Energy

Highlights President Biden has called for the US intelligence community to investigate the origins of COVID-19 and one of Biden’s top diplomats has stated the obvious: the era of “engagement” with China is over. This clinches our long-held view that any Democratic president would be a hawk like President Trump. The US-China conflict – and global geopolitical risk – will revive and undermine global risk appetite. China faces a confluence of geopolitical and macroeconomic challenges, suggesting that its equity underperformance will continue. Domestic Chinese investors should stay long government bonds. Foreign investors should sell into the bond rally to reduce exposure to any future sanctions. The impending agreement of a global minimum corporate tax rate has limited concrete implications that are not already known but it symbolizes the return of Big Government in the western world. Our updated GeoRisk Indicators are available in the Appendix, as well as our monthly geopolitical calendar. Feature In our quarterly webcast, “Geopolitics And Bull Markets,” we argued that geopolitical themes matter to investors when they have a demonstrable relationship with the macroeconomic backdrop. When geopolitics and macro are synchronized, a simple yet powerful investment thesis can be discerned. The US war on terror, Russia’s resurgence, the EU debt crisis, and Brexit each provided cases in which a geopolitically informed macro view was both accessible and actionable at an early stage. Investors generally did well if they sold the relevant country’s currency and disfavored its equities on a relative basis. Chart 1China's Decade Of Troubles Of course, the market takeaway is not always so clear. When geopolitics and macroeconomics are desynchronized, the trick is to determine which framework will prevail over the financial markets and for how long. Sometimes the market moves to its own rhythm. The goal is not to trade on geopolitics but rather to invest with geopolitics. One of our key views for this year – headwinds for China – is an example of synchronization. Two weeks ago we discussed China’s macroeconomic challenge. In this report we discuss China’s foreign policy challenge: geopolitical pressure from the US and its allies. In particular we address President Biden’s call for a deeper intelligence dive into the origins of COVID-19. The takeaway is negative for China’s currency and risk assets. The Great Recession dealt a painful blow to the Chinese version of the East Asian economic miracle. By 2015, China’s financial turmoil and currency devaluation should have convinced even bullish investors to keep their distance from Chinese stocks and the renminbi. If investors stuck with this bearish view despite the post-2016 rally, on fear of trade war, they were rewarded in 2018-19. Only with China’s containment of COVID-19 and large economic stimulus in 2020 has CNY-USD threatened to break out (Chart 1). We expect the renminbi to weaken anew, especially once the Fed begins to taper asset purchases. Our cyclical view is still bullish but US-China relations are unstable so we remain tactically defensive. Forget Biden’s China Review, He’s A Hawk Chinese financial markets face a host of challenges this year, despite the positive factors for China’s manufacturing sector amid the global recovery. At home these challenges consist of a structural economic slowdown, a withdrawal of policy stimulus, bearish sentiment among households, and an ongoing government crackdown on systemic risk. Abroad the Democratic Party’s return to power in Washington means that the US will bring more allies to bear in its attempt to curb China’s rise. This combination of factors presents a headwind for Chinese equities and a tailwind for government bonds (Chart 2). This is true at least until the government should hit its pain threshold and re-stimulate. Chart 2Global Investors Still Wary New stimulus may not occur in 2022. The Communist Party’s leadership rotation merely requires economic stability, not rapid growth. While the central government has a record of stimulating when its pain threshold is hit, even under the economically hawkish President Xi Jinping, a financial market riot is usually part of this threshold. This implies near-term downside, particularly for global commodities and metals, which are also facing a Chinese regulatory backlash to deter speculation. In this context, President Biden’s call for a deeper US intelligence investigation into the origin of COVID-19 is an important confirming signal of the US’s hawkish turn toward China. Biden gave 90 days for the intelligence community to report back to him. We will not enter into the debate about COVID-19’s origins. From a geopolitical point of view it is a moot point. The facts of the virus origin may never be established. According to Biden’s statement, at least one US intelligence agency believes the “lab leak theory” is the most likely source of the virus (while two other agencies decided in favor of animal-to-human transmission). Meanwhile Chinese government spokespeople continue to push the theory that the virus originated at the US’s Fort Detrick in Maryland or at a US-affiliated global research center. What is certain is that the first major outbreak of a highly contagious disease occurred in Wuhan. Both sides are demanding greater transparency and will reject each other’s claims based on a lack of transparency. If the US intelligence report concludes that COVID originated from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the Chinese government and media will reject the report. If the report exonerates the Wuhan laboratory, at least half of the US public will disbelieve it and it will not deter Biden from drawing a hard line on more macro-relevant policy disputes with China. The US’s hawkish bipartisan consensus on China took shape before COVID. Biden’s decision to order the fresh report introduces skepticism regarding the World Health Organization’s narrative, which was until now the mainstream media’s narrative. Previously this skepticism was ghettoized in US public discourse: indeed, until Biden’s announcement on May 26, the social media company Facebook suppressed claims that the virus came from a lab accident or human failure. Thus Biden’s action will ensure that a large swathe of the American public will always tend to support this theory regardless of the next report’s findings. At the same time Biden discontinued a State Department effort to prove the lab leak theory, which shows that it is not a foregone conclusion what his administration will decide. The good news is that even if the report concluded in favor of the lab leak, the Biden administration would remain highly unlikely to demand that China pay “reparations,” like the Trump administration demanded in 2020. This demand, if actualized, would be explosive. The bad news is that a future nationalist administration could conceivably use the investigation as a basis to demand reparations. Nationalism is a force to be reckoned with in both countries and the dispute over COVID’s origin will exacerbate it. Traditionally the presidents of both countries would tamp down nationalism or attempt to keep it harnessed. But in the post-Xi, post-Trump era it is harder to control. The death toll of COVID-19 will be a permanent source of popular grievance around the world and a wedge between the US and China (Chart 3). China’s international image suffered dramatically in 2020. So far in 2021 China has not regained any diplomatic ground. Chart 3Death Toll Of COVID-19 The US is repairing its image via a return to multilateralism while the Europeans have put their Comprehensive Agreement on Investment with China on hold due to a spat over sanctions arising from western accusations of genocide (a subject on which China pointedly answered that it did not need to be lectured by Europeans). Notably Biden’s Department of State also endorsed its predecessor’s accusation of genocide in Xinjiang. Any authoritative US intelligence review that solidifies doubts about the WHO’s initial investigation – even if it should not affirm the lab leak theory – would give Biden more ammunition in global opinion to form a democratic alliance to pressure China (for example, in Europe). An important factor that enables the US to remain hawkish on China is fiscal stimulus. While stimulus helps bring about economic recovery, it also lowers the bar to political confrontation (Chart 4). Countries with supercharged domestic demand do not have as much to fear from punitive trade measures. The Biden administration has not taken new punitive measures against China but it is clearly not worried about Chinese retaliation. Chart 4Large Fiscal Stimulus Lowers The Bar To Geopolitical Conflict China’s stimulus is underrated in this chart (which excludes non-fiscal measures) but it is still true that China’s policy has been somewhat restrained and it will need to stimulate its economy again in response to any new punitive measures or any global loss of confidence. At least China is limited in its ability to tighten policy due to the threat of US pressure and western trade protectionism. Simultaneous with Biden’s announcement on COVID-19, his administration’s coordinator for Indo-Pacific affairs, Kurt Campbell, proclaimed in a speech that the era of “engagement” with China is officially over and the new paradigm is one of “competition.” By now Campbell is stating the obvious. But this tone is a change both from his tone while serving in President Obama’s Department of State and from his article in Foreign Affairs last year (when he was basically auditioning for his current role in the Biden administration).1 Campbell even said in his latest remarks that the Trump administration was right about the “direction” of China policy (though not the “execution”), which is candid. Campbell was speaking at Stanford University but his comments were obviously aimed for broader consumption. Investors no longer need to wait for the outcome of the Biden administration’s comprehensive review of policy toward China. The answer is known: the Biden administration’s hawkishness is confirmed. The Department of Defense report on China policy, due in June, is very unlikely to strike a more dovish posture than the president’s health policy. Now investors must worry about how rapidly tensions will escalate and put a drag on global sentiment. Bottom Line: US-China relations are unstable and pose an immediate threat to global risk appetite. The fundamental geopolitical assessment of US-China relations has been confirmed yet again. The US is seeking to constrain China’s rise because China is the only country capable of rivaling the US for supremacy in Asia and the world. Meanwhile China is rejecting liberalization in favor of economic self-sufficiency and maintaining an offensive foreign policy as it is wary of US containment and interference. Presidents Biden and Xi Jinping are still capable of stabilizing relations in the medium term but they are unlikely to substantially de-escalate tensions. And at the moment tensions are escalating. China’s Reaction: The Example Of Australia How will China respond to Biden’s new inquiry into COVID’s origins? Obviously Beijing will react negatively but we would not expect anything concrete to occur until the result of the inquiry is released in 90 days. China will be more constrained in its response to the US than it has been with Australia, which called for an international inquiry early last year, as the US is a superior power. Australia was the first to ban Chinese telecom company Huawei from its 5G network (back in 2018) and it was the first to call for a COVID probe. Relations between China and Australia have deteriorated steadily since then, but macro trends have clearly driven the Aussie dollar. The AUD-JPY exchange rate is a good measure for global risk appetite and it is wavering in recent weeks (Chart 5). Chart 5Australian Dollar Follows Macro Trends, Rallies Amid China Trade Spat Tensions have also escalated due to China’s dependency on Australian commodity exports at a time of spiking commodity prices. This is a recurring theme going back to the Stern Hu affair. The COVID spat led China to impose a series of sanctions against Australian beef, barley, wine, and coal. But because China cannot replace Australian resources (at least, not in the short term), its punitive measures are limited. It faces rising producer prices as a result of its trade restrictions (Chart 6). This dependency is a bigger problem for China today than it was in previous cycles so China will try to diversify. Chart 6Constraints On China's Tarrifs On Australia By contrast, China is not likely to impose sanctions on the US in response to Biden’s investigation, unless Biden attacks first. China’s imports from the US are booming and its currency is appreciating sharply. Despite Beijing’s efforts to keep the Phase One trade deal from collapsing, Biden is maintaining Trump’s tariffs and the US-China trade divorce is proceeding (Chart 7). Bilateral tariff rates are still 16-17 percentage points higher than they were in 2018, with US tariffs on China at 19% (versus 3% on the rest of the world) while Chinese tariffs on the US stand at 21% (versus 6% on the rest of the world). The Biden administration timed this week’s hawkish statements to coincide with the first meeting of US trade negotiators with China, which was a more civil affair. Both countries acknowledged that the relationship is important and trade needs to be continued. However, US Trade Representative Katherine Tai’s comments were not overly optimistic (she told Reuters that the relationship is “very, very challenging”). She has also been explicit about maintaining policy continuity with the Trump administration. We highly doubt that China’s share of US imports will ever surpass its pre-Trump peaks. The Biden administration has also refrained so far from loosening export controls on high-tech trade with China. This has caused a bull market in Taiwan while causing problems for Chinese semiconductor stocks’ relative performance (Chart 8). If Biden’s policy review does not lead to any relaxation of export controls on commercial items then it will mark a further escalation in tensions. Chart 7US Tarrifs Reduce China In Trade Deficit Bottom Line: Until Presidents Biden and Xi stabilize relations at the top, the trade negotiations over implementing the Phase One trade deal – and any new Phase Two talks – cannot bring major positive surprises for financial markets. Chart 8US Export Controls Amid Chip Shortage Congress Is More Hawkish Than Biden Biden’s ability to reduce frictions with China, should he seek to, will also be limited by Congress and public opinion. With the US deeply politically divided, and polarization at historically high levels, China has emerged as one of the few areas of agreement. The hawkish consensus is symbolized by new legislation such as the Strategic Competition Act, which is making its way through the Senate rapidly. Congress is also trying to boost US competitiveness through bills such as the Endless Frontier Act. These bills would subject China to scrutiny and potential punitive measures over a broad range of issues but most of all they would ignite US industrial policy , STEM education, and R&D, and diversify the US’s supply chains. We would highlight three key points with regard to the global impact of this legislation: Global supply chains are shifting regardless: This trend is fairly well established in tech, defense, and pharmaceuticals. It will continue unless we see a major policy reversal from China to try to court western powers and reduce frictions. The EU and India are less enthusiastic than the US and Australia about removing China from supply chains but they are not opposed. The EU Commission has recommended new defensive economic measures that cover supply chains in batteries, cloud services, hydrogen energy, pharmaceuticals, materials, and semiconductors. As mentioned, the EU is also hesitating to ratify the Comprehensive Agreement on Investment with China. Hence the EU is moving in the US’s direction independently of proposed US laws. After all, China’s rise up the tech value chain (and its decision to stop cutting back the size of its manufacturing sector) ultimately threatens the EU’s comparative advantage. The EU is also aligned with the US on democratic values and network security. India has taken a harder stance on China than usual, which marks an important break with the past. India’s decision to exclude Huawei from its 5G network is not final but it is likely to be at least partially implemented. A working group of democracies is forming regardless. The Strategic Competition Act calls for the creation of a working group of democracies but the truth is that this is already happening through more effective forums like the G7 and bilateral summits. Just as the implementation of the act would will ultimately depend on President Biden, so the willingness of other countries to adopt the recommendations of the working group would depend on their own executives. Allies have leeway as Biden will not use punitive measures against them: Any policy change from the EU, UK, India, and Australia will be independent of the US Congress passing the Strategic Competition Act. These countries will be self-directed. The US would have to devote diplomatic energy to maintaining a sustained effort by these states to counter China in the face of economic costs. This will be limited by the fact that the Biden administration will be very reluctant to impose punitive measures on allies to insist on their cooperation. The allies will set the pace of pressure on China rather than the United States. This gives the EU an important position, particularly Germany. And yet the trends in Germany suggest that the government will be more hawkish on China after the federal elections in September. Bottom Line: The Biden administration is unlikely to use punitive measures against allies so new US laws are less important than overall US diplomacy with each of the allies. Some allies will be less compliant with US policies given their need for trade with China. But so far there appears to be a common position taking shape even with the EU that is prejudicial to China’s involvement in key sectors of emerging technologies. If China does not respond by reducing its foreign policy assertiveness, then China’s economic growth will suffer. That drag would have to be offset by new supply chain construction in Southeast Asia and other countries. Investment Takeaways The foregoing highlights the international risks facing China even at a time when its trend growth is slowing (Chart 9) and its ongoing struggle with domestic financial imbalances is intensifying. China’s debt-service costs have risen sharply and Beijing is putting pressure on corporations and local governments to straighten out their finances (Chart 10), resulting in a wave of defaults. This backdrop is worrisome for investors until policymakers reassure them that government support will continue. Chart 9China's Growth Potential Slowing Chart 10China's Leaders Struggle With Debt China’s domestic stability is a key indicator of whether geopolitical risks could spiral out of control. In particular we think aggressive action in the Taiwan Strait is likely to be delayed as long as the Chinese economy and regime are stable. China has rattled sabers over the strait this year in a warning to the United States not to cross its red line (Chart 11). It is not yet clear how Biden’s policy continuity with the Trump administration will affect cross-strait stability. We see no basis yet for changing our view that there is a 60% chance of a market-negative geopolitical incident in 2021-22 and a 5% chance of full-scale war in the short run. Chart 11China PLA Flights Over Taiwan Strait Putting all of the above together, we see substantial support for two key market-relevant geopolitical risks: Chinese domestic politics (including policy tightening) and persistent US-China tensions (including but not limited to the Taiwan Strait). We remain tactically defensive, a stance supported by several recent turns in global markets: The global stock-to-bond ratio has rolled over. China is a negative factor for global risk appetite (Chart 12). Global cyclical equities are no longer outperforming defensives. There is a stark divergence between Chinese cyclicals and global cyclicals stemming from the painful transition in China’s bloated industrial economy (Chart 13). Global large caps are catching a bid relative to small caps (Chart 14). Chart 12Global Stock-To-Bond Ratio Rolled Over Chart 13Global Cyclicals-To-Defensives Pause Chart 14Global Large Caps Catch A Bid Versus Small Caps Cyclically the global economic recovery should continue as the pandemic wanes. China will eventually relax policy to prevent too abrupt of a slowdown. Therefore our strategic portfolio reflects our high-conviction view that the current global economic expansion will continue even as it faces hurdles from the secular rise in geopolitical risk, especially US-China cold war. Measurable geopolitical risk and policy uncertainty are likely to rebound sooner rather than later, with a negative impact on high-beta risk assets. Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Coda: Global Minimum Tax Symbolizes Return Of Big Government On Thursday, the US Treasury Department released a proposal to set the global minimum corporate tax rate at 15%. The plan is to stop what Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has referred to as a global “race to the bottom” and create the basis for a rehabilitation of government budgets damaged by pandemic-era stimulus. Although the newly proposed 15% rate is significantly below President Biden’s bid to raise the US Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income (GILTI) rate to 21% from 10.5%, it is the same rate as his proposed minimum tax on corporate book income. Biden is also raising the headline corporate tax rate from 21% to around 25% (or at highest 28%). Negotiators at the OECD were initially discussing a 12.5% global minimum rate. The finance ministers of both France and Germany – where the corporate income tax rates are 32.0% and 29.9%, respectively – both responded positively to the announcement. However, Ireland, which uses low corporate taxes as an economic development strategy, is obviously more comfortable with a minimum closer to its own 12.5% rate. Discussions are likely to occur when G7 finance ministers meet on June 4-5. Countries are hoping to establish a broad outline for the proposal by the G20 meeting in early July. It is highly likely that the OECD will come to an agreement. However, it is not a truly “global” minimum as there will still be tax havens. Compliance and enforcement will vary across countries. A close look at the domestic political capital of the relevant countries shows that while many countries have the raw parliamentary majorities necessary to raise taxes, most countries have substantial conservative contingents capable of preventing stiff corporate tax hikes (Table 1, in the Appendix). Our Geopolitical strategists highlight that the Biden administration’s compromise on the minimum rate reflects its pragmatism as well as emphasis on multilateralism. Any global deal will be non-binding but the two most important low-tax players are already committed to raising corporate rates well above this level: Biden’s plan is noted above, while the UK’s budget for March includes a jump in the business rate to 25% in April 2023 from the current 19%. Ireland and Hungary are the only outliers but they may eventually be forced to yield to such a large coalition of bigger economies (Chart 15). Chart 15Global Minimum Corporate Tax Impact Is Symbolic Rather Than Concrete Thus a nominal minimum corporate tax rate is likely to be forged but it will not be truly global and it will not change the corporate rate for most countries. The reality of what companies pay will also depend on loopholes, tax havens, and the effective tax rate. Bottom Line: On a structural horizon, the global minimum corporate tax is significant for showing a paradigm shift in global macro policy: western governments are starting to raise taxes and revenue after decades of cutting taxes. The experiment with limited government has ended and Big Government is making a comeback. On a cyclical horizon, the US concession on global minimum tax is that the Biden administration aims to be pragmatic and “get things done.” Biden is also working with Republicans to pass bills covering some bipartisan aspects of his domestic agenda, such as trade, manufacturing, and China. The takeaway from a global point of view is that Biden may prove to be a compromiser rather than an ideologue, unlike his predecessors.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Roukaya Ibrahim Vice President Daily Insights RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Kurt M. Campbell and Jake Sullivan, "Competition Without Catastrophe," Foreign Affairs, September/October 2019, foreignaffairs.com. Section II: Appendix Table 1OECD: Which Countries Are Willing And Able To Raise Corporate Tax Rates? GeoRisk Indicator China Russia UK Germany France Italy Canada Spain Taiwan – Province Of China Korea Turkey Brazil Australia Section III: Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights China's high-profile jawboning draws attention to tightness in metals markets, and raises the odds the State Reserve Board (SRB) will release some of its massive copper and aluminum stockpiles in the near future. Over the medium- to long-term, the lack of major new greenfield capex raises red flags for the IEA's ambitious low-carbon pathway released last week, which foresees the need for a dramatic increase in renewable energy output and a halt in future oil and gas investment to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. Copper demand is expected to exceed mined supply by 2028, according to an analysis by S&P, which, in line with our view, also sees refined-copper consumption exceeding production this year (Chart of the Week). A constitution re-write in Chile and elections in Peru threaten to usher in higher taxes and royalties on mining in these metals producers, placing future capex at risk. Chile's state-owned Codelco, the largest copper producer in the world, fears a bill to limit mining near glaciers could put as much as 40% of its copper production at risk. We remain bullish copper and look to get long on politically induced sell-offs as the USD weakens. Feature Politicians are inserting themselves in the metals markets' supply-demand evolutions to a greater degree than in the past, which is complicating the short- and medium-term analysis of prices. This adds to an already-difficult process of assessing markets, given the opacity of metals fundamentals – particularly inventories, which are notoriously difficult to assess. Chinese Communist Party (CCP) jawboning of market participants in iron ore, steel, copper and aluminum markets over the past two weeks has weakened prices, but, with the exception of steel rebar futures in Shanghai – down ~ 17% from recent highs, and now trading at ~ 4911 RMB/MT –  the other markets remain close to records.  Benchmark 62% Fe iron ore at the port of Tianjin was trading ~ 4% lower at $211/MT, while copper and aluminum were trading ~ 5.5% and 6.5% off their recent records at $4.535/lb and $2,350/MT, respectively. In addition to copper, aluminum markets are particularly tight (Chart 2). Jawboning aside, if fundamentals continue to keep prices elevated – or if we see a new leg up – China's high-profile jawboning could presage a release by the State Reserve Board (SRB) of some of its massive copper and aluminum stockpiles in the near term. In the case of copper, market guesses on the size of this stockpile are ~ 2mm to 2.7mm MT. On the aluminum side, Bloomberg reported CCP officials were considering the release of 500k MT to quell the market's demand for the metal. Chart of the WeekContinue Tightening In Copper Expected Chart 2Aluminum Remains Tight Brownfield Development Not Sufficient Our balances assessments continue to indicate key base metals markets are tight and will remain so over the short term (2-3 years). Economies ex-China are entering their post-COVID-19 recovery phase. This will be followed by higher demand from renewable generation and grid build-outs that will put them in direct competition with China for scarce metals supplies for decades to come. Markets will continue to tighten. In the bellwether copper market, we expect this tightness to remain a persistent feature of the market over the medium term – 3 to 5 years out – given the dearth of new supply coming to market. Copper prices are highly correlated with the other base metals (Chart 3) – the coefficient of correlation with the other base metals making up the LME's metals index is ~ 0.86 post-GFC – and provide a useful indicator of systematic trends in these markets. Chart 3Copper Correlation With LME Index Ex-Copper Copper ore quality has been falling for years, as miners focused on brownfield development to extend the life of mines (Chart 4). In Chart 5, we show the ratio of capex (in billion USD) to ore quality increases when capex growth is expanding faster than ore quality, and decreases when capex weakens and/or ore quality degradation is increasing. Chart 4Copper Capex, Ore Quality Declines Chart 5Capex-to-Ore-Quality Decline Set Market Up For Higher Prices Falling prices over the 2012-19 interval coincide with copper ore quality remaining on a downward trend, likely the result of previous higher prices that set off the capex boom pre-GFC. The lower prices favored brownfield over greenfield development. Goehring and Rozencwajg found in their analysis of 24 mines, about 80% of gross new reserves booked between 2001-2014 were due not to new mine discoveries but to companies reclassifying what was once considered to be waste-rock into minable reserves, lowering the cut-off grade for development.1 This is consistent with the most recent datapoints in Chart 5, due to falling ore grade values, as companies inject less capex into their operations and use it to expand on brownfield projects. Higher prices will be needed to incentivize more greenfield projects. A new report from S&P Global Market Intelligence shows copper reserves in the ground are falling along with new discoveries.2 According to the S&P analysts, copper demand is expected to exceed mined supply by 2028, which, in line with our view, sees refined-copper consumption exceeding production this year. Renewables Push At Risk Just last week, the IEA produced an ambitious and narrow path for governments to collectively reach a net-zero emissions (NZE) goal by 2050.3 Among its many recommendations, the IEA singled out the overhaul of the global electric grid, which will be required to accommodate the massive renewable-generation buildout the agency forecasts will be needed to achieve its NZE goals. The IEA forecasts annual investment in transmission and distribution grids will need to increase from $260 billion to $820 billion p.a. by 2030. This is easier said than done. Consider the build-out of China's grid, which is the largest grid in the world. To become carbon neutral by 2060, per its stated goals, investment in China’s grid and associated infrastructure is expected to approach ~ $900 billion, maybe more, over the next 5 years.4 The world’s largest fossil-fuel importer is looking to pivot away from coal and plans to more than double solar and wind power capacity to 1200 GW by 2030. Weening China off coal and rebuilding its grid to achieve these goals will be a herculean lift. It comes as no surprise that IEA member states have pushed back on the agency's NZE-by-2050 plan. This primarily is because of its requirement to completely halt fossil-fuel exploration and spending on new projects. Japan and Australia have pushed back against this plan, citing energy security concerns. Officials from both countries have stated that they will continue developing fossil fuel projects, as a back-up to renewables. Japan has been falling behind on renewable electricity generation (Chart 6). Expensive renewables and the unpopularity of nuclear fuel could make it harder for the world’s fifth largest fossil fuels consumer to move away from fossil fuels. Around the same time the IEA released its report, Australia committed $464 million to build a new gas-fired power station as a backup to renewables. Chart 6Japan Will Continue Building Fossil-Fuel Back-Up Generation Just days after the IEA report was published, the G7 nations agreed to stop overseas coal financing. This could have devastating effects for emerging and developing nations‘ electricity grids which are highly dependent on coal. In 2020 70% and 60% of India and China’s electricity respectively were produced by coal (Chart 7).5 Chart 7EM Economies Remain Reliant On Coal-Fired Generation Near-Term Copper Supply Risks Rise Even though inventories appear to be rebuilding, mounting political risks keep us bullish copper (Chart 8). Lawmakers in Chile and Peru are in the process of re-writing their constitutions to, among other things, raise royalties and taxes on mining activities in their respective countries. This could usher in higher taxes and royalties on mining for these metals producers, placing future capex at risk. In addition, Chile's state-owned Codelco, the largest copper producer in the world, fears a bill to limit mining near glaciers could put as much as 40% of its copper production at risk.6 None of these events is certain to occur. Peruvian elections, for one thing, are too close to call at this point, and Chile has a history of pro-business government. However, these are non-trivial odds – i.e., greater than Russian roulette odds of 1:6 – and if any or all of these outcomes are realized, higher costs in copper and lithium prices would result, and miners would have to pass those costs on to buyers. Bottom Line: We remain bullish base metals, especially copper. Another leg up in copper would pull base metals higher with it. We would look to get long on politically induced sell-offs, particularly with the USD weakening, as expected Chart 8Global Copper Inventories Rebuilding But Still Down Y/Y   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com     Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish Next Tuesday's OPEC 2.0 meeting appears to be a fairly staid affair, with little of the drama attending previous gatherings. Russian minister Novak observed the coalition would be jointly "calculating the balances" when it meets, taking into account the likely official return of Iran as an exporter, according to reuters.com. We expect a mid-year deal on allowing Iran to return to resume exports under the nuclear deal abrogated by the Trump administration in 2019, and reckon Iran has ~ 1.5mm b/d of production it can bring back on line, which likely would return its crude oil production to something above 3.8mm b/d by year-end. We are maintaining our forecast for Brent to average $64.45/bbl in 2H21; $75 and $78/bbl, in 2022 and 2023, respectively. By end 2023, prices trade to $80/bbl. Our forecast is premised on a wider global recovery going into 2H21, and continued production discipline from OPEC 2.0 (Chart 9). Base Metals: Bullish Our stop-losses was elected on our long Dec21 copper position on May 21, which means we closed the position with 48.2% return. The stop loss on our long 2022 vs short 2023 COMEX copper futures backwardation recommendation also was elected on May 20, leaving us with a return of 305%. We will be looking for an opportunity to re-establish these positions. Precious Metals: Bullish We expect the collapse in bitcoin prices, the US Fed’s decision to not raise interest rates, and a weakening US dollar to keep gold prices well bid (Chart 10). China’s ban on cryptocurrency services and Musk’s acknowledgment of the energy intensity of Bitcoin mining sent Bitcoin prices crashing. The Fed’s decision to keep interest rates constant, despite rising inflation and inflation expectations will reduce the opportunity cost of holding gold. According to our colleagues at USBS, the Fed will make its first interest rate hike only after the US economy has reached "maximum employment". The Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey reported that job openings rose nearly 8% in March to 8.1 million jobs, however, overall hiring was little changed, rising by less than 4% to 6 million. As prices in the US rise and the dollar depreciates, gold will be favored as a store of value. On the back of these factors, we expect gold to hit $2,000/oz. Ags/Softs: Neutral Corn futures were trading close to 20% below recent highs earlier in the week at ~ $6.27/bu, on the back of much faster-than-expected plantings. Chart 9 Chart 10     Footnotes 1     Please refer to Goehring & Rozencwajg’s Q1 2021 market commentary. 2     Please see Copper cupboard remains bare as discoveries dwindle — S&P study published by mining.com 20 May 2021. 3    Please see Net Zero by 2050 – A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector, published by the IEA. 4    Please see China’s climate goal: Overhauling its electricity grid, published by Aljazeera.  5    We discuss this in detail in Surging Metals Prices And The Case For Carbon-Capture published 13 May 2021, and Renewables ESG Risks Grow With Demand, which was published 29 April 2021.  Both are available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 6    Please see A game of chicken is clouding tax debate in top copper nation, Fujimori looks to speed up projects to tap copper riches in Peru and Codelco says 40% of its copper output at risk if glacier bill passes published by mining.com 24, 23 and 20 May 2021, respectively.    Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2021 Summary of Closed Trades

Highlights Global oil markets will remain balanced this year with OPEC 2.0's production-management strategy geared toward maintaining the level of supply just below demand.  This will keep inventories on a downward trajectory, despite short-term upticks due to COVID-19-induced demand hits in EM economies and marginal supply additions from Iran and Libya over the near term. Our 2021 oil demand growth is lower – ~ 5.3mm b/d y/y, down ~ 800k from last month's estimate – given persistent weakness in realized consumption.  We have lifted our demand expectation for 2022 and 2023, however, expecting wider global vaccine distribution and increased travel toward year-end. The next few months are critical for OPEC 2.0: The trajectory for EM demand recovery will remain uncertain until vaccines are more widely distributed, and supply from Iran and Libya likely will increase this year.  This will lead to a slight bump in inventories this year, incentivizing KSA and Russia to maintain the status quo on the supply side. We are raising our 2021 Brent forecast back to $63/bbl from $60/bbl, and lifting our 2022 and 2023 forecasts to $75 and $78/bbl, respectively, given our expectation for a wider global recovery (Chart of the Week). Feature A number of evolving fundamental factors on both sides of the oil market – i.e., lingering uncertainty over the return of Iranian and Libyan exports and the strength of the global demand recovery – will test what we believe to be OPEC 2.0's production-management strategy in the next few months. Briefly, our maintained hypothesis views OPEC 2.0 as the dominant supplier in the global oil market. This is due to the low-cost production of its core members (i.e., those states able to attract capital and grow production), and its overwhelming advantage in spare capacity, which we reckon will average in excess of 7mm b/d this year, owing to the massive production cuts undertaken to drain inventories during the COVID-19 pandemic. Formidable storage assets globally – positioned in or near refining centers – and well-developed transportation infrastructures also support this position. We estimate core OPEC 2.0 production will average 26.58mm b/d this year and 29.43mm b/d in 2022 (Chart 2). Chart of the WeekBrent Prices Likely Correct Then Move Higher in 2022-23 Chart 2OPEC 2.0 Will Maintain Status Quo The putative leaders of the OPEC 2.0 coalition – the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia – have distinctly different goals. KSA's preference is for higher prices – ~ $70-$75/bbl (basis Brent) to the end of 2022. Higher prices are needed to fund the Kingdom's diversification away from oil. Russia's goal is to keep prices closer to the marginal cost of the US shale-oil producers, who we characterize as the exemplar of the price-taking cohort outside OPEC 2.0, which produces whatever the market allows. This range is ~ $50-$55/bbl. The sweet spot that accommodates these divergent goals is on either side of $65/bbl for this year. OPEC 2.0 June 1 Meeting Will Maintain Status Quo With Brent trading close to $70/bbl, discussions in the run-up to OPEC 2.0's June 1 meeting likely are focused on the necessity to increase the 2.1mm b/d being returned to the market over the May-July period. At present, we do not believe this will be necessary: Iran likely will be returning to the market beginning in 3Q21, and will top up its production from ~ 2.4mm b/d in April to ~ 3.85mm b/d by year-end, in our estimation. Any volumes returned to the market by core OPEC 2.0 in excess of what's already been agreed going into the June 1 meeting likely will come out of storage on an as-needed basis. Libya will likely lift its current production of ~ 1.3mm b/d close to 1.5mm b/d by year end as well. We are expecting the price-taking cohort ex-OPEC 2.0 to increase production from 53.78mm b/d in April to 53.86mm b/d in December, led by a 860k b/d increase in US output, which will take average Lower 48 output in the US (ex-GOM) to 9.15mm b/d by the end of this year (Chart 3). When we model shale output, our expectation is driven by the level of prompt WTI prices and the shape of the forward curve. The backwardation in the WTI forward curve will limit hedged revenues at the margin, which will limit the volume growth of the marginal producer. We expect global production to slowly increase next year, and the year after that, with supply averaging 101.07mm b/d in 2022 and 103mm b/d in 2023.  Chart 3US Crude Output Recovers, Then Tapers in 2023 Demand Should Lift, But Uncertainties Persist We expect the slowdown in realized DM demand to reverse in 2H21, and for oil demand to continue to recover in 2H21 as the US and EU re-open and travel picks up. This can be seen in our expectation for DM demand, which we proxy with OECD oil consumption (Chart 4). EM demand – proxied by non-OECD oil consumption – is expected to revive over 2022-23 as vaccine distribution globally picks up. As a result, demand growth shifts to EM, while DM levels off. China's refinery throughput in April came within 100k b/d of the record 14.2mm b/d posted in November 2020 (Chart 5). The marginal draw in April stockpiles could also signify that as crude prices have risen higher, the world’s largest oil importer may have hit the brakes on bringing oil in. In the chart, oil stored or drawn is calculated as the difference between what is imported and produced with what is processed in refineries. With refinery maintenance in high gear until the end of this month, we expect product-stock draws to remain strong on the back of domestic and export demand. This will draw inventories while maintenance continues. Chart 4EM Demand Will Recovery Accelerates in 2022-23 Chart 8China Refinery Runs Remain Strong COVID-19-induced demand destruction remains a persistent risk, particularly in India, Brazil and Japan. This is visible in the continued shortfall in realized demand vs our expectation so far this year. We lowered our 2021 oil demand growth estimate to ~ 5.3mm b/d y/y, which is down ~ 800k from last month's estimate, given persistent weakness in realized consumption. Our demand forecast for 2022 and 2023 is higher, however, based on our expectation for stronger GDP growth in EM economies, following the DM's outperformance this year, on the back of wider global vaccine distribution year-end (Table 1). Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) Our supply-demand estimates continue to point to a balanced market this year and into 2022-23 (Chart 6). Given our expectation OPEC 2.0's production-management strategy will remain effective, we expect inventories to continue to draw (Chart 7). Chart 6Markets Remained Balanced Chart 7Inventories Continue To Draw CAPEX Cuts Bite In 2023 In 2023, we are expecting Brent to end the year closer to $80/bbl than not, which will put prices outside the current range we believe OPEC 2.0 is managing its production around (Chart 8). We have noted in the past continued weakness in capex over the 2015-2022 period threatens to leave the global market exposed to higher prices (Chart 9). Over time, a reluctance to invest in oil and gas exploration and production prices in 2024 and beyond could begin to take off as demand – which does not have to grow more than 1% p.a. – continues to expand and supply remains flat or declines. Chart 8By 2023 Brent Trades to /bbl Chart 9Low Capex Likely Results In Higher Prices After 2023 Bottom Line: We are raising our 2021 forecast back to an average of $63/bbl, and our forecasts for 2022 and 2023 to $75 and $78/bbl. We expect DM demand to lead the recovery this year, and for EM to take over next year, and resume its role as the growth engine for oil demand. Longer term, parsimonious capex allocations likely result in tighter supply meeting slowly growing demand. At present, markets appear to be placing a large bet on the buildout of renewable electricity generation and electric vehicles (EVs). If this does not occur along the trajectory of rapid expansion apparently being priced by markets – i.e., the demand for oil continues to expand, however slowly – oil prices likely would push through $80/bbl in 2024 and beyond.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com   Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish The Colonial Pipeline outage pushed average retail gasoline prices in the US to $3.03/gal earlier this week, according to the EIA. This was the highest level for regular-grade gasoline in the US since 27 October 2014. According to reuters.com, the cyberattack that shut down the 5,500-mile pipeline was the most disruptive on record, shutting down thousands of retail service stations in the US southeast. Millions of barrels of refined products – gasoline, diesel and jet fuel – were unable to flow between the US Gulf and the NY Harbor because of the attack, which was launched 7 May 2021 (Chart 10). While most of the system is up and running, problems with the pipeline's scheduling system earlier this week prevented a return to full operation. Base Metals: Bullish Spot copper prices remained on either side of $4.55/lb (~ $10,000/MT) by mid-week following a dip from the $4.80/lb level (Chart 11). We remain bullish copper, particularly as political risk in Chile rises going into a constitutional convention. According to press reports, the country's constitution will be re-written, a process that likely will pave the way for higher taxes and royalties on copper producers.1 In addition, unions in BHP mines rejected a proposed labor agreement, with close to 100% of members voting to strike. In Peru, a socialist presidential candidate is campaigning on a platform to raise taxes and royalties. Precious Metals: Bullish According to the World Platinum Investment Council, platinum is expected to run a deficit for the third consecutive year in 2021, which will amount to 158k oz, on the back of strong demand. Refined production is projected to increase this year, with South Africa driving this growth as mines return to full operational capacity after COVID-19 related shutdowns. Automotive demand is leading the charge in higher metal consumption, as car makers switch out more expensive palladium for platinum to make autocatalysts in internal-combustion vehicles. Ags/Softs: Neutral Corn prices continued to be better-offered following last week's WASDE report, which contained the department's first look at the 2021-22 crop year. Corn production is expected to be up close to 6% over the 2020-21 crop year, at just under 15 billion bushels. On the week, corn prices are down ~ 15.3%. Chart 10 Chart 11     Footnotes 1     Please see Copper price rises as Chile fuels long-term supply concerns published 18 May 2021 by mining.com. Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2021 Summary of Closed Trades

Aspectos destacados Durante el período 2021-22, la capacidad renovable representará el 90% de las incorporaciones a la generación eléctrica global, según la última previsión de la IEA. Esto seguirá al aumento del 45% a/a en la capacidad de generación renovable añadida el año pasado, que se produjo a pesar de la pandemia de COVID-19 (Gráfico de la semana). Las continuas inversiones en renovables y vehículos eléctricos (VE) –junto con la recuperación económica global– están empujando las previsiones en bancos y empresas de trading hacia un rango de $13k - $20k/MT para el cobre, frente a ~ $10.6k/MT (~ $4.80/lb) en la actualidad. Si estas previsiones más altas para los metales se confirman, las inversiones que prolonguen el uso de combustibles fósiles de bajas emisiones mediante tecnologías de captura de carbono y de uso circular se volverán más atractivas. La inversión en estas tecnologías ha sido limitada porque no existe un precio de referencia global explícito con el que evaluar las inversiones. Un mercado o impuesto sobre el carbono proporcionaría dicha referencia y aceleraría la inversión. Podría monitorizarse vía un Club del Mercado de Carbono, que limitaría el comercio a los estados que publiquen y recauden el impuesto.1 Artículo Con casi 280 GW, las incorporaciones de capacidad de energía renovable el año pasado aumentaron un 45% a/a, el mayor incremento desde 1999, según la actualización más reciente de la IEA sobre energía renovable.2 Para este año y el siguiente, se espera que las renovables representen el 90% de las incorporaciones de capacidad, lideradas por una inversión en energía solar fotovoltaica que aumentará aproximadamente un 50% hasta 162 GW. La capacidad eólica creció un 90% el año pasado, hasta 114 GW, y se espera que aumente alrededor de un 50% hasta finales de 2022. A medida que la generación renovable –y la inversión en VE– continúa creciendo, la demanda de productos básicos (acero y mineral de hierro) y de metales base, liderada por el cobre, llevará los precios al alza. Esto ocurre en un contexto de crecimiento de la oferta plano y déficits físicos durante los cuatro años hasta 2020 (Gráfico 2). Según la IEA, un aumento del 40% en los precios del acero y el cobre entre septiembre de 2020 y marzo de 2021 contribuyó al alza de los precios de los módulos solares fotovoltaicos. Gráfico de la semana Aumento espectacular de la capacidad renovable Precios de los metales en alza y el caso a favor de la captura de carbono Precios de los metales en alza y el caso a favor de la captura de carbono En nuestra evaluación, el lado de la oferta del mercado del cobre seguirá en déficit este año y el siguiente, y podría continuar en esa trayectoria si, como espera Wood Mackenzie, la demanda crece a una tasa del 2% anual durante los próximos 20 años y los mineros siguen siendo reacios a comprometer el capex necesario para mantenerse al ritmo de la demanda.3 Gráfico 2 Los déficits físicos reducirán las existencias de cobre... Los déficits físicos reducirán las existencias de cobre... Los déficits físicos reducirán las existencias de cobre... El riesgo ESG para el cobre –y otros metales necesarios para construir la generación y la infraestructura requeridas en la expansión de las renovables– aumentará a medida que suban los precios, lo que también incrementará los costes.4 Los aumentos de costes junto con los crecientes riesgos ESG en esta expansión aumentarán el atractivo de la inversión en tecnologías de captura de carbono y de economía circular, en nuestra opinión. Esto extendería el uso de combustibles fósiles de bajas emisiones si la tecnología consigue acercar al mundo a un futuro de emisiones netas cero. Sin embargo, salvo que la política catalice esta inversión –por ejemplo, vía un precio global de intercambio de carbono o un impuesto– la inversión en estas tecnologías probablemente seguirá estancada. La promesa incumplida de la tecnología de captura de carbono La historia de la Captura, Utilización y Almacenamiento de Carbono (CCUS) ha sido una de grandes esperanzas y expectativas no cumplidas. Se reconoce generalmente como una vía para mitigar el cambio climático; sin embargo, su despliegue ha sido más lento de lo esperado. La tecnología de bajas emisiones requiere más metales críticos que su homóloga basada en combustibles fósiles (Gráfico 3). Aparte del problema del coste, los riesgos ESG de la minería de metales para la transición energética renovable aumentarán a medida que se demanden más metales, como discutimos en investigaciones previas.5 Según Wood Mackenzie, las compañías mineras tendrán que invertir casi $1.7 billones en los próximos 15 años para ayudar a suministrar suficientes metales que permitan la transición a un mundo de bajas emisiones de carbono.6 Gráfico 3 La tecnología baja en carbono requiere muchos metales Precios de los metales en alza y el caso a favor de la captura de carbono Precios de los metales en alza y el caso a favor de la captura de carbono Dadas estas inminentes necesidades físicas de metales, lo más probable es que los combustibles fósiles deban utilizarse durante más tiempo del que los mercados anticipan actualmente, como puente hacia el futuro bajo en carbono, o como parte de ese futuro, dependiendo de qué tan eficazmente se elimine el carbono de los hidrocarburos que alimentan la sociedad moderna. Si ese fuera el caso, usar combustibles fósiles mientras se mitiga su impacto ambiental requerirá tecnologías altamente focalizadas para reducir las emisiones de CO2 y otros gases de efecto invernadero (GEI) durante la transición hacia un futuro bajo en carbono. Aquí entra la tecnología CCUS: esta tecnología captura el CO2 de fuentes que usan combustibles fósiles o biomasa para generar la energía necesaria para el funcionamiento de la sociedad moderna. En las iteraciones actuales de esta tecnología, el CO2 puede comprimirse y transportarse, o almacenarse en reservorios geológicos u oceánicos. Esto luego puede utilizarse para Recuperación Mejorada de Petróleo (EOR) para extraer petróleo más difícil de alcanzar inyectando CO2 en los reservorios que contienen los hidrocarburos.7 El alcance de la inversión en CCUS El gasto en inversión en CCUS está aumentando, al igual que el número de instalaciones planificadas que usan o demuestran esta tecnología. En la edición 2020 de su Energy Technology Perspectives, la IEA señaló que se han anunciado 30 nuevas instalaciones integradas de CCUS desde 2017, principalmente en economías avanzadas como EE. UU. y Europa, pero también en algunas naciones de mercados emergentes. A fecha de 2020, los proyectos en etapas avanzadas de planificación representaban un total de $27 mil millones, más del doble de la inversión prevista en 2017 (Gráfico 4). Entre sus muchos objetivos, el Acuerdo de París busca un equilibrio entre las emisiones de origen humano y la eliminación por sumideros de gases de efecto invernadero (absorción de los gases) en la segunda mitad del siglo XXI. En la práctica, muchos países –especialmente las economías de mercados emergentes– todavía necesitarán usar combustibles fósiles para desarrollarse durante este periodo (Gráfico 5).8 Gráfico 4 Proyectos de captura de carbono hasta la fecha Precios de los metales en alza y el caso a favor de la captura de carbono Precios de los metales en alza y el caso a favor de la captura de carbono Gráfico 5 El desarrollo de mercados emergentes requerirá energía de combustibles fósiles Los precios de los metales en alza y el caso a favor de la captura de carbono Los precios de los metales en alza y el caso a favor de la captura de carbono CCUS en el sector energético Como combustible que emite menos GEI que el carbón –es decir, la mitad del CO2 del carbón– el gas natural puede usarse eficazmente como puente hacia la generación eléctrica verde (Gráfico 6). Gráfico 6 El gas natural seguirá siendo atractivo como combustible puente Precios de los metales en fuerte ascenso y el caso a favor de la captura de carbono Precios de los metales en fuerte ascenso y el caso a favor de la captura de carbono El CO2 del gas natural debe eliminarse antes de que el gas seco se venda como gas de calidad para redes de gasoducto o GNL. Normalmente este CO2 se libera a la atmósfera; sin embargo, empleando la tecnología CCUS, puede reinyectarse en formaciones geológicas y utilizarse para EOR. Por esta razón, las compañías de GNL en EE. UU., el mayor exportador mundial de GNL, han estado estudiando invertir en tecnología CCUS en un intento por volverse más ecológicas.9 El CCUS también puede usarse para producir hidrógeno de bajo coste –el llamado hidrógeno azul– usando gas natural y carbón, en lugar del proceso de electrólisis más caro, que utiliza electricidad de origen renovable para producir hidrógeno "verde". Los menores costes del hidrógeno azul harán que el hidrógeno limpio sea más accesible para las naciones emergentes, abriendo nuevas vías para que el mundo utilice este vector energético en sus esfuerzos de descarbonización. El valor del CCUS en otras industrias La tecnología CCUS puede instalarse en centrales eléctricas e industrias existentes, que, según la IEA, de otro modo podrían seguir emitiendo 8.000 millones de toneladas de CO2 en 2050, alrededor de una cuarta parte de las emisiones anuales del sector energético en 2020. De los generadores basados en combustibles fósiles, la generación eléctrica a carbón presenta el mayor reto de CO2, con la mayor parte de las emisiones procedentes de China y otras naciones del Asia de mercados emergentes, donde la edad media de las plantas es inferior a 20 años. Dado que la edad media de una central térmica a carbón es de 40 años, según la Asociación Nacional de Comisionados Reguladores de EE. UU., esto implica que estas plantas tienen una larga vida útil restante y podrían seguir operando hasta 2050. El CCUS es la única alternativa a retirar o reconvertir las centrales eléctricas e instalaciones industriales existentes. La IEA considera que el CCUS es imprescindible para alcanzar emisiones netas cero. En su Escenario de Desarrollo Sostenible - en el que las emisiones globales de CO2 del sector energético disminuyen hasta alcanzar emisiones netas cero en 2070 - el CCUS representa el 15% de la reducción acumulada de emisiones. Si el mundo necesita alcanzar emisiones netas cero para 2050 en su lugar, se requeriría casi un 50% más de despliegue de CCUS.10 Implementado y escalado adecuadamente, el CCUS puede permitir que las industrias sigan usando petróleo, gas y carbón y alcanzar objetivos de emisiones netas cero, impulsando la demanda de combustibles fósiles en el medio plazo. Esto es especialmente importante para el desarrollo de los mercados emergentes. ¿Por qué no hemos avanzado más en CCUS? ¿Qué se puede hacer? La razón principal por la que el CCUS no se utiliza más ampliamente es su coste. Actualmente, el coste de capturar carbono varía en función de la concentración de CO2, siendo la Captura Directa de Aire la más cara (Gráfico 7). Dado lo prohibitivos de los costes, el CCUS no ha sido viable comercialmente. Sin embargo, el mismo argumento podría haberse usado contra la implementación de fuentes de energía renovable. Si bien en un momento el coste nivelado de la energía (LCOE) de las renovables era alto, a medida que estas fuentes se han escalado –ayudadas en buena parte por subsidios gubernamentales– los costes han caído, siguiendo algo similar a una curva de decrecimiento de costes tipo Ley de Moore. Un LCOE para la generación solar informado por Lazard Ltd., que permite comparaciones entre tecnologías (por ejemplo, combustibles fósiles vs renovables), muestra que los costes de generación cayeron un 89% hasta $40/MWh desde $359/MWh entre 2009 y 2019 (Gráfico 8). Esta curva de aprendizaje pudo producirse gracias a los subsidios gubernamentales, que promovieron el despliegue de la tecnología solar. Gráfico 7 El CCUS puede ser caro Precios de los Metales en Alza y el Argumento a Favor de la Captura de Carbono Precios de los Metales en Alza y el Argumento a Favor de la Captura de Carbono Gráfico 8 Los subsidios podrían apoyar al CCUS, tal como se hizo con la solar Los subsidios podrían respaldar el CCUS, tal como se hizo con la energía solar Los subsidios podrían respaldar el CCUS, tal como se hizo con la energía solar El coste de la tecnología CCUS está disminuyendo. Por ejemplo, en 2019 el Global CCS Institute informó que costó $100/tonelada capturar carbono en la planta canadiense Boundary Dam usando una unidad de CCS construida en 2014. El coste del carbono capturado en la planta estadounidense Petra Nova –construida tres años después– usando tecnología mejorada fue de $65/tonelada. Ambas son plantas eléctricas alimentadas por carbón. El informe también señaló que las plantas térmicas a carbón que planean comenzar operaciones en 2024-28 usando la misma tecnología CCS que las de Boundary Dam y Petra Nova esperan costes de carbono de aproximadamente $43/tonelada, debido a curvas de aprendizaje más pronunciadas, investigación, menores costes de capital por economías de escala y digitalización. Una característica común entre estas fuentes de reducción de costes es que las empresas necesitan invertir más en CCUS y familiarizarse con esta tecnología. Como ocurrió con las renovables, los subsidios gubernamentales reducirían los costes prohibitivos de operar la tecnología CCUS y atraerían más participación para perfeccionar esta tecnología. Los primeros CCUS pioneros serán caros; sin embargo, los subsidios en forma de apoyo de capital o créditos fiscales aumentarán la implementación y la investigación en CCUS. Boundary Dam y Petra Nova son ejemplos de instalaciones que se beneficiaron de subsidios gubernamentales. Las instalaciones recibieron $170 millones y $200 millones respectivamente de agencias gubernamentales de Canadá y EE. UU. en el momento de la construcción de las unidades de CCS. EE. UU. también ha implementado un sistema de crédito fiscal 45Q que paga a las instalaciones $50/tonelada de CO2 almacenada y $35/tonelada de CO2 si se utiliza en aplicaciones como la Recuperación Mejorada de Petróleo. Según el Global CCS Institute, a finales de 2019, de los ocho nuevos proyectos CCUS que se añadieron en EE. UU., cuatro citaron la presencia del 45Q como el factor clave. Poner en marcha mercados e impuestos al carbono El mercado del Sistema de Comercio de Emisiones (ETS) de la UE, implementado en 2005, es un ejemplo de política innovadora que incentiva a las empresas a reducir emisiones mediante fuerzas de mercado. El precio del carbono medido en estos mercados otorga un valor tangible a una externalidad negativa que antes no se registraba. La desventaja de este ETS es su dependencia de la implementación de la política ambiental de la UE, que está sujeta a cambios de política que complican el análisis de oferta y demanda para la planificación a más largo plazo –por ejemplo, el reciente aumento de su objetivo de emisiones a una reducción neta mínima del 55% de las emisiones de GEI para 2030. Una alternativa al comercio impulsado por la política de derechos de emisiones es un impuesto por tonelada sobre las emisiones, que los gobiernos imponerían y recaudarían. Esto aumentaría los costes de las tecnologías que usan combustibles fósiles –incluidas las utilizadas en la industria minera para aumentar la oferta de productos básicos y metales base críticos necesarios para la transición a las renovables. Al mismo tiempo, dicho impuesto daría a las empresas que suministran y usan tecnologías que aumentan los niveles de CO2 un incentivo para reducir las emisiones de CO2 mediante tecnologías CCUS. Los mercados ETS y los gobiernos que impongan impuestos al CO2 podrían formar Clubes del Mercado de Carbono –una tecnología desarrollada por William Nordhaus, el laureado con el Nobel de Economía en 2018– que restrinjan el comercio a los estados que puedan demostrar su participación y apoyo a la reducción real de carbono detallada en el Acuerdo de París mediante esquemas de comercio o impuestos.11 A medida que la transición energética verde gane tracción y los gobiernos implementen políticas más orientadas a emisiones netas cero, el precio del carbono aumentará. Al subir el precio del carbono, el coste asociado a las emisiones de carbono de las empresas también aumentará. Con los participantes del mercado esperando que el precio del carbono continúe subiendo tras alcanzar valores récord, el incentivo para que las empresas que operan en la UE utilicen la tecnología CCUS aumentará, al igual que el incentivo para las empresas sujetas a un impuesto al carbono.12 Conclusión: Dado el meteórico aumento de precio de los metales verdes, el capex infrafinanciado y los riesgos ESG asociados a la minería de metales para el futuro bajo en carbono, esperamos que los combustibles fósiles desempeñen un papel mayor en la transición hacia una sociedad baja en carbono del que los mercados anticipan actualmente. Para que los países puedan usar combustibles fósiles garantizando el cumplimiento de sus objetivos climáticos, el uso de la tecnología CCUS es importante. Para aumentar la adopción del CCUS, los gobiernos deberán subvencionar esta tecnología hasta que la demanda gane tracción, tal como ocurrió en el caso de las renovables. También será necesario fomentar los esquemas de ETS y de impuestos al carbono para catalizar la acción.   Robert P. Ryan Jefe de Estrategia de Materias Primas y Energía rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Asociado de Investigación Estrategia de Materias Primas y Energía ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com     Resumen de materias primas Energía: Alcista Los precios del Brent estaban rozando la puerta de $70/bbl al cierre de esta edición, tras la evaluación de la IEA sobre una robusta recuperación de la demanda en la segunda mitad de 2021 (Gráfico 9). La IEA redujo su crecimiento de la demanda para la primera mitad de 2021 en 270k b/d, debido a la destrucción de demanda inducida por el COVID-19 en India, las Américas de la OCDE y Europa, pero mantuvo intacta su estimación para la segunda mitad de 2021, dejando el crecimiento total de la demanda para este año en 5.4 mm b/d. La EIA también espera un crecimiento de la demanda de 5.4 mm b/d para este año y un crecimiento de 3.7 mm b/d el próximo año. La OPEP dejó su estimación de crecimiento de la demanda para todo 2021 en 6 mm b/d. OPEP 2.0 se reúne de nuevo el 1 de junio y, en nuestra opinión, buscará devolver más de su producción apartada al mercado. Actualizaremos nuestros balances de oferta y demanda y nuestras previsiones de precios en el informe de la próxima semana. Metales base: Alcista Los precios spot del cobre se negociaron en uno y otro lado de $4.80/lb en el mercado CME/COMEX esta semana al cierre de esta edición. Las amenazas de un aumento de impuestos en Chile, donde un proyecto de ley que propone tal medida avanza en el Congreso; una posible huelga de trabajadores mineros; y una escasez de ácido sulfúrico usado en la extracción del mineral provocada, según Bloomberg, por la reducción de suministros globales de azufre debido a menores refinerías en funcionamiento durante la pandemia, mantienen al cobre con buena demanda. Nuestro objetivo para el cobre COMEX de dic-21 sigue siendo $5/lb (~ $11k/ton en la LME). Mantenemos una posición larga en cobre COMEX calendario 2022 frente a corta en cobre COMEX calendario 2023 esperando que los déficits de suministro físico sigan forzando descargas de almacenamiento, lo que backwardizará la curva a plazo del metal. Metales preciosos: Alcista Los datos del IPC de EE. UU. del miércoles mostraron que la inflación general aumentó un 4.2% en el mes de abril en comparación con el año anterior. Aunque este aumento es el más alto desde 2008, este salto también podría estar alimentado por un efecto de base baja –los niveles de inflación estaban cayendo en esta fecha del año pasado cuando la pandemia se intensificó. Si bien la subida de precios incrementa la demanda de oro como cobertura contra la inflación, si la Reserva Federal aumenta las tasas de interés a raíz de estos datos, el dólar estadounidense se apreciará, afectando negativamente a los precios del oro (Gráfico 10). No obstante, no esperamos que la Fed cambie bruscamente su orientación por este informe, y por tanto esperamos que el banco central trate este repunte como transitorio. Al cierre de ayer, el oro COMEX cotizaba a $1,835.9/oz. Agrícolas/Softs: Neutral Al cierre de esta edición, el mercado de soja de Chicago estaba acelerando antes del informe programado de World Agriculture Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE) que se publicará el miércoles. Los contratos de primera posición de soja cotizaban alrededor de $16.70/bu, subiendo un 2% en el día. El WASDE de este mes contendrá la primera estimación del USDA para la demanda en los mercados agrícolas para la campaña 2021/22. Los mercados esperan que las existencias se ajusten a medida que se fortalezca la demanda. Gráfico 9 Precios del Brent en alza Precios del Brent en alza Gráfico 10 La incertidumbre por el Covid podría impulsar la demanda de oro La incertidumbre por el Covid podría impulsar la demanda de oro   Notas al pie 1     Consulte Carbon Market Clubs and the New Paris Regime publicado por el Banco Mundial en julio de 2016.  El marco intelectual y computacional para dicha tecnología fue desarrollado por William Nordhaus, el laureado con el Nobel de Economía en 2018. 2     Consulte Actualización del mercado de energía renovable, Perspectivas para 2021 y 2022.pdf, publicado por la IEA esta semana. 3    WoodMac señala: "sin inversión adicional sustancial, la producción disminuirá a partir de 2024. Unido al crecimiento de la demanda, esta disminución de la producción conducirá a un déficit teórico de alrededor de 16 Mt para 2040."  La consultora estima que se necesitarán entre $325 y más de $500 mil millones adicionales para satisfacer la demanda de cobre durante este periodo.  Consulte ¿Volverá a pasar factura a la industria del cobre la falta de crecimiento de la oferta? Publicado el 23 de marzo de 2021 por woodmac.com. 4    Consulte Los riesgos ESG de las renovables crecen con la demanda, que publicamos el 29 de abril de 2021.  Está disponible en ces.bcaresearch.com. 5    Remítase a la nota a pie 4. 6    Consulte Un mundo bajo en carbono necesita $1.7 billones en inversión minera, publicado por Reuters. 7     Este método se usa para aumentar la producción de petróleo. Cambia las propiedades de los hidrocarburos, restaura la presión de la formación y mejora el desplazamiento del petróleo en el yacimiento. Usando EOR, las compañías petroleras pueden recuperar del 30% al 60% del petróleo original en el yacimiento.  Consulte Recuperación mejorada de petróleo publicado por el Departamento de Energía de EE. UU. 8    Consulte la columna de Reuters Límites de emisiones de CO2 y desarrollo económico. 9    Consulte en World Oil el artículo de Financial Times Los actores del GNL de EE. UU. promocionan la captura de carbono para mejorar su imagen verde. 10   Consulte el Informe especial sobre Captura, Utilización y Almacenamiento de Carbono, publicado como parte de Energy Technology Perspectives 2020.  11    Véase la nota a pie 1 arriba. 12    Consulte El coste de contaminar en la UE se dispara mientras el precio del carbono alcanza un récord de €50 del Financial Times. Perspectivas y temas de inversión Recomendaciones estratégicas Operaciones tácticas Tabla de referencia de precios y estrategias de materias primas Operaciones cerradas en 2021 Resumen de operaciones cerradas Se avecina mayor inflación Se avecina mayor inflación

Highlights The US is only one deflationary shock away from a European level of bond yields. On a multi-year horizon, a deflationary shock is a near-certainty. The shock will be deflationary, because even if it starts inflationary, it will quickly morph into deflationary. The reason is that the sharp backup in bond yields resulting from an inflationary shock would undermine the value of $300 trillion worth of global real estate, and thereby unleash a massive deflationary impulse. Hence, the US 30-year bond will ultimately deliver an absolute return approaching 100 percent, in absolute terms… …and relative to core European and Japanese bonds. Fractal trade shortlist: Stocks to consolidate versus bonds; Commodities look dangerously frothy; Buy USD/CAD. Feature Chart of The WeekThe Structural Level Of Bond Yields Depends On The Number Of Lasting Deflationary Shocks Ten years ago, 30-year bond yields in the US, UK and Germany stood at near-identical levels, around 3 percent. Today though, those yields are widely dispersed: the US at 2.3 percent, the UK at 1.3 percent, and Germany at 0.3 percent. What happened? In 2012, the German bond yield decoupled from the UK and the US, because the deflationary shock from the euro debt crisis was focussed in the euro area. Then, in 2016, the UK bond yield decoupled from the US, because the deflationary shock from Brexit was focussed in the UK and EU27 (Chart Of The Week). The ‘Shock Theory’ Of Bond Yields Welcome to a new concept – the ‘shock theory’ of bond yields. According to this theory, the structural level of high-quality government bond yields is simply a function of the number of lasting deflationary shocks that the economy has suffered. Each successive deflationary shock takes the bond yield to a lower structural level until it can go no lower (Chart I-2). Chart I-2Each Successive Deflationary Shock Takes The Bond Yield To A Lower Structural Level, Until It Can Go No Lower Since 2011, US, UK and German bond yields have decoupled because the US has suffered the legacies of one fewer deflationary shock than the UK, and two fewer deflationary shocks than Germany. But the important corollary is that the US is only one deflationary shock away from a European level of bond yields. When that deflationary shock arrives and the US 30-year bond yield reaches the recent low achieved in the UK, it will equate to a price gain of over 50 percent. And if the yield reaches the recent low achieved in Germany, it will equate to a price gain of well over 100 percent. Many people say that such gains are impossible. Yet ten years ago these same people were saying that UK and German long-duration bonds could never reach near-zero yields, and look what happened! Our high-conviction view is that the long-duration US bond will ultimately deliver a stellar absolute return, and a stellar relative return versus core European and Japanese bonds. The simple reason is that another deflationary shock is just a matter of time away. Long-Term Investors Must Always Plan For A Shock Most strategists and investors claim that shocks, such as the pandemic, are inherently unpredictable, and therefore that you cannot plan for them. We disagree. Yes, the timing and nature of individual shocks are inherently unpredictable. But as we explained in How To Predict Shocks, the statistical distribution of shocks is highly predictable. What constitutes a shock? There is no established definition, so our definition is any event that causes the long-duration bond price in a major economy to rally or slump by at least 25 percent.1 (Chart I-3) Using this definition through the last 50 years, we can say that the statistical distribution of the number of shocks in any ten-year period is Poisson (3.33) and the statistical distribution of the time between shocks is Exponential (3.33). Chart I-3A Shock Is A 25 Percent Move In The Long Duration Bond Price, And A Shock Tends To Come Every 3 Years It follows that in any ten-year period, the likelihood of suffering a shock is a near-certain 96 percent (Chart I-4). And even in any five-year period, the likelihood of a shock is an extremely high 81 percent. Chart I-4On A Multi-Year Horizon, A Shock Is A Near-Certainty For many people, this creates a cognitive dissonance. Even though a shock is a near-certainty, they cannot visualise its exact nature or timing, so they resist planning for it. Yet long-term investors must always plan for shocks. Not to do so is unforgiveable. An Inflationary Shock Will Quickly Morph Into A Deflationary Shock The crucial question is, will the next shock be deflationary, or inflationary? Our high-conviction view is that it will be net deflationary. Meaning that even if the shock starts as inflationary, it will quickly morph into deflationary. The simple reason is that the sharp backup in bond yields that would come from an inflationary shock would undermine the value of $300 trillion worth of global real estate, and thereby unleash a massive deflationary impulse. The 2010s housing boom was unprecedented in its penetration and regional breadth, simultaneously encompassing cities, suburbs, and rural areas across North America, Europe, Asia and Australasia. As prices doubled almost everywhere, the value of global real estate surged by $150 trillion (Chart I-5), of which $75 trillion was due to the valuation uplift from lower bond yields (Chart I-6). To put this into context, lower bond yields have boosted the value of global real estate by the equivalent of world GDP! Chart I-5In The 2010s Housing Boom, The Value Of Global Real Estate Surged By $150 Trillion… Chart I-6…Of Which $75 Trillion Was Due To Lower Bond Yields Many people believe that real assets, such as real estate and equities, perform well in an inflationary shock, but this is a misunderstanding. Granted, the income generated by real assets should keep pace with nominal GDP. But the valuation paid for that income will collapse if it starts off at an elevated level, such as now. The starting valuation needed to generate a given real return during an inflationary shock is much lower than during price stability. For example, for equities in the low-inflation 1990s and 2000s, a starting price to earnings multiple of 15 consistently generated a prospective 10-year real return of 10 percent. But in the inflation shock of the 1970s, the same starting multiple of 15 generated a real return of zero. To generate a real return of 10 percent, the starting multiple had to halve to 7 (Chart I-7). Chart I-7In The 1970s Inflationary Shock, Valuations Collapsed How much can bond yields rise before undermining the value of global real estate? Over the past decade the global rental yield has not been able to deviate from the global long-duration bond yield by more than 100 bps.2 Given that the bond yield is already around 25 bps above the rental yield, we deduce that the long-duration bond yield can rise by no more than 75 bps before global real estate prices start getting hurt (Chart I-8).  Chart I-8The Bond Yield Can Rise By No More Than 75 Bps Before Global Real Estate Prices Get Hurt To repeat our key structural recommendation, the long-duration US bond will ultimately deliver a stellar absolute return, and a stellar relative return versus core European and Japanese bonds. Candidates For Countertrend Reversal This week we note that the rally in stocks versus bonds (MSCI All Country World versus 30-year T-bond) is likely to consolidate in the coming months – given the fragility in the 260-day fractal structure similar to previous turning points in 2008, 2010, 2013, and 2020 (Chart I-9). Chart I-9The Rally In Stocks Versus Bonds Is Likely To Consolidate In The Coming Months We also repeat our warning to steer clear of commodities. The rally in all commodities is becoming dangerously frothy, displaying the extremes of fractal fragility seen in 2008. (Chart I-10and Chart I-11). Chart I-10The Rally In Commodities Is Becoming Dangerously Frothy... Chart I-11...Displaying The Extremes Of Fractal Fragility Seen In 2008 A good trade right now is to short the Canadian dollar. Based on the loonie’s composite fractal structure, a lot of good news is already priced in, including the dangerously frothy commodity markets and the Bank of Canada’s (hawkish) taper of asset purchases. As such we expect the Canadian dollar to reverse in the coming months (Chart I-12). Chart I-12Short The Canadian Dollar Go long USD/CAD, setting a profit-target and symmetrical stop-loss at 3.7 percent. Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist Footnotes 1 As bond yields approach their lower limit, this definition of a shock will need to change as it will become impossible for long-duration bond prices to rally by 25 percent. 2 Here, the global long-duration bond yield is defined as the average of the 30-year yields in the US and China. Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Equity Market Performance   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    

Feature Chinese stocks remain in limbo despite robust economic data in April and early May (Chart 1).  Onshore equities are pricing in policy tightening risks and a peak in the domestic economic cycle. Meanwhile, a regulatory clampdown on the tech sector continues to curb global investors’ enthusiasm towards Chinese investable stocks.  The PBoC has not changed its course of policy normalization. The falling 3-month SHIBOR since March likely reflects softening demand for interbank liquidity rather than monetary easing (Chart 2). Chart 1Stay Underweight Chinese Stocks Chart 2No Easing In Monetary Policy Fiscal policy has also been consolidating with a renewed focus on reducing local government debt load and financial risks. A delay in local government bond issuance in Q1 could potentially boost bond sales in the second half of the year. However, as we noted late last month, without a synchronized policy push for more bank loans and loosened regulations on provincial government spending, an increase in special-purpose bond issuance alone will not make a significant difference in infrastructure investment nor economic growth. We still expect China's economy, which lags the credit cycle by six to nine months, to start weakening by mid-2021 (Chart 3A & 3B). Chart 3ADomestic Economic Growth Set To Slow Chart 3BPolicy Tightening Will Weigh On Earnings Growth In 2H21   Qingyun Xu, CFA Associate Editor qingyunx@bcaresearch.com   Our BCA Li Keqiang Leading Indicator continues to fall despite a marginal improvement in the Monetary Conditions Index (MCI) component. The deceleration in both money supply and credit growth has more than offset a small uptick in the MCI (Chart 4). Furthermore, a rising RMB in trade-weighted and real terms will not help the profit outlook for China’s exporters (Chart 5). Overall, monetary conditions remain unfavorable for risk assets. This is consistent with the poor performance of Chinese stocks Chart 4Falling Credit And Money Growth More Than Offset A Minor Improvement In The MCI Chart 5Strengthening RMB Will Not Help The Profit Outlook For Chinese Exporters   A sharp jump in state-owned enterprise (SOE) defaults since late last year is due to deteriorating corporate balance sheets. The defaults have exposed the weakened fiscal positions of local governments (Chart 6 & 7). SOE bond defaults have surpassed the number of private bond defaults this year. The more restrictive policy on local government financing, together with an acceleration in SOE defaults, will weigh on spending by local governments, local government financing vehicles (LGFVs) and SOEs.  Chart 6Returns On SOE Assets Remain In Deep Contraction Chart 7SOE Bond Defaults Have Surpassed Private Bond Defaults The Politburo meeting on April 30 established new guidelines to reduce local government leverage, both on- and off-balance sheet debt. According to the new rules, local governments are strictly prohibited from obtaining “hidden debts” for new investment projects directly or through their affiliated SOEs, which include LGFVs. The directives also state that the assets of LGFVs with defaulted loans should be restructured or liquidated if companies are unable to repay their debts. In addition, financial institutions should not accept government guarantees when making decisions on lending to LGFVs or government related entities.  Moreover, stricter measures in the property market have further dampened local governments’ fiscal situations since land sales account for 53% of local government fiscal revenues. Growth in government expenditures decelerated in recent months along with slowing land auctions (Chart 8). Scaled down fiscal supports will lead to subdued infrastructure investment growth this year (Chart 9). Chart 8Fiscal Stance Has Tightened Chart 9Subdued Growth In Infrastructure Investments   In addition to policy tightening in the domestic economy, Chinese offshore stocks continue to face regulatory headwinds to root out monopolies in technology, media, and telecom (TMT) companies. The antitrust investigations and fines extending from Alibaba and Tencent to Meituan highlight China’s aim to curb platform oligopolies and monopolies. Meanwhile, Chinese tech firms listed on US exchanges are facing another regulatory threat on their accounting reporting standards, which could potentially result in their delisting from the US bourses.  Moreover, elevated valuations and a weakening in the earnings outlook will generate more downside risks for TMT stocks (Chart 10). Given that TMT stocks account for around 50% of the MSCI China Index’s market capitalization, Chinese investable stocks are disproportionally vulnerable to a selloff in TMT stocks (Chart 11). Chart 10ATMT Stocks: From Tailwind To Headwind Chart 10BTMT Stocks: From Tailwind To Headwind Chart 11MSCI China Is Highly Concentrated In TMT Stocks   China’s official PMI and the Caixin China PMI moved in opposite directions in April due to the nature of the two surveys. The Caixin PMI covers smaller, more export-oriented businesses while the NBS Manufacturing PMI includes larger, more domestically exposed companies. The divergence highlights that the domestic economy is losing speed while external demand remains robust (Chart 12). Given the dominance of domestic demand in China’s economy (investment expenditures, household spending and government spending), strong external demand will not fully offset the deceleration in domestic growth.  New orders and production subcomponents in the official PMI moderated in April from March, which indicates a slowing momentum in economic activity (Chart 13). Moreover, construction PMI fell to 57.4 from 62.3 in March, corresponding with weaker infrastructure spending and more policy tightening in the real estate sector (Chart 13, bottom panel). Chart 12Conflicting Messages From The NBS And Caixin PMIs Chart 13Slowing Momentum In China's Economic Activity   The moderating momentum in China’s economy is also reflected in April’s trade data, which showed a strengthening external sector and a slowing domestic demand. A few observations support our view: First, strong imports since early this year were partly due to robust re-exports. Solid external demand boosted processing imports, which in turn contributed to China’s overall import growth (Chart 14). Secondly, Chinese imports of commodities in volume, such as copper and steel products, have plunged recently. Chinese domestic demand for commodities will likely peak in the coming months, therefore, inventory destocking pressures and weakness in underlying consumption will threaten commodities prices (Chart 15). Finally, the strengthening of coal imports in volume terms may be related to China’s increasingly stringent environmental policies. A temporary cutback in domestic coal supply boosted the demand for imports. However, in the long run, China’s push for green energy will be bearish for Chinese coal imports (Chart 16). Chart 14Solid External Demand Boosted Processing Imports Chart 15Demand Of Commodities May Be Approaching A Cyclical Peak Chart 16China's Coal Imports Likely To Decline In The Long Run   Housing prices in tier-one cities continue to post major gains despite a slew of tightening regulations in the property sector introduced since the second half of last year (Chart 17). The Politburo meeting last month reiterated authorities’ concerns over a bubble in housing. We expect authorities to impose additional regulations to constrain both financing supply and demand in the property sector. In the meantime, the existing policies have successfully started to cool the real estate market.  Chart 17Skyrocketing Housing Prices In First-Tier Cities Chart 18Real Estate And Mortgage Loans Tumbled Under More Restrictive Borrowing Regulations Both mortgage loans and loans to real estate developers tumbled under more restrictive borrowing policies (Chart 18). Growth in home sales has also started to roll over (Chart 19). Housing completed has dropped significantly, which confirms that construction activity is decelerating. Looking forward, the reduced expansion rate of new projects due to shrinking land transfers and stricter borrowing regulations will further dampen construction activities in the second half of this year (Chart 20).   Chart 19Home Sales Growth Started To Ease Chart 20Real Estate Investments Are Set To Slow Further Table 1China Macro Data Summary Table 2China Financial Market Performance Summary​​​​​​​   Footnotes Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations