Easing pandemic related restrictions globally has released pent-up energy demand, which is expected to move higher over the next few months, as the Northern Hemisphere possibly sees another colder-than-normal winter, and economic growth boosts manufacturing demand. Capping selling prices during periods of very high fuel costs squeezes retailers’ profit margins. In the last six weeks, seven UK retailers have gone under, affecting ~ 1.5 million consumers. Such a system favors the incumbents: retailers that can produce their own electricity and hedge their exposure to price volatility have access to lower costs of capital and higher economies of scale. When retailers are no longer able to operate due to bankruptcy, their customers are distributed to the remaining suppliers. The British government would prefer to offer financial support to persuade larger companies to take on stranded consumers than save retailers who are being forced to go out of business.7 However, as wholesale gas prices rise, industry operators – even the more established ones – may not be keen to borrow from the government to take on additional consumers. The EU also finds itself facing stiff competition from Asia for natgas imports. According to Qatar’s energy minister, suppliers prefer Asian buyers since they purchase natgas on fixed long-term contracts to ensure energy security, unlike European buyers which purchase much of their  fuel on the spot market.8 The EU's natgas imports are projected to remain uncertain as Russian exports have fallen below pre-pandemic levels and supply via the NordStream2 pipeline is delayed. With one of the lowest working inventories within the EU (Chart 4), the UK, which imports ~ 65% of its natural gas, is unable to protect itself from supply volatility. These high prices coincided with low wind speeds earlier this year, curtailing wind power, which as of 2020, is the UK’s second highest electricity source. Unfocused Policy Hinders Energy Transition It is impossible to gainsay the merit of the decarbonization of the global economy. Disrupting weather patterns, spewing particulates and chemicals into the atmosphere, dumping plastics into the oceans and waterways, and ravaging forests worldwide do not contribute to any species fitness for survival. However, policymakers appear to be completely ignoring existing constraints any serious decarbonization effort would require. Encouraging the winddown of fossil fuels decades before sufficient renewable-energy and carbon-capture technologies are developed and deployed to replace the lost energy indirectly forces a harsh calculation: Do sovereign governments want to restrict income growth and quality-of-life improvements to the energy available from renewables (including EVs) at any point in time? Who actually makes that choice and enforces the rules and regulations that go with it? We have written about the enormous increase in base metals supply that will be required over the coming decades to develop and deploy renewables, most recently in La Niña And The Energy Transition last month. Base metals – like oil and gas markets – are extremely tight, and are operating in years-long physical deficit conditions, as can be seen in the bellwether copper and Brent markets (Charts 5 and 6). Chart 5Base Metals Markets Are Tight … Chart 6As Is Oil... Any policy contemplating a global buildout of renewable-energy generation and its supporting grids, along with EVs and their supporting infrastructure, should start with the recognition laws, regulations and rules need to encourage responsible, safe and sound incentives for developing the supply side of base metals markets. An argument also could be made for fossil-fuels, which arguably should receive technology subsidies and favorable tax treatment – not unlike those granted to renewables and EVs – to invest in carbon-capture tech development. Rules and regulations favoring long-term contracts so that producers are able to address stranded-asset concerns and secure funding for these projects also should be developed. Investment Implications Absent a more thought-out and focused effort to write laws, develop rules and regulations on at least the level of trading blocs, the evolution to a low-carbon energy future will be halting and volatile. This in an of itself is detrimental to funding such an enormous undertaking. Until something like it comes along, we remain long commodity-index exposure – the S&P GSCI index and the COMT ETF – and long the PICK ETF. At tonight's close we are opening a resting order to buy the XME ETF if if trades to or below $40/share.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com Paula Struk Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy paula.struk@bcaresearch.com Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish Crude oil markets unexpectedly moved lower mid-week on the back of yet another drop in Cushing, OK, inventory levels reported by the US EIA. Cushing crude-oil stocks stood at 27.3mm barrels vs. 31.2mm barrels for the week ended 22 October 2021. Two years ago, Cushing inventories were at 46mm barrels. Markets had been rallying on falling Cushing storage levels over the past couple of weeks. The EIA's estimate of refined-product demand – known as "Product Supplied" – remains below comparable 2019 levels at this time of year, although not by much (19.8mm b/d vs. 21.6mm b/d). We expect global oil and liquids demand to rebound above 100mm b/d in the current quarter. Stronger demand in 2022 and 2023 prompted us to raise our Brent forecasts to $80/bbl and $81/bbl, respectively (Chart 7). Base Metals: Bullish Copper continues to trade lower as markets price in a higher likelihood of softer demand for the bellwether metal as the global power-supply crunch weighs on manufacturing activity, particularly in China. Copper inventories are still at precariously low levels, with the red metal in global inventories hitting lows not seen since 2008 (Chart 8). This will keep copper's forward curve backwardated over time, as inventories are drawn to fill the gap between supply and demand globally. Low inventory levels are expected to persist as power rationing in China, which was responsible for more than 41% of global refined copper output in 2020, persists. Precious Metals: Bullish Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell's remarks stating supply disruptions are expected to keep US inflation elevated next year are supportive to base metals. Higher inflation will increase demand for the yellow metal, as investors look for a hedge against USD debasement. However, the Fed's asset-purchase taper, which we expect to be announced in November, and the interest rate hikes we expect as a result of it beginning in end-2022, will push bond yields higher and raise the opportunity cost of holding non-yielding gold. That said, we believe the Fed will remain behind the inflation curve and will work to keep real rates weak, which will tend to support gold prices. Chart 7 Chart 8       Footnotes 1     Please see our report entitled La Niña And The Energy Transition, published on September 30, 2021, for discussion. 2     Please see Spain to Cap Windfall Energy Profits as Rally Hits Inflation published by bloomberglaw.com on September 14, 2021. 3    Please see carbonbrief.org's China Briefing for 23 and 30 September and 14 October 2021 for additional discussion, and fn 1 above. 4    Please see ‘All out’ to beat power shortages; 2050 ‘net-zero’ for airlines; ‘Critical decade” for global warming, published by China Brief on 7 October, 2021. 5    Please see Chinese officials move to increase coal output amid shortage published by globaltimes.cn 13 October 2021. 6    Data from the World Bank showed China's GDP per capita reached $10,500 in 2020, below the global average of $10,926. Some experts expect any reform to be gradual. 7     Please see Kwarteng insists UK will avoid power shortages as gas crisis worsens, published by the Financial Times on September 20, 2021. 8    Please see Qatar calls for embrace of gas producers for energy transition, published by the Financial Times on October 24, 2021.   Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations

Special Report

Highlights Faced with large excesses in the housing market, we contend that Beijing’s goal is to achieve flat property prices in the coming years. Stable property prices would allow for improved housing affordability over the coming years while precluding debt deflation. However, when authorities fix/control prices, they lose control of volumes/activity. The housing market will not clear. Property sales and construction activity will hit an air pocket. Shrinking construction activity will weigh on China’s economy and China-plays around the world. Feature The recent struggles of several Chinese property developers to service their debt have put the mainland’s real estate market on the radar of global investors. What is the outlook for the Chinese property market and what will be its impact on the mainland and global economies? What does it mean for global financial markets? In contrast to the US housing debacle in 2008, the central pressure point in China’s property market adjustment will not be home prices and mortgage defaults but retrenchment by property developers and a downsizing in construction activity. That is why we are maintaining our negative view on Chinese demand for raw materials and machinery. This will have implications for emerging Asia, developing countries that produce raw materials and machinery stocks worldwide. How Important Is The Property Market? Chart 1Land Sales Revenue And Property Developers Funding Are Sizable In a 2020 paper,1 Kenneth Rogoff and Yuanchen Yang estimate that real estate investment accounted for 12-15% of GDP in China between 2011 and 2018. This compares with a 7% share of GDP in the US at the peak of the housing boom in 2005. Hence, the sheer size of real estate construction in China – which does not include infrastructure investment – implies that real estate investment is very important for the mainland economy. The above numbers do not capture secondary effects from fluctuations in real estate investment. Thereby, the impact of property construction is greater than what is implied by its share of GDP. Further, local governments derive more than 40% of their aggregate revenues – budgetary and off budgetary (managed funds) – from land sales (Chart 1, top panel). As land sales dry up, local government revenues will plummet, undermining their ability to finance infrastructure spending – which is also a major part of the economy. Property developers’ annual funding makes up a very large 20% of GDP, which attests to their importance to the economy and the financial system (Chart 1, bottom panel).  Critically, construction activity drives demand for raw materials and machinery. Granted, Chinese imports of raw materials and machinery used in real estate construction and infrastructure building are non-trivial, the shockwaves from the downturn will spill over to the rest of the world in general and to developing economies in particular. Excesses  The Chinese property market’s vulnerability stems from its excesses. These excesses are apparent on multiple fronts. Table 1Chinese Housing Is Expensive / Unaffordable 1. Extreme Overvaluation: Compared to most countries around the world, housing in China is very expensive. The house price-to-household income ratio is 19 in tier-1 cities, 10 in tier-2 and 7 in tier-3 cities (Table 1). For comparison, even after the recent surge in property prices, the house price-to-income ratio is 4 in the US nationwide. Importantly, the mortgage rate in China – currently at 5.4% – is considerably higher than mortgage rates in the US or in other developed economies. The high house price-to-income ratio and relatively high mortgage rate entail that mortgage interest payments account for a larger share of household income in China than in any advanced economy. For new buyers, assuming a 30% down-payment, mortgage interest payments alone make up 28% of household income on average nationwide (Table 1). Chart 2Chinese Households Are As Leveraged As Their US Peers Finally, Chinese household indebtedness is much higher than is often presumed by the global investment community – the household disposable income-to-debt ratio is close to 100%, as high as it is in the US (Chart 2). All this does not mean that China will experience a US-style 2008 credit crisis with households defaulting on their mortgages. As we discuss below, the adjustment process will be different in China than it was in the US. 2. Capital misallocation: Property developers have been building the wrong type of housing at the wrong prices and for the wrong type of buyers. They have been building high-end houses and selling them at very high prices to high-income households who have been buying multiple properties as investments. This represents capital misallocation. Widespread home vacancies confirm this thesis. As of 2017, 21.5% of the housing stock was vacant according to the Survey and Research Center for China Household Finance.  As per the same source, only 11.5% of homebuyers in 2018 were first timers. That compares with 70% of first-time buyers in 2008-2010. In 2018, 22.5% of homebuyers already owned two or more dwellings while 66% owned one. Clearly, housing in China has become an object of speculation which has made it unattainable for first-time homebuyers. Chart 3Property Developers Have Accumulated Massive Assets 3. Speculation and the carry trade: There is nothing wrong with individuals investing in real estate. This practice is widespread all around the world. However, contrary to many other countries, multiple home owners in China do not rent out their properties, but instead keep their houses vacant. For those few owners who rent their houses, the current rental yield on properties rarely exceeds 2%. Given that the mortgage rate is currently 5.4%, the carry costs for individual investors is negative. Therefore, property investors in China can only expect to profit from ever rising prices. This strategy has paid off enormously over the last 20 years. Yet, past performance does not guarantee future gains. A stampede into real estate since 2009 has made housing extremely expensive and has instigated socio-political problems that have made Beijing wary. Critically, property speculation has been prevalent not only among households but also among property developers. The latter have been participating in the largest carry trade of the past 12 years. Facing borrowing costs that were lower than the pace of house price appreciation, property developers in China have done what any business would do: they borrowed as much as they could and accumulated real estate assets in the form of land, incomplete construction as well as completed but unsold properties. Chart 4Property Developers Are Very Leveraged As long as the rate of annual asset price appreciation exceeds the borrowing costs (the carry), carrying these assets on a balance sheet produces lofty profits. The top panel of Chart 3 demonstrates that housing starts have chronically exceeded completions, i.e., developers have been starting but not completing/delivering properties. The gap between starts and completions – unfinished construction – has ballooned (Chart 3, bottom panel). In short, property developers have been holding on to a lot of land and unfinished construction and have been financing it via debt. The asset-to-equity ratio for property developers trading on the A-share market has surged to 9 (Chart 4).  Overall, the primary reason for real estate asset accumulation in China by individuals and companies has been expectations of continuous price appreciation. When an investor purchases an asset that generates little or no recurrent cash flow and the only rationale for holding onto it is expectations for continuous price appreciation, it qualifies as speculation – not investment. This speculation can continue only as long as there is demand from new buyers. Bottom Line: The property market is suffering from numerous excesses such as extreme overvaluation, capital misallocation and widespread speculative activities. Clouds Are Forming Over Real Estate Odds are that the speculative fever that has held the Chinese housing market in its grip is waning. Chart 5Less Funding = Less Completions = Less Commodity Demand First, the three red lines introduced by authorities a year ago limit property developers’ ability to take on more debt. In fact, many property developers are being forced to reduce their indebtedness to meet these regulatory requirements. These rules mean that property developers will have to reduce new construction at best or sell their assets at worst. When many developers try to offload their assets simultaneously, asset prices will deflate, producing a vicious debt deflation cycle. Second, the reluctance of authorities to bail out large property developers – which are struggling to service their debt – is sending a clear message to both onshore and offshore creditors not to lend to property developers. This is especially true for small and medium banks, trust companies, wealth management products and onshore and offshore bondholders. These lenders along with pre-sales account for the lion’s share of financing options for property developers. Chart 5 illustrates that diminishing funding for property developers weighs down on completion, i.e., less construction work and less demand for raw materials and machinery (Chart 5, bottom panel). Third, the property carry trade does not make sense when the rate of real estate asset price appreciation drops below property developers’ borrowing costs. A negative carry means incurring losses, necessitating the sale of assets, including land and completed properties. A rush to offload assets amid a buyer strike could prompt classic debt deflation. Chart 6Households’ House Buying Intentions Have Plummeted Finally, the upcoming pilot program for a real estate tax and a broader public campaign by Beijing against buying houses as an investment has discouraged individuals from purchasing properties. The proportion of households planning to buy a house has dropped to only 7.7% in Q3 2021 from 11.6% in Q4 2020 (Chart 6). House sales contracted by 16% in September from a year ago and initial reports point to further deterioration in October.     Bottom Line: Central authorities in China are attempting to tackle the property market because they reckon that an expensive and speculative property market could either create socio-political problems down the road or get out of control and crumble of its own accord. Beijing’s objective is to achieve a soft landing by acting preemptively and managing it.  The Role Of Policy Why is Beijing obsessed with taming the property market? We suspect the current hawkish stance is due to the following: Chart 7Housing Prices Correlate With Starts Housing is becoming unaffordable for low- and some middle-income residents in China. This may give rise to a sense of injustice/inequality and goes against president Xi’s common prosperity goals. This is also negatively affecting family formation and demographics and, ultimately, the nation’s potential growth rate. Beijing believes that the 2019 protests in Hong Kong were to a certain extent due to housing unaffordability. The latter fanned young people’s rage toward authorities and the political system. The Communist party leadership wants to avoid a similar uprising in the mainland. Anytime policymakers have stimulated in the past 12 years, property prices have surged widening the gap between the poor and the rich and making housing even more unaffordable. Presently, they are reluctant to do the same. Also, authorities are clamping down on property developers because historically there was a strong positive correlation between property starts and house prices (Chart 7). The basis for this positive correlation is that whenever property developers start new projects, they raise expectations of higher future prices via aggressive marketing. As a result, people become more inclined to buy houses. In fact, over the years more supply has not precluded property prices from surging and vice versa, as shown in Chart 7. Finally, the central government has learned from its own experience in 2015 and from the US case in 2008 that when a bubble bursts, it is difficult to stop it. Chinese economic policymakers prefer to be proactive than reactive. All of the above does not mean that authorities are planning to instigate a property market crash and will stand by and not stimulate. If and when broad economic conditions deteriorate to the point that income growth and employment are jeopardized, authorities will rachet up their stimulus. Presently, the unemployment rate for the 25-59 age group is very low and the urban labor market is tight (Chart 8). In addition, the nation’s exports are booming, so it is a good time to undertake some deleveraging. In brief, there is now no urgency to stimulate aggressively. Bottom Line: Considering the size of the real estate market and how dire its fundamentals are, we expect economic conditions to get much worse in China. That will ultimately force policymakers to stimulate more aggressively. The End Of The Property Carry Trade Conditions have fallen into place for the property carry trade by developers to unravel: Faced with limited access to funding, a diminished willingness on the part of creditors to rollover their debt as well as plummeting home sales, property developers have already dramatically cut back on land purchases (Chart 9, top panel). Chart 8China's Labor Market Is Strong Chart 9China's Construction Cycle In Perspective   However, they have so far been completing and delivering pre-sold homes to buyers who had paid in advance. In the last couple of years 90% of homes have been pre-sold. Hence, these completions do not generate new cash inflows for real estate developers. Yet, this completion work has supported construction activity and demand for materials over the past 12 months (Chart 9, bottom panel). Looking forward, reduced funding entails shrinking completions with negative ramifications for the economy (Chart 5 above). Real estate deflation, lack of new sales and restricted financing could turn property developers’ liquidity troubles into a solvency issue. This is how typical financial/credit crises develop – they start with liquidity strains and then turn into solvency problems as the value of collaterals drop, becoming insufficient to cover debt obligation. Defaults ensue. Property development is an extremely fragmented industry in China. There are officially around 100 000 property developers in China. Even the largest ones like Evergrande have a very small share of the market. Therefore, authorities cannot ensure that the sector will function properly by ring fencing or bailing out several large developers. In sum, authorities have very little control over real estate construction because it is quite spread out across the country and involves many private small- and medium-sized developers. We think that Beijing’s goal is to achieve flat property prices in the coming years. Authorities realize that property deflation could be devastating but are also less tolerant of growing excesses and imbalances in this area. Flat home prices and rising incomes will lead to a lower house price-to-income ratio, i.e., will make home ownership more affordable. In short, policymakers are attempting to fix property prices to achive a soft landing. Yet, there is a caveat: when authorities fix/control prices, they lose control of volumes/activity. This will likely be the case in China. Without meaningful drop in house prices, low-and middle-income first-time homebuyers will not become buyers right away and healthy property developers will be unwilling to snap up the assets of their troubled competitors. Hence, the market will not clear and the property sales and construction activity will hit an air pocket. Bottom Line: After more than a decade of speculative excesses, policymakers have embarked on the very difficult task of controlling house prices. They can control house prices via administrative measures. Yet, as expectations of rapidly rising property prices vanish, land sales, home purchases and property construction will likely shrink substantially for a period of time. Investment Recommendations A few market-relevant observations: Chinese non-TMT stocks and China-related plays globally are at risk from shrinking construction activity on the mainland. Critically, EM non-TMT stocks have not priced in the slowdown. Chart 10 illustrates that China’s credit and fiscal spending impulse is back to its previous low, but EM non-TMT stocks have not corrected much. In the past, Chinese onshore property stocks correlated with global material stocks (Chart 11). The basis is that China’s construction accounts for a considerable share of global raw materials consumption. Hence, the bear market in Chinese property stocks is raising a red flag for global material stocks. Chart 10EM Ex-TMT Stocks Are Not Pricing China's Slowdown Chart 11A Red Flag For Global Materials   EMs are most vulnerable, and the US is the least exposed to China’s construction and infrastructure investment segments. The basis is that the US is a closed economy and trades very little with China. That is why we believe that the US dollar has more upside and US equities will continue outperforming the global stock index as China’s slowdown persists. Putting it all together, we recommend the following strategies: Avoid EM stocks and underweight EM versus DM in a global equity portfolio. Continue shorting select EM currencies versus the US dollar. Avoid local currency bonds and favor US credit over EM credit markets. Avoid bottom fishing in Chinese offshore corporate bonds, including high-yield ones. As for Chinese equities, investors should stay with the long onshore A shares / short investable index strategy. We also reiterate a strategy we have been recommending for both onshore and offshore stocks since May 9, 2019: short property stocks relative to the benchmark. This has been a very profitable trade. Today, we recommend closing the long position in Chinese insurance stocks given that credit woes will worsen before they improve. One way for global investors to bet on China’s slowdown while hedging the risk of stronger growth in DM is via the following trade: short global materials / long global industrials. Our report from July 30 elaborated the bullish case for global industrials beyond China’s slowdown. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Qingyun Xu, CFA Associate Editor qingyunx@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 See Kenneth S. Rogoff and Yuanchen Yang, "Peak China Housing," National Bureau of Economic Research, August 2020. Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

In lieu of next week’s report, I will be presenting the quarterly Counterpoint webcast titled ‘Where Is The Groupthink Wrong? (Part 2)’. I do hope you can join. Highlights If a continued surge in the oil price – or other commodity or goods prices – started driving up the 30-year T-bond yield, the markets and the economy would feel the pain. We reiterate that the pain point at which the Fed would be forced to volte-face is only around 30 bps away on the 30-year T-bond, equal to a yield of around 2.4-2.5 percent. That would be a great buying opportunity for bonds. Given the proximity of this pain point, it is too late to short bonds, or for equity investors to rotate into value and cyclical equity sectors. That tactical opportunity has almost played out. On a 6-month and longer horizon, equity investors should prefer long-duration defensive sectors such as healthcare. Chinese long-duration bond yields are on a structural downtrend. Fractal analysis: The Korean won is oversold. Feature Many people have noticed the suspicious proximity of oil price surges to subsequent economic downturns – most recently, the 1999-2000 trebling of crude and the subsequent 2000-01 downturn, and the 2007-2008 trebling of crude and the subsequent 2008-09 global recession. Begging the question, should we be concerned about the trebling of the crude oil price since March 2020? Of course, we know that the root cause of both the 2000-01 downturn and the 2008-09 recession was not the oil price surge that preceded them. As their names make crystal clear, the 2001-01 downturn was the dot com bust and the 2008-09 recession was the global financial crisis. And yet, and yet… while the oil price surge was not the culprit, it was certainly the accessory to both murders, by driving up the bond yield and tipping an already fragile market and economy over the brink. Today, could oil become the accessory to another murder? (Chart I-1) Chart I-1AOil Was The Accessory To The Murder In 2008... Chart I-1B...Could It Become The Accessory To Another Murder?   Oil Is The Accessory To Many Murders Turn the clock back to the 1970s, and it might seem more straightforward that the recession of 1974 was the direct result of the oil shock that preceded it. Yet even in this case, we can argue that oil was the accessory, rather than the true culprit of that murder. It is correct that the specific timing, magnitude, and nature of OPEC supply cutbacks were closely related to geopolitical events – especially the US support for Israel in the Arab-Israeli war of October 1973. Yet as neat and popular as this explanation is, it ignores a bigger economic story: the collapse in August 1971 of the Bretton Woods ‘pseudo gold standard’, which severed the fixed link between the US dollar and quantities of commodities. To maintain the real value of oil, the OPEC countries were raising the price of crude oil well before October 1973. Meaning that while geopolitical events may have influenced the precise timing and magnitude of price hikes, OPEC countries were just ‘staying even’ with the collapsing real value of the US dollar, in which oil was priced. Seen in this light, the true culprit of the recession was the collapse of the Bretton Woods system, and the oil price surge through 1973-74 was just the accessory to the murder (Chart I-2). Chart I-2In 1973-74, OPEC Was Just 'Staying Even' With A Collapsing Real Value Of The Dollar A quarter of a century later in 1999, the oil price again trebled within a short time span – and by the turn of the millennium, the ensuing inflationary fears had pushed up the 10-year T-bond yield from 4.5 percent to almost 7 percent (Chart I-3). With stocks already looking expensive versus bonds, it was this increase in the bond yield – rather than a decline in the equity earnings yield – that inflated the equity bubble to its bursting point in early 2000 (Chart I-4). Chart I-3In 1999, As Oil Surged, So Did The Bond Yield... Chart I-4...Making Expensive Equities Even More Expensive To repeat, for the broader equity market, the last stage of the bubble was not so much that stocks became more expensive in absolute terms (the earnings yield was just moving sideways). Rather, stock valuations worsened markedly relative to sharply higher bond yields. Seen in this light, the oil price surge through 1999 was once again the accessory to the murder. Eight years later in 2007-08, the oil price once again trebled with Brent crude reaching an all-time high of $146 per barrel in July 2008. Again, the inflationary fears forced the 10-year T-bond yield to increase, from 3.25 percent to 4.25 percent during the early summer of 2008 (Chart I-5) – even though the Federal Reserve was slashing the Fed funds rate in the face of an escalating financial crisis (Chart I-6). Chart I-5In 2008, As Oil Surged, So Did The Bond Yield... Chart I-6...Even Though The Fed Was Slashing Rates In The Face Of A Financial Crisis Suffice to say, driving up bond yields in the summer of 2008 – in the face of the Fed’s aggressive rate cuts and a global financial system teetering on the brink – was not the smartest thing that the bond market could do. On the other hand, neither could it override its Pavlovian fears of the oil price trebling. Seen in this light, the oil price surge through 2007-08 was once again the accessory to the murder. Inflationary Fears May Once Again Lead To Murder Fast forward to today, and the danger of the recent trebling of the oil price comes not from the oil price per se. Instead, just as in 2000 and 2008, the danger comes from its potential to drive up bond yields, which can tip more systemically important economic and financial fragilities over the brink. One such fragility is the extreme sensitivity of highly-valued growth stocks to the 30-year T-bond yield, as explained in The Fed’s ‘Pain Point’ Is Only 30 Basis Points Away. On this note, one encouragement is that while shorter duration yields have risen sharply through October, the much more important 30-year T-bond yield has just gone sideways. A much bigger systemic fragility lies in the $300 trillion global real estate market, as explained in The Real Risk Is Real Estate (Part 2). Specifically, the global real estate market has undergone an unprecedented ten-year boom in which prices have doubled in every corner of the world. Over the same period, rents have risen by just 30 percent, which has depressed the global rental yield to an all-time low of 2.5 percent. Structurally depressed rental yields are justified by structurally depressed 30-year bond yields. Therefore, any sustained rise in 30-year bond yields risks undermining the foundations of the $300 trillion global real estate market (Chart I-7). Chart I-7Structurally Depressed Rental Yields Are Justified By Structurally Depressed 30-Year Bond Yields Nowhere is this truer than in China, where prime real estate yields in the major cities are at a paltry 1 percent. In this context, the recent woes of real estate developer Evergrande are just the ‘canary in the coalmine’ warning of an extremely fragile Chinese real estate sector. This will put downward pressure on China’s long-duration bond yields. As my colleague, BCA China strategist, Jing Sima, points out, “Chinese long-duration bond yields are on a structural downtrend…yields are likely to move structurally to a lower bound.” But it is not just in China. Real estate is at record high valuations everywhere and contingent on no major rise in long-duration bond yields. In the US, there is a tight relationship between the (inverted) 30-year bond yield and mortgage applications for home purchase (Chart I-8), and a tight relationship between mortgage applications for home purchase and building permits (Chart I-9). Thereby, higher bond yields threaten not only real estate prices. They also threaten the act of building itself, an important swing factor in economic activity. Chart I-8The Bond Yield Drives Mortgage Applications... Chart I-9...And Mortgage Applications Drive Building Permits To repeat, focus on the 30-year T-bond yield – as this is the most significant driver for both growth stock valuations, and for real estate valuations and activity. To repeat also, the 30-year T-bond yield has been generally well-behaved over the past few months. But if a continued surge in the oil price – or other commodity or goods prices – started driving up the 30-year T-bond yield, the markets and the economy would feel pain. And at some point, this pain would force the Fed to volte-face. We reiterate that this pain point is only around 30 bps away, equal to a yield on 30-year T-bond of around 2.4-2.5 percent – a level that would be a great buying opportunity for bonds. Given the proximity of this pain point, it is too late to short bonds or for equity investors to rotate into value and cyclical equity sectors. That tactical opportunity has almost played out. On a 6-month and longer horizon, equity investors should prefer long-duration defensive sectors such as healthcare. The Korean Won Is Oversold Finally, in this week’s fractal analysis, we note that the Korean won is oversold – specifically versus the Chinese yuan on the 130-day fractal structure of that cross (Chart I-10). Chart I-10The Korean Won Is Oversold Given that previous instances of such fragility have reliably indicated trend changes, this week’s recommended trade is long KRW/CNY, setting the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 2 percent.   Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades   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