Technological Advances

Puntos destacados El crecimiento de EE. UU. probablemente ha alcanzado su punto máximo. El impulso económico se desacelerará en los próximos trimestres a medida que el viento a favor del estímulo fiscal se desvanezca y la campaña de vacunación disminuya. Históricamente, una desaceleración del crecimiento de EE. UU., representada por una caída en el índice manufacturero ISM, se ha asociado con menores rendimientos totales de las acciones, el mejor desempeño de las acciones defensivas frente a las cíclicas, las compañías de gran capitalización frente a las de pequeña capitalización, y las acciones estadounidenses frente a sus pares extranjeros. Una caída del ISM también se ha asociado con un fortalecimiento del dólar, rendimientos del Tesoro más bajos, diferenciales de crédito más amplios, una reducción en los diferenciales entre los bonos del Tesoro de EE. UU. y los bunds alemanes, precios del petróleo a la baja y un aumento en la relación de precios oro-cobre. En comparación con episodios pasados, hay tres razones para esperar que la próxima desaceleración en EE. UU. sea relativamente benigna: primero, el crecimiento se está desacelerando desde niveles excepcionalmente fuertes; segundo, el crecimiento en muchas otras partes del mundo todavía está acelerando; y tercero, la política monetaria seguirá siendo muy acomodaticia ante lo que probablemente sea un aumento transitorio de la inflación. Mantenemos una visión positiva a 12 meses sobre las acciones globales. No obstante, con la probabilidad de que el impulso del crecimiento global se desacelere más adelante este año, los inversores con máxima sobreexposición al riesgo deberían reducir la exposición cíclica. Actualización cripto: Advertimos que “Bitcoin está en curso de colisión con el ESG” hace dos semanas. El cambio de postura de Elon Musk respecto a permitir que los clientes paguen Teslas en Bitcoin es otra prueba de que las preocupaciones ESG prevalecerán. Con eso en mente, nos posicionamos a la baja en Bitcoin. Cuidado con la segunda derivada El crecimiento de EE. UU. probablemente ha alcanzado su punto máximo. El impulso económico se desacelerará en los próximos trimestres a medida que el impulso del estímulo fiscal se desvanezca y la campaña de vacunación disminuya. Según la Brookings Institution, el relajamiento fiscal contribuyó con cerca de siete puntos porcentuales al crecimiento de EE. UU. en el primer trimestre (Gráfico 1). Sin embargo, se espera que la política fiscal reste crecimiento en el resto del año, reflejando la naturaleza puntual de algunas de las medidas de estímulo. Gráfico 1 Tras un fuerte impulso, el empuje fiscal se vuelve negativo Pico de crecimiento y un indicio de estanflación Pico de crecimiento y un indicio de estanflación En materia pandémica, el número de nuevos casos continúa tendiendo a la baja en EE. UU., gracias principalmente a una campaña de vacunación exitosa. Una tasa de infección en descenso ha permitido que los estados levanten medidas de confinamiento. Conceptualmente, es el cambio en las medidas de distanciamiento social lo que se correlaciona con el crecimiento económico. Aunque algunas restricciones siguen vigentes (especialmente en el sector educativo), ya estamos muy por pasado del punto de máxima relajación. ¿Cómo se han comportado los mercados financieros durante episodios de desaceleración del crecimiento económico de EE. UU.? Para responder a esta pregunta, analizamos el desempeño de varios activos durante periodos en los que el índice manufacturero ISM estaba cayendo y cuando estaba subiendo. Para añadir un poco más de granularidad al análisis, también examinamos casos en los que el ISM tendía al alza y estaba por encima de 50, tendía a la baja y estaba por encima de 50, tendía a la baja y estaba por debajo de 50, y tendía al alza y estaba por debajo de 50. Como se resume en la Tabla 1 y los Gráficos del Apéndice, los resultados clave son los siguientes: Las acciones tienden a comportarse mejor cuando el ISM está subiendo. Desde 1950, el S&P 500 ha subido en promedio un 1.51% durante los meses en que el ISM tendía al alza, frente a un 0.49% durante los meses en que el ISM tendía a la baja. Los resultados fueron prácticamente iguales si se restringe la muestra al periodo posterior a 1995. Si bien el cambio en el ISM generalmente importa más para el S&P 500, los niveles absolutos también cuentan. Desde 1995, el mejor periodo para el S&P 500 fue cuando el ISM estaba por debajo de 50 pero tendía al alza (S&P 500 subió 2.07%), mientras que el peor periodo fue cuando el ISM estaba por debajo de 50 y tendía a la baja (S&P 500 subió 0.03%). Esto sugiere que las oscilaciones del ISM tienen un mayor efecto en el mercado de acciones durante periodos de contracción económica. Durante periodos en los que el ISM caía pero aún estaba por encima de 50, el S&P 500 ha entregado un retorno mensual positivo, aunque lejos de ser espectacular, de 0.69%. Las acciones estadounidenses con sesgo defensivo superaron a las cíclicas cuando el ISM tendía a la baja. Durante periodos en los que el ISM caía pero aún estaba por encima de 50, las defensivas superaron a las cíclicas por 0.45%. Las defensivas superaron a las cíclicas por 0.84% durante periodos en los que el ISM estaba por debajo de 50 y tendía a la baja. Las small caps estadounidenses tuvieron un rendimiento inferior al de las large caps durante los periodos en los que el ISM caía. Las acciones no estadounidenses también tuvieron un rendimiento inferior al de sus contrapartes estadounidenses en un entorno de ISM en caída. La relación entre el ISM y el desempeño de value/growth es más ambigua. En la medida en que exista una relación, el value generalmente supera al growth cuando el ISM está por debajo de 50. Los rendimientos del Tesoro tienden a aumentar, mientras que la curva de rendimientos tiende a empinarse cuando el ISM está tendiendo al alza. Reflejando la mayor beta que los bonos del Tesoro tienen respecto al ciclo económico global, los rendimientos del Tesoro generalmente suben más que los rendimientos del bund alemán cuando el ISM está en alza. Los diferenciales de crédito corporativo tienden a ensancharse cuando el ISM está cayendo. Los diferenciales se estrechan más cuando el ISM está por debajo de 50 pero subiendo. Como moneda contracíclica, el dólar tiende a debilitarse cuando el ISM está subiendo y a fortalecerse cuando el ISM está bajando. Los precios de las materias primas sensibles al ciclo, como el petróleo y el cobre, normalmente disminuyen cuando el ISM tiende a la baja, aunque, en general, la mayor parte de la caída en los precios de las materias primas suele ocurrir solo cuando el ISM ha caído por debajo de 50. No existe una gran relación entre los precios del oro y el ISM. Tabla 1 El ciclo económico y los activos financieros Pico de crecimiento y un atisbo de estanflación Pico de crecimiento y un atisbo de estanflación Implicaciones para hoy Suponiendo que el ISM ha alcanzado su punto máximo pero permanece por encima de 50, el análisis anterior sugiere que el S&P 500 subirá modestamente en los próximos meses; las acciones estadounidenses superarán ligeramente a las no estadounidenses; las defensivas rendirán mejor que las cíclicas; y las compañías de gran capitalización se desempeñarán algo mejor que las de pequeña capitalización. El análisis también sugiere que los rendimientos del Tesoro se moverán a la baja; el diferencial Tesoro-bund se reducirá; los diferenciales de crédito corporativo estarán planos o más amplios; el dólar se fortalecerá modestamente; y las materias primas se moverán en términos generales de forma lateral. Nuestra propia visión a 12 meses es más favorable al riesgo de lo que implica el análisis del ISM. Hay tres razones para esto: primero, el crecimiento de EE. UU. se está desacelerando desde niveles excepcionalmente altos; segundo, el crecimiento en muchas otras partes del mundo todavía está acelerando; y tercero, la política monetaria sigue siendo muy acomodaticia. Examinemos cada supuesto a su turno. Razón n.º 1: El crecimiento de EE. UU. se está desacelerando desde niveles excepcionalmente altos Aunque el crecimiento de nóminas sorprendió fuertemente a la baja en abril, sospechamos que esto se debió principalmente a distorsiones inducidas por la pandemia en el mecanismo de ajuste estacional utilizado por la Oficina de Estadísticas Laborales. Las nóminas sin ajustar estacionalmente aumentaron en 1.1 millones en abril, lo cual es coherente con el fuerte ritmo de las estimaciones de seguimiento del crecimiento del PIB. El modelo GDPNow de la Fed de Atlanta apunta a un crecimiento del 11% en el segundo trimestre. Las estimaciones de consenso de Bloomberg sitúan el crecimiento real del PIB de EE. UU. en 8.1% en el segundo trimestre. El crecimiento disminuirá al 7% en el tercer trimestre y al 4.7% en el cuarto, pero aún promediará 4% en 2022 (Tabla 2). Tabla 2 El crecimiento está alcanzando su punto máximo, pero en un nivel muy alto Pico de crecimiento y un atisbo de estanflación Pico de crecimiento y un atisbo de estanflación Gráfico 2 Las empresas necesitarán reconstruir inventarios Pico de crecimiento y un atisbo de estanflación Pico de crecimiento y un atisbo de estanflación Los hogares estadounidenses tenían 2.2 billones de dólares en ahorros excedentes a fines de abril. Este es dinero que no habrían tenido de no ser por la pandemia. Algo menos de la mitad de ese colchón puede atribuirse a pagos por transferencia, principalmente en forma de cheques de estímulo y prestaciones por desempleo. El resto proviene de la disminución del gasto durante la pandemia. No todo este dinero se gastará de inmediato. Sin embargo, dadas las enormes sumas en juego —2.2 billones equivalen al 15% del consumo personal anual— incluso un agotamiento parcial de estos ahorros excedentes será suficiente para impulsar el consumo en el futuro previsible. Mientras tanto, las empresas tendrán que aumentar la producción para restaurar inventarios agotados. La ratio inventario-ventas se encuentra en niveles históricamente bajos (Gráfico 2). La caída de los inventarios elevó la ratio pedidos nuevos/inventario del ISM en abril, incluso cuando el índice ISM general cayó de 64.7 en marzo a 60.7. La ratio pedidos nuevos/inventario tiende a liderar el índice ISM, lo que sugiere que cualquier disminución en el índice ISM en los próximos meses será gradual.    Una relajación de las restricciones del lado de la oferta también debería respaldar el crecimiento. Aunque el empleo total todavía estaba un 5.2% por debajo de los niveles previos a la pandemia en abril, una proporción récord de pequeñas empresas encuestadas por la NFIB informó dificultad para cubrir puestos vacantes (Gráfico 3). Las prestaciones por desempleo mejoradas han erosionado el incentivo para encontrar trabajo. Además, muchas escuelas siguen parcialmente cerradas. Gráfico 4 muestra que las madres con niños pequeños han experimentado una caída mucho mayor en la participación laboral que otros grupos. Gráfico 3 A las empresas les cuesta encontrar trabajadores Las empresas tienen dificultades para encontrar trabajadores Las empresas tienen dificultades para encontrar trabajadores Gráfico 4 Las madres con hijos tuvieron que salir de la fuerza laboral Pico de crecimiento y un atisbo de estanflación Pico de crecimiento y un atisbo de estanflación Las prestaciones por desempleo mejoradas vencerán en septiembre. A medida que las escuelas retomen operaciones normales, más trabajadores volverán al mercado laboral. Al mismo tiempo, algunos de los cuellos de botella que actualmente afectan a la cadena de suministro global deberían disminuir, lo que permitirá un aumento de la producción.   Razón n.º 2: El crecimiento en muchas otras partes del mundo todavía está acelerando Gráfico 5 Más del 40% de los ingresos del S&P 500 provienen del extranjero Crecimiento Máximo Y Un Atisbo De Estanflación Crecimiento Máximo Y Un Atisbo De Estanflación Gráfico 6 Los datos de la zona del euro han sorprendido al alza Los datos de la zona del euro han sorprendido al alza Los datos de la zona del euro han sorprendido al alza Las empresas que componen el S&P 500 obtienen el 43% de sus ingresos en el extranjero (Gráfico 5). Mientras que las estimaciones de Bloomberg sugieren que el crecimiento de EE. UU. alcanzará su pico en el segundo trimestre, no se espera que el crecimiento en la zona del euro alcance su máximo hasta el tercer trimestre. Mathieu Savary, que dirige el servicio European Investment Strategy de BCA, ve riesgos al alza para las estimaciones de crecimiento de Europa en la segunda mitad de este año. Consistente con las observaciones de Mathieu, los datos económicos recientes han sorprendido al alza en la zona del euro (Gráfico 6). Justo esta semana, las expectativas económicas tanto para Alemania como para la zona euro en general se dispararon a su nivel más alto en más de 20 años, según el instituto de investigación económica ZEW. El crecimiento en Japón también debería repuntar en el resto del año. La campaña de vacunación de Japón ha comenzado muy lentamente, con menos del 3% de la población inoculada hasta la fecha. El gobierno impuso su tercer estado de emergencia el 25 de abril en respuesta al aumento de casos virales. Posteriormente amplió esas restricciones el 11 de mayo. Las autoridades pretenden vacunar a las 36 millones de personas mayores del país para julio, cuando están programados los Juegos Olímpicos. Esto debería permitir cierto alivio en las medidas de confinamiento. Los inversores están preocupados de que la economía china se desacelere este año. Los PMIs chinos alcanzaron su pico en noviembre de 2020, aproximadamente al mismo tiempo que el impulso combinado de crédito/fiscal alcanzó un ápice (Gráfico 7). Jing Sima, estratega jefe para China de BCA, espera que el déficit presupuestario del gobierno general se mantenga en un todavía amplio 8% del PIB este año, similar a donde estuvo el año pasado. Ella espera que el crecimiento del crédito se desacelere entre 2% y 3%, convergiendo hacia el ritmo de crecimiento del PIB nominal. Tenga en cuenta que la relación crédito/PIB de China se sitúa en 270%. Por lo tanto, si el crédito crece en línea con el crecimiento del PIB nominal de alrededor del 10%, esto aún dejaría el stock de crédito aproximadamente un 27% del PIB por encima al final de 2021 en comparación con finales de 2020. Esto difícilmente constituye una “desapalancamiento”. Una economía china resiliente debería sostener a otros mercados emergentes. Los avances en la lucha contra la pandemia también ayudarán. La ONU estima que podrían producirse hasta 15 000 millones de dosis de vacunas en la segunda mitad de 2021, suficientes para inocular a la mayor parte de la población mundial (Gráfico 8). La escasez de vacunas en los mercados emergentes podría convertirse en un excedente a fines de este año, algo que los participantes del mercado no parecen apreciar totalmente. Gráfico 7 China: estímulo máximo y crecimiento máximo China: Pico del Estímulo y Pico del Crecimiento China: Pico del Estímulo y Pico del Crecimiento La rotación del impulso de crecimiento desde EE. UU. hacia el resto del mundo debería presionar a la baja el dólar estadounidense. Una moneda más débil, a su vez, suele coincidir con el mejor desempeño de los mercados bursátiles fuera de EE. UU. (Gráfico 9). Gráfico 8 La producción de vacunas está lista para aumentar aún más Pico de crecimiento y un atisbo de estanflación Pico de crecimiento y un atisbo de estanflación Gráfico 9 Un dólar más débil ha coincidido con el mejor desempeño de los mercados bursátiles fuera de EE. UU. Un dólar más débil ha coincidido con el mejor desempeño de los mercados bursátiles fuera de Estados Unidos. Un dólar más débil ha coincidido con el mejor desempeño de los mercados bursátiles fuera de Estados Unidos.   Razón n.º 3: La política monetaria sigue siendo muy acomodaticia La desaceleración del crecimiento de EE. UU. llega en un momento en que la inflación está aumentando. El IPC subyacente aumentó 0.9% mes a mes en abril. Fue el mayor salto mensual desde agosto de 1981. La tasa interanual subió a 3.0%, la más alta en 25 años. El “tufo de estanflación” ayudó a empujar al S&P 500 a la baja esta semana. Como discutimos la semana pasada, estamos firmemente en el campo que espera que la inflación aumente significativamente a largo plazo. Sin embargo, en el próximo año o dos, nosotros restaríamos importancia a los temores inflacionarios. Como ilustra el ejemplo de los años 60, a menudo es necesario un largo periodo de sobrecalentamiento para impulsar la inflación de manera sostenida. La tasa de desempleo de EE. UU. alcanzó su nivel de pleno empleo en 1962. Sin embargo, no fue hasta 1966 —cuando la tasa de desempleo estaba dos puntos porcentuales por debajo del equilibrio— que la inflación finalmente despegó (Gráfico 10). El IPC subyacente oficial probablemente sobrestime las presiones inflacionarias subyacentes. La pandemia desajustó todo tipo de precios. Eliminar los precios volátiles de alimentos y energía de la inflación no es suficiente. Se necesitan medidas más refinadas de la inflación. Por suerte, existen. Gráfico 11 muestra que la mediana del IPC, el IPC de medias recortadas y el IPC de precios rígidos permanecen bien contenidos. De manera similar, medidas relativamente limpias del crecimiento salarial, como el Atlanta Fed Wage Tracker, no apuntan a una inminente espiral salarios-precios (Gráfico 12). Gráfico 10 La inflación empezó a acelerarse rápidamente solo cuando el desempleo alcanzó niveles muy bajos en los años 60 La Inflación Comenzó A Acelerarse Rápidamente Solo Cuando El Desempleo Alcanzó Niveles Muy Bajos En La Década De 1960 La Inflación Comenzó A Acelerarse Rápidamente Solo Cuando El Desempleo Alcanzó Niveles Muy Bajos En La Década De 1960 La Inflación Comenzó A Acelerarse Rápidamente Solo Cuando El Desempleo Alcanzó Niveles Muy Bajos En La Década De 1960 La Inflación Comenzó A Acelerarse Rápidamente Solo Cuando El Desempleo Alcanzó Niveles Muy Bajos En La Década De 1960 Gráfico 11 Medidas más limpias de la inflación cuentan otra historia Las medidas depuradas de la inflación cuentan otra historia Las medidas depuradas de la inflación cuentan otra historia Gráfico 12 El crecimiento salarial sigue siendo flojo El crecimiento salarial sigue siendo débil El crecimiento salarial sigue siendo débil Todo esto significa que la Fed puede permitirse mantener una política monetaria excepcionalmente laxa. Eso debería mantener el crecimiento por encima de la tendencia y continuar sosteniendo las valoraciones de las acciones.   Conclusiones de inversión Mi “regla de oro” para invertir es mantenerse optimista con las acciones salvo que uno piense que hay una recesión a la vuelta de la esquina (Gráfico 13). Ver alrededor de la esquina no es fácil, por supuesto, pero tampoco imposible. Gráfico 13 Las recesiones y los mercados bajistas tienden a superponerse Pico de crecimiento y un atisbo de estanflación Pico de crecimiento y un atisbo de estanflación La recesión del año pasado fue causada por un verdadero shock exógeno: la pandemia. Sin embargo, la mayoría de las recesiones son de naturaleza endógena. Resultan de desequilibrios crecientes que suelen quedar al descubierto por una política monetaria más restrictiva. Se puede debatir hasta qué punto la economía global está aquejada por desequilibrios de una forma u otra. Pero una cosa está clara: es poco probable que la política monetaria se vuelva contractiva en el corto plazo. En este entorno, se debe mantener una postura positiva sobre las acciones y otros activos de riesgo en un horizonte de 12 meses. No obstante, con la probabilidad de que el impulso del crecimiento global se desacelere más adelante este año, los inversores con máxima sobreexposición al riesgo deberían reducir la exposición cíclica. Posición en corto en Bitcoin Advertimos que “Bitcoin está en curso de colisión con el ESG” hace dos semanas en un informe titulado “Cómo ponerse corto en Bitcoin, o en cualquier otra cosa, sin perder los cortos.” El cambio de postura de Elon Musk respecto a permitir que los clientes de Tesla paguen por sus autos en Bitcoin es otra prueba de que las preocupaciones ESG prevalecerán. La noticia de que Colonial Pipeline pagó a los hackers 75 bitcoin (casi 5 millones de dólares) en rescate refuerza aún más el estatus de Bitcoin como la moneda elegida por criminales de todo el mundo. Con todo esto en mente, nos posicionamos a la baja en Bitcoin a partir de la medianoche, hora del este (EDT), utilizando la técnica de cortos descrita en ese informe. La técnica invierte la relación habitual riesgo-recompensa al vender en corto. Normalmente, cuando vendes una acción en corto, tu ganancia está limitada al 100% de la posición inicial mientras que tu pérdida potencial es ilimitada. Con nuestra técnica de cortos, tu pérdida potencial está limitada al 100% mientras que tu ganancia potencial es ilimitada. Esto hace que el acortamiento como estrategia de inversión sea mucho más seguro. APÉNDICE El ciclo económico y los activos financieros GRÁFICO DEL APÉNDICE 1A Crecimiento máximo y un atisbo de estanflación Crecimiento máximo y un atisbo de estanflación GRÁFICO DEL APÉNDICE 1B Pico del crecimiento y un atisbo de estanflación Pico del crecimiento y un atisbo de estanflación Gráfico del Apéndice 1C Pico de crecimiento y un atisbo de estanflación Pico de crecimiento y un atisbo de estanflación Gráfico del Apéndice 1D Pico de crecimiento y un atisbo de estanflación Pico de crecimiento y un atisbo de estanflación Peter Berezin Jefe de Estrategia Global pberezin@bcaresearch.com Matriz de Perspectivas de la Estrategia de Inversión Global Pico de crecimiento y un atisbo de estanflación Pico de crecimiento y un atisbo de estanflación Recomendaciones de operaciones especiales Pico de crecimiento y un atisbo de estanflación Pico de crecimiento y un atisbo de estanflación Puntuaciones actuales del modelo MacroQuant   Pico de crecimiento y un atisbo de estanflación Pico de crecimiento y un atisbo de estanflación

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

Dear Client, In addition to our regular report, this week we are sending a Special Report written by my colleague Lucas Laskey from BCA Research’s Equity Analyzer service titled “Is The Reopening Trade Closed?”. The report discusses the state of the reopening trade through the lens of Equity Analyzer's factor model. I hope you find the report insightful. Additionally, please join us next week on Friday, May 7, 2021 at 10am EDT as I moderate a debate between my colleagues Arthur Budaghyan, BCA Research’s Chief Emerging Market Strategist, and Robert Ryan, Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist. Titled “A Debate On Commodities,” Arthur and Bob will discuss the outlook for commodities, touching on the trajectory both DM and China/EM growth will follow, the path for the US dollar, and other cyclical and structural forces currently shaping commodity markets. During the webcast, Arthur and Bob will highlight the areas they disagree on and the reasons behind their differing views. Best regards, Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist Highlights Bitcoin is on a collision course with ESG. ESG interests will win out. Widespread adoption of cryptocurrencies, if it were to happen, would erode the purchasing power of traditional money, while robbing governments of billions of dollars in seigniorage revenue. Governments have already begun to take steps to thwart such an outcome. Restrictions on the use of cryptocurrencies will only increase over the coming years. The rollout of Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) represents an existential threat not only to cryptos, but potentially to credit card companies and online payment processors such as PayPal, Square, Venmo, WeChat Pay, and Alipay. Shorting cryptocurrencies, meme stocks, or any other high-flying asset is risky business. Fortunately, there is a way to flip the usual risk-reward from going short on its head. Rather than facing unlimited losses and a maximum gain of only 100% of the initial position, we outline a shorting strategy that caps the loss at 100% but allows for unlimited gains. Bitcoin’s Questionable ESG Record Crypto critics have often blamed cryptocurrencies for facilitating illicit transactions and enlarging the world’s carbon footprint. There is some truth to both claims. Motivated to avoid detection, online scammers, smugglers, and terrorists have been drawn to cryptocurrencies. Cryptos have also been used to evade capital controls and conceal wealth from the tax authorities. On the environmental side, Bitcoin mining now consumes more energy than entire countries such as Sweden, Argentina, and Pakistan (Chart 1). Moreover, about 70% of Bitcoin mining currently takes place in China, mainly using electricity generated by burning coal. A lot of the remaining mining occurs in countries such as Russia and Iran with questionable governance records. Chart 1How Dare You, Bitcoin Cryptos And Inequality One criticism of Bitcoin that is less frequently mentioned is its role in exacerbating wealth inequality. We are not just talking about the small number of “whales” who amassed huge fortunes by buying or mining Bitcoin shortly after it was created. If these whales sell their coins at today’s prices and the price of  Bitcoin eventually crashes, those early investors will have ended up profiting at the expense of smaller investors who bought at the top. While such a transfer of income may be unsavory, it is not much different from what happens when someone sells a high-flying stock to the proverbial bagholder just as the stock is peaking. The more interesting question is what happens if Bitcoin prices do not crash. It might be tempting to think that in such a scenario, no one would be worse off. But that is incorrect. There would still be losers, and importantly, these losers would consist of people who never bought or sold Bitcoin in their lives. To see why, ask yourself who suffers from counterfeit currency. One possibility is shopkeepers who inadvertently accept counterfeit cash and find themselves stuck with worthless money. But even if the counterfeit money is never detected, there would still be losers: Fake money dilutes the value of genuine money, making everyone who holds the genuine money worse off. Crypto evangelists like to argue that cryptocurrencies offer protection against the “debasement of fiat money.” Ironically, the widespread adoption of cryptocurrencies could produce a self-fulfilling cycle that leads to just such an inflationary outcome. If enough people decide to swap fiat currencies for cryptos, the dollar and other fiat monies could become “hot potatoes.” The price of cryptos would rise in relation to dollars. Feeling more wealthy, crypto holders would spend some of their wealth on goods and services. As long as the economy is operating below potential, this would not be such a bad thing since increased spending would generate more output and employment. However, once the output gap disappears, more spending would result in higher inflation. The purchasing power of fiat currencies would decline. The Empire Strikes Back Will governments allow such a massive transfer of wealth from holders of fiat currencies to holders of crypto currencies to occur? It seems highly unlikely. In order to entice people to hold on to their fiat currency bank deposits, central banks would have to raise interest rates. Debt-strapped governments would not like that. Governments also generate significant revenue from their ability to print currency and then exchange it for goods and services. For the US, this “seigniorage revenue” is around $100 billion per year (Chart 2). No government will want to part with this revenue. A financial system where loans and deposits are denominated in cryptocurrencies would be highly unstable. Even if the supply of each individual cryptocurrency were capped, the rise and fall of competing cryptocurrencies could still result in large shifts in the aggregate cryptocurrency money supply. Moreover, wild swings in cryptocurrency prices, both versus fiat currencies and one another, could destroy any semblance of price stability. The value of bank loans made in Bitcoin or other cryptos would experience great fluctuations. Powerless to issue cryptocurrencies themselves, central banks would not be able to provide unlimited liquidity support to commercial banks as they do now. The situation would resemble the US in the late 19th century when myriad currencies competed with one another and the financial system veered from one crisis to another (Chart 3). Chart 2Governments Will Not Part With Seigniorage Revenue Chart 3An Inelastic Money Supply Historically Led To More Banking Crises   What Is It Good For? One might argue that the ultimate aim of cryptocurrencies is not to displace fiat money. Okay, but if Bitcoin can never truly function as a medium of exchange or a unit of account, what exactly underpins its utility as a store of value? At least with gold, you get an extremely rare metal, forged in the collision of neutron stars billions of years ago, that has great aesthetic value. With cryptos, you get fairy dust. In past reports, we referred to Bitcoin as a “solution in search of a problem.” In retrospect, that characterization was much too charitable. Bitcoin is a problem in search of a problem. Whereas the Visa network can process over 20,000 transactions per second, the Bitcoin network can barely process five (Chart 4). Bitcoin transactions take 10 minutes-to-an hour to complete compared to just a few seconds for most debit or credit card transactions. The average fee for a Bitcoin transaction is around $30. This fee has been rising, not falling, over the past few years (Chart 5). Chart 4Bitcoin: The Speed Of Transactions, Or Lack Of It Chart 5Bitcoin: The Cost Per Transaction Is Rising     Look Out Below Table 1A Growing List Of Cryptocurrency Bans Cryptos are heading for a world of pain. ESG concerns will force companies to step back from their newfound infatuation with these magic beans. Meanwhile, governments will tighten the screws on cryptocurrencies while rolling out their own digital monies. As my colleague Chester Ntonifor pointed out last week, a growing list of countries have already moved to ban Bitcoin transactions (Table 1). In addition, most G10 central banks have outlined their own digital currency plans (Map 1). Not only will Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) squeeze out decentralised cryptocurrencies, they will also pose an existential risk to credit card companies and online payment processors such as PayPal, Square, Venmo, WeChat Pay, and Alipay. Map 1Many Central Banks Are Planning A Digital Currency The Risk Of Shorting Bitcoin These days, there is no shortage of ways to short Bitcoin. Many cryptocurrency platforms permit short selling. In addition, one can bet against Bitcoin through the futures market. To the extent that the fortunes of companies such as Coinbase are tied to the crypto market, one can also express a short view on cryptos through listed equities. Yet, shorting cryptos is a risky strategy. Cryptocurrencies do not have any intrinsic value. What you think a Bitcoin is worth depends on what others think it is worth and vice versa. At present, the value of all Bitcoins that have ever been issued is about $1 trillion. Eighteen cryptocurrencies have valuations exceeding $10 billion (Table 2). The market capitalization of all cryptocurrencies in circulation stands at $2 trillion. In contrast, the value of all the gold that has ever been mined is around $10 trillion (Chart 6). It is certainly possible that euphoric investors will push up the value of cryptocurrencies to the point that they are collectively worth more than all the gold in the world. Table 2Close To 20 Cryptos Have A Market Cap In Excess Of US$10bn Chart 6Gold Versus Cryptocurrencies     To guard against this risk, one needs a prudent strategy for shorting not just high-flying cryptocurrencies, but any security whose price can rise significantly. Luckily, such a strategy exists. How To Short Without Losing Your Shorts Clients sometimes ask me what I invest my money in. The answer is that most of my liquid wealth is held in publicly traded US small cap stocks. I have been investing in this space for over two decades (prior to joining Goldman, I even wrote a blog about it). I used my knowledge of stock picking to develop an early version of BCA’s Equity Analyzer. David Boucher and his team have since transformed it into a powerful, state-of-the-art stock selection service. Table 3Don’t Be Like Melvin Shorting small cap stocks is risky business. To limit the risk, I have employed a strategy that flips the usual risk-reward from shorting on its head. Normally, when you short a stock, your gain is capped at 100% of the initial position whereas your potential loss is unlimited. With my shorting technique, your potential loss is capped at 100% while your potential gain is unlimited. To illustrate how the strategy works, let us consider shorting one particular overpriced “meme” stock that has been in the news a lot this year. I won’t single out the name of the company, other than to note that it begins with “G” and ends with “stop.” At the time of writing, this mystery stock was trading at $180 per share. Suppose you shorted 1,000 shares at that price. The basic idea is to then short 2% more shares if the price falls by 1% and cover 2% of your shares if the price rises by 1%. So, in this case, you would increase your short position to 1020 shares if the price were to fall to around $178 but cover 20 shares (leaving you with 980 shares short) if the price were to rise to $182. Table 3 shows the number of shares you would need to be short for any given price between $5 and $360. If the price of the shares were to fall to $10 (double what it was last August), the strategy would generate roughly $3,060,000 in profits.1 In contrast, if the price were to rise to $360 per share, the strategy would incur a loss of $90,000. Even if the price went to infinity, the most you would lose is $180,000. There are a number of challenges to implementing this strategy: 1) It requires frequent trading; 2) gap downs and gap ups in the price could meaningfully hurt the results; 3) it is not always possible to short a stock and even when it is, the borrowing costs could be high, etc. Nevertheless, as a “rule of thumb,” I have found this strategy to be extremely effective in mitigating risk.   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist pberezin@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1    Notice that the profit of $3,060,000 from going short 1,000 shares in the case where the price of the stock falls from $180 to $10 is equal to 17 times the initial short position of $180,000 (i.e., $3,060,000 divided by 180,000 is 17). This is exactly the same return that one would earn if one went long the stock and the price rose from $10 to $180. In this case, the profit would also be equal to 17 times the initial investment (i.e., $1,800,000-$100,000 divided by $100,000 is 17). Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores

Highlights Rising CO2 emissions on the back of stronger global energy growth this year will keep energy markets focused on expanding ESG risks in the buildout of renewable generation via metals mining (Chart of the Week).   EM energy demand is expected to grow 3.4% this year vs. 2019 levels and will account for ~ 70% of global energy demand growth.  Demand in DM economies will fall 3% this year vs 2019 levels.  Overall, global demand is expected to recover all the ground lost to the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the IEA.  Rising energy demand will be met by higher fossil-fuel use, with coal demand increasing by more than total renewables generation this year and accounting for more than half of global energy demand growth. Demand for renewable power will increase by 8,300 TWh (8%) this year, the largest y/y increase recorded by the IEA.  As renewables generation is built out, demand for bulks (iron ore and steel) and base metals will increase.1  Building that new energy supply will contribute to rising CO2, particularly in the renewables' supply chains. Feature Energy demand will recover much of the ground lost to the COVID-19 pandemic last year, according to the IEA.2 Most of this is down to successful rollouts of vaccination programs in systemically important economies – e.g., China, the US and the UK – and the massive fiscal and monetary stimulus deployed to carry the global economy through the pandemic. The risk of further lockdowns and uncontrolled spread of variants of the virus remains high, but, at present, progress continues to be made and wider vaccine distribution can be expected. The IEA expects a global recovery in energy demand of 4.6% this year, which will put total demand at ~ 0.5% above 2019 levels. The global rebound will be led by EM economies, where demand is expected to grow 3.4% this year vs. 2019 levels and will account for ~ 70% of global energy demand growth. Energy demand in DM economies will fall 3% this year vs 2019 levels. Overall, global demand is expected to recover all the ground lost to the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the IEA. Chart of the WeekGlobal CO2 Emissions Will Rebound Post-COVID-19 Coal demand will lead the rebound in fossil-fuel use, which is expected to account for more than total renewables demand globally this year, covering more than half of global energy demand growth. This will push CO2 emissions up by 5% this year. Asia coal demand – led by China's and India's world-leading coal-plant buildout over the past 20 years – will account for 80% of world demand (Chart 2). Chart 2China, India Lead Coal-Fired Generation Buildout Demand for renewable power will post its biggest year-on-year gain on record, increasing by 8,300 TWh (8%) this year. This increase comes at the back of roughly a decade of an increasing share of electricity from renewables globally (Chart 3). As renewables generation is built out, demand for bulks (iron ore and steel) and base metals will increase.3 Building that new energy supply will contribute to rising CO2, particularly in the renewables' supply chains. Chart 3Share of Electricity From Renewables Has Been Increasing ESG Risks Increase With Renewables Buildout Governments have pledged to invest vast sums of money into the green energy transition, to reduce fossil fuels consumption and deforestation, thus curbing temperature increases. In addition, banks have pledged trillions will be made available to support the buildout of renewable technologies over the coming years. The World Bank, under the most ambitious scenarios considered (IEA ETP B2DS and IRENA REmap), projects that renewables, will make up approximately 90% of the installed electricity generation capacity up to 2050. This analysis excludes oil, biomass and tidal energy. (Chart 4). Building these renewable energy sources will be extremely mineral intensive (Chart 5). Chart 4Renewables Potential Is Huge … While we have highlighted issues such as a lack of mining capex and decreasing ore grades in past research – both of which can be addressed by higher metals and minerals prices – the environmental, social and governance (ESG) risks posed by mining are equally important factors for investors, policymakers and mining companies to consider.4 The mining industry generally uses three principal sources of energy for its operations – diesel fuel (mostly in moving mined ore down the supply chain for processing), grid electricity and explosives. Of these three, diesel and electricity consumption contributes substantially to mining’s GHG emissions. In the mining stage, land clearing, drilling, blasting, crushing and hauling require a considerable amount of energy, and hence emit the highest amounts of greenhouse gases (GHGs). Chart 5… As Are Its Mineral Requirements The Environmental Impact Of Mining Under the scenarios depicted in Chart 5, copper suppliers could be called on to produce approximately 21mm MT of the red metal annually between now and 2050, which is equivalent to a 7% annual increase of supplies vs. the 2017 reference year shown in the chart. Mining sufficient amounts of copper, a metal which is critical to the renewable energy buildout, both in terms of quantity and versatility, will test miners' and governments' ability to extract sufficient amounts of ore for further processing without massively damaging the environment or indigenous populations' habitats (Chart 6). Chart 6Copper Spans All Renewables Technologies A recent risk analysis of 308 undeveloped copper orebodies found that for 180 of the orebodies – roughly equivalent to 570mm MT of copper – ore-grade risk was characterized as moderate-to-high risk.5 High risk implies a lower concentration of metal in the ore deposits. Mining in ore bodies with lower copper grades will be more energy intensive, and thus will emit more greenhouse gases. Table 1 is a risk matrix of the 40 mines that have the most amount of copper tonnage in this analysis: 27 of these mines displayed in the matrix have a medium-to-high grade risk. Table 1Mining Risk Matrix Another analysis established a negative relationship between the ore-grade quality and energy consumption across mines for different metals and minerals.6 This paper found that, as ore grade depletes, the energy needed to extract it and send it along the supply chain for further processing is exponentially higher (Chart 7). Lastly, a recent examination found that in 2018, primary metals and mining accounted for approximately 10% of the total greenhouse gases. Using a case study of Chile, the world’s largest producer of the red metal, the researchers found that fuel consumption increased by 130% and electricity consumption per unit of mined copper increased by 32% from 2001 to 2017. This increase was primarily due to decreasing ore grades.7 As ore grades continue to fall, these exponential relationships likely will persist or become more significant. Chart 7Energy Use Rises As Ore Quality Falls Bottom Line: While technology can improve extraction, it cannot reduce the minimum energy required for the mining process. This increased energy use will contribute to the total amount of CO2 and other GHGs emitted in the process of extracting the ores required to realize a low-carbon future. Trade-Off Between CO2 Emissions And Economic Development A recent Reuters analysis highlights the gap between EM and DM from the perspective of their renewable energy transition priorities.8 Of the 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), “Taking action to combat climate change” takes precedence over the rest for DM economies. This is largely because they have already dealt with other energy and income intensive SDGs such as improvements in healthcare and poverty reduction. The large scale of unmet energy demand in developing countries poses a huge challenge to controlling CO2 emissions. The populations of these countries are growing fast and are projected to continue increasing over the next three decades. Rising populations, make the issue of a "green-energy transition" extremely dynamic – i.e., not only do EM economies need to replace existing fossil fuels, but they also need to add enough extra zero-emission fuel sources to meet the growth in energy demand. Bottom Line: Coupled with the increased amount of energy required to mine the same amount of metal (due to lower ore grades), rising energy demand resulting from a burgeoning population in EM economies - which use fossil fuels to meet their primary needs - will require more metals to be mined for the renewable energy transition. This will further increase the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions from mine activity, and increase the risk to indigenous populations living close-by to the sources of this new metals supply. ESG risks will increase as a result, presenting greater challenges to attracting funding to these efforts.   Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com   Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish OPEC 2.0 was expected to stick with its decision to return ~ 2mm b/d of supply to the market at its ministerial meeting Wednesday. Markets remain wary of demand slowing as COVID-19-induced lockdowns persist and case counts increase globally. The production being returned to market includes 1mm b/d of voluntary cuts by Saudi Arabia, which could, if needs be, keep barrels off the market if demand weakens. Base Metals: Bullish Front-month COMEX copper is holding above $4.50/lb, after breaching its 11-year high earlier this week. The proximate cause of the initial lift above that level was news of a strike by Chilean port workers on Monday protesting restrictions on early pension-fund drawdowns, according to mining.com. After a slight breather, prices returned to trading north of $4.50/lb by mid-week. Last week, we raised our Dec21 COMEX copper price forecast to $5.00/lb from $4.50/lb. Separately, high-grade iron ore (65% Fe) hit record highs, while the benchmark grade (62% Fe) traded above $190/MT earlier in the week on the back of lower-than-expected production by major suppliers and USD weakness. Steel futures on the Shanghai Futures Exchange hit another record as well, as strong demand and threats of mandated reductions in Chinese steel output to reduce pollution loom (Chart 8). Precious Metals: Bullish Rising COVID cases, especially in India, Brazil and Japan are increasing gold’s safe-haven appeal (Chart 9). The US CFTC, in its Commitment of Traders (COT) report for the week ending April 20, stated that speculators raised their COMEX gold bullish positions. At the end of the two-day FOMC meeting, the Fed decided against lifting interest rates and withdrawing support for the US economy. However, officials sounded more optimistic about the economy than they did in March. The decision did not give any sign interest rates would be lifted, or asset purchases would be tapered against the backdrop of a steadily improving economy.  Net, this could increase demand for gold, as inflationary pressures rise. As of Tuesday’s close, COMEX gold was trading at $1778/oz. Ags/Softs: Neutral Corn and bean futures settled down by mid-week after a sharp rally earlier. After rising to a new eight-year high just below $7/bushel due to cold weather in the US, and fears a lower harvest in Brazil will reduce global grain supplies, corn settled down to ~ $6.85/bu at mid-week trading. Beans traded above $15.50/bu earlier in the week, their highest since June 2014, and settled down to ~ $15.36/bu by mid-week. Attention remains focused on global supplies. The uptrend in grains and beans remains intact. Chart 8 Chart 9   Footnotes 1     Please see Renewables, China's FYP Underpin Metals Demand, published 26 November 2020, for further discussion.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2     Please see Global Energy Review 2021, the IEA's Flagship report for April 2021. 3    Please see Renewables, China's FYP Underpin Metals Demand, published 26 November 2020, for further discussion.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4    We discussed these capex issues in last week's research, Copper Headed Higher On Surge In Steel Prices, which is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 5    Please see Valenta et al.’s ‘Re-thinking complex orebodies: Consequences for the future world supply of copper’ published in 2019 for this analysis. 6    Please see Calvo et. al.’s ‘Decreasing Ore Grades in Global Metallic Mining: A Theoretical Issue or a Global Reality?’ published in 2016 for this analysis. 7     Please see Azadi et. al.’s ‘Transparency on greenhouse gas emissions from mining to enable climate change mitigation’ published in 2020 for this analysis. 8    Please see John Kemp's Column: CO2 emission limits and economic development published 19 April 2021 by reuters.com.   Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2021 Summary of Closed Trades

Informe especial

Highlights Cryptocurrencies have a long march ahead to be able to displace fiat currencies. While cryptocurrencies are improving tremendously as a medium of exchange, they lag fiat as a store of value and a unit of account. Contrary to popular belief, fiat money has outperformed anti-fiat assets over time as a store of value. Many central banks will replicate the advantages and success of bitcoin through the issuance of central bank digital currencies (CBDCs). Cryptocurrencies are unlikely to disappear anytime soon and can be wonderful speculative investments. However, conservative investors should stick with gold and silver. Feature Chart I-1Spectacular Returns From Cryptocurrencies The rise in the prices of various cryptocurrencies1 has taken many investors by surprise. $1000 invested in bitcoin at the start of 2012 is worth around $10 million today. If you were lucky enough to get in on the first day of trading, when it was worth a fraction of a cent, your initial $1000 investment will be worth around $60 billion today. Meanwhile, many other cryptocurrencies are also sporting legendary returns, not even replicable in the most obscure corners of the options market (Chart I-1). There is some merit to cryptocurrencies, or more specifically, blockchain technology that is the bedrock of their invention. In this decentralized, peer-to-peer system, the need for an intermediary to validate transactions and arbitrate disputes is eliminated. This can greatly reduce transaction costs, especially when compared to banking/legal fees. The autonomy and anonymity that comes with their use is also a desirable feature. For example, anti-fiat enthusiasts welcome the fact that the creation, distribution, and use of cryptocurrencies is outside the purview of central banks. As this asset class continues to garner popularity and capture the imagination of investors, the implications run the gamut from potential future returns (or losses) to the impact on other asset classes. For currency investors, the key question is whether any of these seemingly attractive features have a sizeable impact on the value and use of other developed market currencies. In short, will cryptocurrencies displace fiat? To answer this question, we have to start from the very basic definition of what money is.  Is Bitcoin Money? The three basic functions of money are a store of value, unit of account and a medium of exchange. On at least two of these three basic functions, bitcoin fails. Bitcoin has been improving as a medium of exchange. The ability to swap fiat currency into bitcoins and back is fairly easy. More importantly, more and more merchants are accepting bitcoin as a form of payment. Globally, the turnover of cryptocurrencies is about $200 billion or roughly 3% of overall foreign exchange turnover. This is higher than daily trading in the Mexican peso, the New Zealand dollar, and the Swedish krona, an impressive feat (Chart I-2). This is also evidenced by the rise in the market capitalization of cryptocurrencies, to around $2 trillion today (Chart I-3). Chart I-2An Improving Medium Of Exchange Chart I-3Gold Versus Cryptocurrencies However, as Peter Berezin, our Chief Global Strategist has pointed out, this does not necessarily trump the use of fiat money.2  The Visa network, for example, handles over 5,000 times more transactions a second than the bitcoin mempool (the pool of unconfirmed transactions). Meanwhile, if one were to take a vacation in exotic places like Manila or Mumbai, what medium of exchange will one hold? Cryptocurrency, gold or the US dollar? Experience tells us you will be much better off holding greenbacks or even gold. Bitcoin is certainly not a store of value. The drawdown in cryptocurrency prices has been around 80% a year or 40%-50% over three months. This is much more volatile than currencies such as the Turkish lira or Argentinian peso, from countries fraught with political instability and economic fragility (Chart I-4). It appears that the lack of central bank oversight is a vice and not a virtue. Stability in a currency allows for confidence in savings, future purchases, and investment decisions. A monetary system based on cryptocurrencies deprives citizens of this basic tenet.   Chart I-4Bitcoin Is A Poor Store Of Value Bitcoin’s inherent volatility also makes it unsuitable as a unit of account. Prices quoted in bitcoin units will need to be revised daily. Although not a parallel comparison, this is reminiscent of hyperinflationary Zimbabwe, where retail store prices were adjusted several times a day to reflect the rapid depreciation in the currency. This is hardly a monetary regime suitable for the developed world, or any other economy for that matter. In a nutshell, cryptocurrencies do not yet satisfy the basic functions of money. Yes, they are portable, divisible, fungible and in limited supply. However, they have yet to gain wider acceptance, and are not a store of value nor a unit of account. As such, they remain speculative investments rather than money. The Demise Of Fiat Is Exaggerated Even if bitcoin is not money, the question remains whether it should be held in currency portfolios as insurance against fiat money debasement. After all, central bank quantitative easing since the global financial crisis has benefited other monetary assets such as gold and silver. Should investors also accumulate cryptocurrencies? The answer will depend on the type of investor. Dedicated currency investors need not worry about bitcoin. As a starting point, the US dollar very much remains the reserve currency today. About 60% of global reserve allocation is in USD. This position has often been challenged over the last few decades but has never been threatened (Chart I-5). This puts cryptocurrencies a long way from the starting line. Chart I-5The US Dollar Remains King It is worth noting that over time, fiat assets have done much better than anti-fiat alternatives. Using Bank of England data from the 19th century, we can see that over time, government bonds did much better than gold, or even stocks and real estate (Chart I-6). The reason is that most currencies provide a yield, while cryptocurrencies and gold do not. Chart I-6Fiat Versus Anti-Fiat Assets Chart I-7The DXY Has Faced Strong Resistance At 100 If one is worried about the path of the US dollar (like us), there are many other established fiat currencies to choose from. Since 2015, global allocation of FX Reserves to US dollars has fallen from almost 66% to around 60% today. The rotation has favored other currencies such as the Japanese yen, Chinese yuan and even gold (Chart I-7). From a longer-term perspective, this will place a durable floor under developed market currencies. Cryptocurrencies Versus Gold The degree to which cryptocurrencies can benefit from a shift away from dollars will depend on whether private investors or central banks drive the outflows. Central banks have a natural imperative to defend fiat currencies, since these are the very tools they use to implement monetary policy. As such, when diversifying out of dollars, their choice is other fiat currencies or gold, the latter having been a monetary standard for centuries. Private investors, some wanting to cut the cord to a centralized monetary system, may chose cryptocurrencies. Since the peak in the DXY index in 2020, both gold and US Treasuries are down significantly, while bitcoin has catapulted to new highs (Chart I-8). This has occurred because of a change in leadership, where the biggest sellers of US Treasuries have not been official concerns, but private investors (Chart I-9). Foreign central banks still dominate the holding of US Treasuries, to the tune of 60% versus 40% for private investors (bottom panel). But the bulk of outflows has been coming from private investors. Chart I-8Bitcoin Thrives When Mainstream Havens Are Rolling Over Chart I-9A Treasury Liquidation From ##br##Private Investors Central banks (the biggest holders of US Treasuries) tend to have stronger hands. This is because central banks are ideological while private investors can be swayed by momentum. For example, China and Russia have a geopolitical imperative to diversify out of dollars. As a result, Russia now has almost 25% of its foreign exchange reserves in gold and China almost 4%. A conservative investor looking to diversify out of fiat currency should naturally choose gold, which is backed by strong buyers. For more speculative investors, a simple rule of thumb could work: Buy cryptocurrencies when they drop 50% and sell when they overtake their previous highs. As we showed in Chart I-3, cryptocurrencies drop at least 40%-50% every year or so, providing ample opportunity to accumulate long positions. It is worth noting that my colleagues have a different approach. Dhaval Joshi, who heads our Counterpoint product, suggests holding cryptocurrencies in inverse proportion to their relative volatility to gold. In other words, given that bitcoin is three times more volatile than gold, your anti-fiat portfolio should have a 25% allocation to cryptocurrencies.3 Peter Berezin, our Chief Global Strategist, will not touch bitcoin. We tend to agree that cryptocurrencies could be a playable mania but would not recommend this asset class for the longer term. Central Bank Digital Currencies   One argument for why cryptocurrencies may not survive over the longer term is that there is a natural limit to how much widespread acceptance they will achieve before central banks start clamping down on them. The first reason will be due to the loss in seigniorage revenue for central banks. Between 2009 and 2019, the US and China generated about $140bn a year in seigniorage revenue (Chart I-10). These are non-negligible sums, which the rapid proliferation of cryptocurrencies threaten. Moreover, as the turnover in cryptocurrencies overtakes global trading in various domestic currencies, many countries are moving to ban bitcoin transactions (Table I-1). Chart I-10Seigniorage Revenue Is Significant Table 1A Rising List Of Cryptocurrency Bans Second, the use of cryptocurrencies can encourage the proliferation of illegal activities. This is a well-known flaw, and something governments will push back against. Meanwhile, many central banks are moving to establish their own digital currencies. Some of these could be based off the same blockchain technology that underpins bitcoin. This will provide many of the advantages of using a cryptocurrency without some of the known pitfalls. Map I-1 highlights that most G10 central banks have a digital currency plan. Map I-1Many Central Banks Are Planning A Digital Currency Some advocates for bitcoin point to its limited supply (21 million coins) as evidence for monetary prudence. Even the gold standard had more flexibility, since gold mining expanded about 2% a year. Yet that still proved to be extremely deflationary. A monetary standard that includes both paper currency and CBDCs provides the flexibility that central bankers need to smooth out economic cycles. A bitcoin-based standard will take us back to the middle ages. Once CDBCs become mainstream, the need for alternative cryptocurrencies will not disappear but fall greatly. This will also happen as the number of cryptocurrencies being created will likely balloon, given the very impressive price rallies in recent years. The IPO of Coinbase, an exchange for trading cryptocurrencies, may have heralded the peak in sentiment. Investment Conclusions The dollar faces many headwinds over the next 12 months. A rebound in global growth that begins to favor non-US economies will benefit pro-cyclical currencies. The Federal Reserve’s liquidity injections have assuaged the dollar shortage that held markets hostage last year. Interest rates are now moving against the dollar. Meanwhile, the greenback is expensive (Chart I-11), with a negative balance of payments backdrop. Chart I-11The US Dollar Is Expensive Chart I-12Hold Precious Metals Our favorite vehicles to play against coming weakness in the dollar have been the Scandinavian currencies, precious metals and commodity currencies. Within the precious metals sphere, we like both gold and silver but are short the gold/silver ratio as a hedged trade with little downside and much upside (Chart I-12). In particular, precious metals benefit from reserve diversification out of US dollars. In this light, cryptocurrencies could have intermittent rallies. However, given the regulatory and structural issues they face, we will not be holders for the long term.   Chester Ntonifor Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 We use bitcoin and cryptocurrencies interchangeably in this text. We do acknowledge that there are various other cryptocurrencies and these are shown in Chart 1. 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Bitcoin: A Solution In Search Of A Problem," dated February 26, 2021. 3 Please see Counterpoint Strategy Special Report, "Why Cryptocurrencies Are Here To Stay And Bitcoin Is Worth $120,000," dated April 8, 2021. Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 March housing starts came in at 1.7 million, versus expectations of 1.6 million. This was a 19.4% month-on-month rise. Building permits were equally strong at 1.8 million for the month of March. The University of Michigan sentiment indicator rose to 86.5 in April from 84.9. The jump in the current conditions component from 93 to 97.2 was noteworthy. Initial jobless claims continue to decline, coming in at 547K for the week of April 17. Existing home sales remained strong at 6 million, even though they fell 3.7% month-on-month. The DXY Index fell by 0.3% this week. Speculators pared back a bit of their bullish positioning on the dollar. The overhang of a risk-off event continues to anchor dollar bulls, but interest rate differentials are now moving against the greenback. Report Links: Arbitrating Between Dollar Bulls And Bears - March 19, 2021 The Dollar Bull Case Will Soon Fade - March 5, 2021 Are Rising Bond Yields Bullish For The Dollar? - February 19, 2021 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 Recent euro area data have been mixed. The trade balance came in at €18.4 billion in February, versus €24.2 billion the previous month. This supported a current account balance of €25.9 billion. Construction output fell 5.8% year-on-year in February. Consumer confidence came in at -8.1 in April, versus -10.8 in March. The euro rose by 0.3% this week. The ECB kept monetary policy on hold this week, leaving the deposit facility rate at -0.5% and the marginal lending facility at 0.25%. This garnered little market reaction. With a few euro area countries under lockdown, this was the correct stance. Covid-19 will continue to dictate the near-term path of policy and the euro, but we remain bullish longer term. Report Links: Relative Growth, The Euro, And The Loonie - April 16, 2021 Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 On Japanese Inflation And The Yen - January 29, 2021 Japanese Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Recent data from Japan have been robust. Exports surged 16.1% year-on-year in March. Imports were also robust at +5.7% year-on-year. This boosted the trade balance to ¥298 billion. Tokyo condominiums for sale are rising 45% year-on-year. Supermarket sales rose 1.3% year-on-year in March. This is a tentative but positive sign of a consumption recovery. The Japanese yen rose 0.6% this week. The yen has been the best performing currency this week, a sign that sentiment was overly bearish and the currency was much oversold. Our intermediate-term indicator remains at bombed-out levels and speculators are still short the yen. This provides further upside for this defensive currency. As a portfolio hedge, we are short EUR/JPY. Report Links: The Dollar Bull Case Will Soon Fade - March 5, 2021 On Japanese Inflation And The Yen - January 29, 2021 The Dollar Conundrum And Protection - November 6, 2020 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 There was an avalanche of positive data from the UK this week. Rightmove house prices came in at 5.1% year on year in April. The labor report was mixed. While the UK lost 73 thousand jobs in February, this was below expectations of a 145 thousand loss. Core CPI came in at 1.1% in March. The RPI index came in at 1.5% year-on-year, in line with expectations. The CBI business optimism survey came in at 38 in April, versus -22 the previous month. Cable rose by 0.4% this week. The UK economy continues to benefit from its strong vaccination campaign. With the prospect of the rest of the world catching up, this trade is now long in the tooth. In short, we are neutral the pound in the short term, but remain bullish longer-term. Report Links: Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 The Dollar Conundrum And Protection - November 6, 2020 Revisiting Our High-Conviction Trades - September 11, 2020 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 There was scant data out of Australia this week. The NAB business confidence index came in at 17 in Q1 versus 14 the prior quarter. The Australian dollar fell by 0.6% against the US dollar this week. The Aussie came out of the Covid-19 crisis as one of the best performing currencies, so some measure of consolidation is to be expected. Our intermediate-term indicator continues to blast downward, while sentiment towards the Aussie remains quite elevated. However, we believe that this will be a healthy consolidation in what could prove to be a multi-year bull market in the Australian dollar. Report Links: The Dollar Bull Case Will Soon Fade - March 5, 2021 Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 Australia: Regime Change For Bond Yields & The Currency? - January 20, 2021 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 There was scant data out of New Zealand this week. CPI came in at 1.5% in Q1, in line with expectations. The Kiwi fell by 0.2% against the US dollar this week. Like Australia, New Zealand has managed the Covid-19 crisis quite well and the new travel bubble between the two countries will help lift economic activity. From a technical perspective however, room for further consolidation in the Kiwi remains. Our intermediate-term indicator continues to drift lower, while speculators are slightly long the cross. In our models, the Kiwi also appears overvalued. We were long AUD/NZD but were stopped out this week for modest profits. We will look to reestablish the trade. Report Links: Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 Currencies And The Value-Versus-Growth Debate - July 10, 2020 Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 The recent data out of Canada has been quite strong. Foreigners continue to flock into Canadian capital markets, to the tune of C$8.5bn in February. Housing starts came in at 335 thousand in March, the highest since the 70s. The Teranet house price index rose 10.8% year-on-year in March. The CPI release for March was better than expected. Headline was at 2.2%, the core median was at 2.1% and the trimmed mean came in at 2.2%. The Canadian dollar rose by 0.3% this week. The Bank of Canada kept rates on hold, but trimmed asset purchases. This follows a very generous budget from the Liberal party earlier this week. The loonie loved the news and Canadian government bonds sold off. We remain bullish CAD/USD on valuation grounds, spillovers from US fiscal stimulus and a constructive oil backdrop.  Report Links: Relative Growth, The Euro, And The Loonie - April 16, 2021 Will The Canadian Recovery Lead Or Lag The Global Cycle? - February 12, 2021 Currencies And The Value-Versus-Growth Debate - July 10, 2020 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 The recent data out of Switzerland has been quite strong. Producer and import prices fell by 0.2% year-on-year in March. This is a tremendous improvement from the previous 1.1% drop. M3 money supply continues to expand at a robust 5.6% clip. Exports rose 4.5% month-on-month in March. Watch exports surged 37% year-on-year. The Swiss franc rose 0.5% this week. The Swiss franc is the second best performing currency this week after the yen. With US interest rates stabilizing, the rationale for CHF carry trades is slowly fading. Our intermediate-term indicator shows the franc at bombed-out levels, and speculators are still short. This provides some margin for further upside. We are long EUR/CHF, but with very tight stops. Report Links: Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 The Dollar Conundrum And Protection - November 6, 2020 On The DXY Breakout, Euro, And Swiss Franc - February 21, 2020 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 There was scant data out of Norway this week. Industrial confidence came in at 8.2 in Q1, versus a prior reading of 3.1. The Norwegian krone was flat against the US dollar this week. Norway is setting the tone in terms of what monetary policy and sovereign wealth management could look like for many countries in the coming years. First, the Norges Bank announced they would be testing digital currency solutions over the coming two years. This is the way forward for central banks. Second, the sovereign wealth fund, the biggest in the world, is using its influence to effect policy changes towards the environment. Should the returns from its investments pay off in the years ahead, this could generate powerful repatriation flows for Norway. We are strategically bullish the NOK. Report Links: Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 Revisiting Our High-Conviction Trades - September 11, 2020 A New Paradigm For Petrocurrencies - April 10, 2020 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 There was no data out of Sweden this week. The Swedish krona rose by 0.2% this week. Swedish 2-year real rates recently punched above US levels, suggesting downward pressure on the krona should soon be abating. Our intermediate-term indicator suggests weakness in the krona is mostly done, while the currency appears cheap in most of our models. The handicap for Sweden is successfully dealing with the pandemic, after having a model that stood apart from what other countries were following. Over the longer-term, we are bullish SEK, just like the NOK, against both the euro and the dollar. Report Links: Revisiting Our High-Conviction Trades - September 11, 2020 Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Where To Next For The US Dollar? - June 7, 2019 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Limit Orders Closed Trades

Informe especial

Highlights Cryptocurrencies are the ‘digital gold’. Long-term investors should hold cryptocurrencies and gold in inverse proportion to their volatilities. On this basis, cryptocurrencies should take around a quarter of the $15 trillion anti-fiat asset market, taking the bitcoin price to around $120,000. Own a diversified basket of cryptocurrencies, including an eco-friendlier ‘proof of stake’ cryptocurrency such as Ethereum. As cryptocurrencies take a larger share of the anti-fiat market, gold’s massive anti-fiat premium versus silver and platinum will collapse. Structural recommendation: overweight silver and platinum versus gold. Structurally underweight gold miners, both versus other miners and versus the market. Feature Feature ChartEach Time People Thought Bitcoin Was In A Bubble, They Were Wrong This Special Report presents the long-term investment case for cryptocurrencies. It is the transcript of twenty questions and answers that made up a recent conversation with a sceptical client. 1.     I am sceptical of cryptocurrencies. Specifically, I think that bitcoin is dirty, slow, volatile, and impractical. Are you going to convince me otherwise? Yes, I’m going to tell you that those criticisms are misunderstandings, or, at least, irrelevant to the long-term investment case. 2.     Ok, let me ask the $57,000 question. Is bitcoin in a bubble? No, bitcoin is not in a bubble. Though to be clear, its price could fall sharply from its current overbought position. Bitcoin’s price has collapsed by 80 percent on three separate occasions: in 2011, 2014, and 2018. Each time, people said the bitcoin bubble had burst, and each time they were wrong. Each time, bitcoin recouped its losses within a couple of years and went on to new highs. On a long-term horizon, I expect the same to happen again (Feature Chart). Cryptocurrencies Are The ‘Digital Gold’ 3.     So, what is the long-term investment case for owning bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies? Cryptocurrencies are the ‘digital gold’. So long as we have a fiat money system, there will be demand for an ‘anti-fiat’ asset that is a hedge against a debasement of the fiat money system. For decades, the dominant anti-fiat asset has been gold. But cryptocurrencies are the new kid on the block threatening gold’s dominance. So far, cryptocurrencies account for just 10 percent of the $15 trillion anti-fiat market. As this share doubles or trebles, it arithmetically requires a doubling or trebling of cryptocurrency prices. 4.     New cryptocurrencies seem to appear every day. How can the limitless number of cryptocurrencies be compared with gold, whose supply is limited? Although the number of cryptocurrencies is unlimited, the total cryptocurrency money supply is limited by the amount of energy expended to mine them. As a useful analogy, each cryptocurrency is like a separate gold miner. While there could be an unlimited number of gold miners, there could not be an unlimited supply of gold. 5.     But a cryptocurrency has no intrinsic value, right? Right, but a fifty pound note has no intrinsic value either. It’s just a bit of paper. The value of a fifty pound note – or any fiat money for that matter – is the trust that you place in the government and the central bank to maintain its value. Likewise, the value of a bitcoin is the trust that you place in the blockchain to maintain its long-term value – so it’s really like an alternative trust system to the trust you place in the fiat monetary system. In fact, the blockchain is often called ‘the trust machine’. 6.     Yet gold does have an intrinsic value. I can always melt it down and wear it as valuable jewellery, which makes it a superior anti-fiat asset, right? No, this is a misunderstanding. Gold does have an intrinsic value, but it is a small fraction of its $1700/oz price. Gold’s intrinsic value is a small fraction of its $1700/oz price. The proof comes from comparing the precious metal price ratios with their (inverse) mining ratios. For the other precious metals – silver and platinum – the price ratio lines up broadly with the mining ratio, as it should (Chart I-2). But gold is the outlier, trading at a massive premium to its mining ratio. For example, the gold/silver price ratio at 70 compares with a mining ratio of 7.5, a near tenfold premium (Chart I-3). So, most of gold’s value comes from its status as the dominant anti-fiat asset. Chart I-2Platinum To Silver Trades Broadly In Line With Its Mining Ratio Chart I-3Gold To Silver Trades At A Massive Premium To Its Mining Ratio 7.     Hasn’t the gold/silver price ratio always been this elevated? No, through the many centuries that gold and silver had equal monetary status, the gold/silver price ratio tracked its mining ratio of around 15. Gold’s massive premium arose only when it became the dominant anti-fiat asset – first, when the gold standard collapsed in 1931 and then, when the Bretton Woods ‘pseudo gold standard’ collapsed in 1971. Proving that most of the current value of gold is its value as the dominant anti-fiat asset (Chart I-4).  Chart I-4Gold’s Massive Premium Is Due To Its Status As The Dominant Anti-Fiat Asset 8.     But unlike gold, cryptocurrencies trade like extreme risk-assets, so are they suitable for a conservative investor, like me? Conservative investors like you have no qualms holding gold even though it can suffer significant drawdowns, such as a 30 percent loss in 2013 and a near 20 percent loss through the past six months (Chart I-5). Of course, cryptocurrencies can suffer even bigger drawdowns, but this can be addressed by position sizing. Specifically, holding $1 of cryptocurrency for every $3 of gold will equalise the drawdown risks from the two anti-fiat assets. Chart I-5Gold Can Suffer Significant Drawdowns Countering The Counterarguments 9.     Now we come to the elephant in the room. Even if I accept that cryptocurrencies are the ‘digital gold’, mining these cryptocurrencies consumes as much energy as a small country. Isn’t this a huge problem? No, this is another misunderstanding. There is nothing wrong with using energy, and it is up to the market – rather than governments or self-proclaimed experts – to decide how to allocate our energy consumption. Remember that we are becoming less energy-intensive in other parts of our lives, so if the market deems that a certain proportion of energy consumption is well served to secure a superior anti-fiat asset, then that’s fine. Thinking more broadly, intermediation functions like banking and legal services account for around two percent of world GDP, while energy production accounts for five percent. So, if the blockchain could carry out that intermediation more efficiently and securely, then society could justify the blockchain consuming two fifths of the world’s energy. 10.   Ok, but what about the dirty energy that cryptocurrency mining consumes, and the damage it does to the environment? Yes, dirty energy is a problem but let’s address it by banning or taxing dirty energy! And let’s have a fair comparison. Gold mining might consume less energy than cryptocurrency mining, but it devastates the environment via the 99 percent of extracted ore that is dumped as waste, landscape destruction, acid mine drainage, and mercury production. Not to mention the tremendous energy needed to transport gold. None of these dirty issues apply to cryptocurrencies. Ultimately, the blockchain is a force for good because, unlike the internal combustion engine or mining, it can be a hundred percent environmentally friendly. Moreover, compared to the usual ‘proof of work’ protocol to secure a transaction, the emerging ‘proof of stake’ protocol removes the advantage to the most powerful computers, and thereby consumes much less energy. 11.    But the fiat currency system does just fine. And gold does just fine for those who want an anti-fiat currency asset. So, isn’t bitcoin just a ‘solution in search of a problem’? Almost every innovation is a ‘solution in search of a problem!’ Before aeroplanes, weren’t we doing just fine with ships and trains? And before the internet, weren’t we doing just fine with information disseminated by governments and major media and publishing companies? Then the internet decentralised and democratised information, and transformed every aspect of our lives. In the same way, the blockchain, which decentralises and democratises trust, can also transform every aspect of our lives. The same criticisms that are being thrown at the blockchain today were being thrown at the internet in the early 1990s. The same criticisms that are being thrown at the blockchain today were being thrown at the internet in the early 1990s. That the internet was slow, impractical, used mostly by criminals for nefarious purposes, that no reputable company would use it, that nobody would put their personal data or credit card details on it, and so on. I guess this shows that most people cannot comprehend an innovation until they experience its transformative impact. 12.   Ok, I’m all for innovation, but isn’t central bank digital currency a better alternative to cryptocurrency? Absolutely not! The whole point of an anti-fiat asset is that it must be completely immune to government and central bank manipulation. 13.   I still have some worries. First, can’t governments just ban cryptocurrencies? It would be something that I would expect in North Korea, but not in a liberal democracy like the UK or the US. Apart from anything else, it would be counterproductive – because the act of banning the anti-fiat asset would be the very act that would cause a surge in its demand! The better course for governments is to demonstrate, in fair competition, that fiat money is as trustworthy as anti-fiat money. 14.   Ok, what about governments taxing cryptocurrency transactions? Again, I think that the best course of action is for governments not to penalise anti-fiat money. But even if they did impose a transaction tax, it wouldn’t diminish cryptocurrencies’ anti-fiat status. After all, most people don’t own gold to carry out day-to-day transactions with it! 15.    One last worry: could quantum computing wipe out the blockchain and cryptocurrencies? The mathematical protocols would have to become orders of magnitude more difficult, but the over-arching concept of a decentralised peer-to-peer network to validate ownership and transactions would remain.  The Investment Conclusions 16.   Ok, let’s get to the investment conclusions. First, how should I value bitcoin and the cryptocurrency asset-class? The immediate question is, what share of the $15 trillion anti-fiat market should cryptocurrencies take? Our answer is that, in order to equalise drawdown risk, investors should hold cryptocurrencies and gold in inverse proportion to their drawdown magnitudes (or volatility). As cryptocurrency drawdowns tend to be three times as large as gold drawdowns, this means holding $1 of cryptocurrency for every $3 of gold (Chart I-6 and Chart I-7). Chart I-6Drawdowns Suffered ##br##By Bitcoin... Chart I-7...Tend To Be Three Times As Large As Drawdowns Suffered By Gold In other words, based on current volatilities, cryptocurrencies should take around a quarter of the anti-fiat market, or around double the current market share. Assuming a constant market size, and a uniform uplift to all cryptocurrencies, this would double all cryptocurrency prices, taking bitcoin to around $120,000. Cryptocurrencies should take around a quarter of the anti-fiat market, or around double the current market share. Of course, as cryptocurrencies become more established and their volatilities diminish, their share of the anti-fiat market can rise, taking their prices even higher.  17.   Will all cryptocurrencies succeed? No. Just as gold miners take market share from each other, cryptocurrencies will also take market share from one another. Hence, it is important to own a diversified basket of cryptocurrencies. At the very least, it is important to have some exposure to an eco-friendlier ‘proof of stake’ cryptocurrency such as Ethereum. Given its greener credentials, ‘proof of stake’ may take the dominant market share in the coming years.   18.   Will cryptocurrencies eventually replace fiat money? Not necessarily. As previously explained, fiat money and cryptocurrencies are just competing trust systems. So long as governments and central banks maintain our trust in fiat money, there is no reason to replace fiat money. 19.   Does this have any implications for inflation? Yes. With cryptocurrencies as a competing trust system, the only way for governments and central banks to maintain our trust in fiat money is not to debase its value. In other words, cryptocurrencies are the new vigilantes to prevent rampant inflation. 20.   What are the structural implications for gold and other precious metals? As cryptocurrencies take a larger share of the anti-fiat market, gold’s massive anti-fiat premium versus silver and platinum will collapse. Hence, a compelling long-term position is to overweight silver and platinum versus gold (Chart I-8). Chart I-8Structurally Overweight Silver And Platinum Versus Gold Long-term equity investors should underweight gold miners, both versus other miners and versus the market.   Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com​​​​​​​

Highlights The Biden administration is combining Trumpian nationalism with a renewed push for US innovation in a major infrastructure bill that is highly likely to become law. Populism and Great Power struggle with China and Russia are structural forces that give enormous momentum to this effort. Don’t bet against it. President Biden’s $2.4 trillion infrastructure and green energy plan has a subjective 80% chance of passing into law by the end of the year, as infrastructure is popular and Democrats control Congress. The net deficit increase will range from $700 billion to $1.3 trillion depending on the size of corporate tax hikes in the final bill. The second part of Biden’s plan, the roughly $2 trillion American Families Plan, has a much lower chance of passage – at best 50/50 – as the 2022 midterm elections will loom and fiscal fatigue will set in. While the US infrastructure package is a positive cyclical catalyst, it was largely expected, and the Biden administration still faces early stress-tests on China/Taiwan, Russia, Iran, and even North Korea. Game theory helps explain why financial markets cannot ignore the 60% chance of a crisis in the Taiwan Strait. A full-fledged war is still low-probability but Taiwan remains the world’s preeminent geopolitical risk. In emerging markets, stay short Russian and Brazilian currency and assets – and continue favoring Indian stocks over Chinese. Feature The “arsenal of democracy” is a phrase that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt used to describe the full might of US government, industry, and labor in assisting the western allies in World War II. The US is reviving this combination of productive forces today, with President Joe Biden’s $4 trillion-plus American Jobs and Families Plan unveiled in Pittsburgh on March 31. The context is once again a global struggle among the Great Powers, albeit not world war (at least not yet … more on that below). The US is reviving its post-WWII pursuit of global liberal hegemony – symbolized by its role, growing once again, as the world’s chief consumer and chief warrior (Chart 1). Biden promoted his plan to build up the US’s infrastructure and social safety net explicitly as a historic and strategic investment – “in 50 years, people are going to look back and say this was the moment that American won the future.”1 It is critical for investors to realize that they are not witnessing another round of COVID-19 fiscal relief. That task is already completed with the Republican spending of 2020 and Biden’s own $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), which together with the vaccine rollout are delivering a jolt to growth (Chart 2). Chart 1America Pursues Hegemony Anew Chart 2Consensus Expects 6.5% US GDP Growth After American Rescue Plan Our own back-of-the-envelope estimates of growth suggest that there is considerable upside risk even under current law (Chart 3). The output gap is also guesstimated here, and it will tighten faster than expected, especially as the service sector revives on economic reopening. Chart 3Back-Of-Envelope: US GDP And Output Gap Show Upside Risk After American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) A growth overshoot is even more likely considering that the first part of Biden’s proposal, the $2.4 trillion American Jobs Plan consisting mostly of infrastructure and green energy, is highly likely to pass Congress (by July at earliest and December at latest, most likely late fall). Our revised estimates for the US budget deficit show that this bill will add considerably to the deficit in the coming years, peaking in three or four years, thus averting the “fiscal cliff” in 2022-23 and adding to aggregate demand in the years after the short-term COVID-era cash handouts dry up (Chart 4). The net deficit increase will be $700 billion if Biden gets all of his tax hikes and $1.3 trillion if he only gets half of them, according to our sister US Political Strategy. Chart 4US Budget Deficit Will Remain Fat In Coming Years We give Biden’s $2.4 trillion American Jobs Plan an 80% chance of passing through Congress by the end of the year. Infrastructure is broadly popular – as President Trump’s own $2 trillion infrastructure campaign proposal revealed – and Democrats have just enough votes to push it through the Senate via budget reconciliation, which requires zero votes from Republicans. Biden’s political capital is still strong given that his approval rating will stay above 50% as long as Trump is the obvious alternative and the Republicans are deeply divided over their own future (Chart 5).2 The second part of his plan, the $1.95 trillion American Families Plan, is much less likely to pass before the 2022 midterm elections – we would say 50/50 odds at best, if the infrastructure deal passes quickly. Chart 5Biden’s Political Capital Is Sufficient To Pass Another Major Law Of course there are very important differences between Biden’s $2.4 trillion infrastructure plan and the similarly sized proposal that Trump would have unveiled this month had he been re-elected: Biden’s proposal is probably heavier on innovation and research and development, and certainly heavier on unionization and labor regulation, than Trump’s would have been. Biden’s plan integrates infrastructure with sustainability, renewable energy, and climate change initiatives that will help the US catch up with Europe and China on the green front. The plan will consist of direct government spending – rather than government seed money to promote private investment. It will be partially offset by repealing the corporate tax cuts in Trump’s signature Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Most importantly – from a geopolitical point of view – Biden is making a bid for the US to resume its post-WWII quest for global liberal hegemony. He argued that the US stands at the crossroads of a global choice between “democracies and autocracies” and that rebuilding US infrastructure is ultimately about proving that democracies can create consensus and “deliver for their people.” Autocratic regimes, fairly or not, routinely call attention to the divisiveness of modern party politics in the West and the resulting policy gridlock which produces bad outcomes for many citizens, resulting in greater domestic dysfunction and “chaos.” It is important to note that this bid for hegemony will be more, not less, destabilizing for global politics as it will make the US economy more self-sufficient and insulated from the world. It will intensify the US-China and US-Russia strategic competition while making it more difficult for Biden to conduct bilateral diplomacy with these states given their differences in moral values and frequent human rights violations. What is happening now is the culmination of political shifts that pre-date the pandemic, but were galvanized by the pandemic, and it is of global, geopolitical significance for the coming decade and beyond.3 Biden and the establishment Democrats – embattled by populism on their right and left flanks – are shamelessly coopting President Trump’s “Make America Great Again” nationalism with a larger-than-life, infrastructure-and-manufacturing initiative that emphasizes productivity as well as “Buy American” protectionism. Biden explicitly argued that Americans need to boost innovation to “put us in a position to win the global competition with China in the upcoming years.” At Biden’s first press conference on March 25, he made a similar point about China: So I see stiff competition with China. China has an overall goal, and I don’t criticize them for the goal, but they have an overall goal to become the leading country in the world, the wealthiest country in the world, and the most powerful country in the world. That’s not going to happen on my watch because the United States are going to continue to grow and expand.4 The US trade deficit is set to widen a lot further under this massive domestic buildout. It aims to be the largest government investment program since Dwight Eisenhower’s building of the highways or the Kennedy-Johnson-Nixon space race. But it explicitly aims to diminish China’s role as a supplier of US goods and materials and the US trade deficit already shows evidence of economic divorce (Chart 6). The US is bound to have a larger trade deficit due to its own savings-and-investment imbalances but it has a powerful interest in redistributing this trade deficit to its allies and reducing over-dependency on China, which is itself pursuing strategic self-sufficiency and military modernization in anticipation of an ongoing rivalry this century. Chart 6Biden's Coopts Trump's Trade And Manufacturing Agenda Bottom Line: Biden’s $2.4 trillion American Jobs Plan has an 80% chance of passing Congress later this year with a net increase to the fiscal thrust of between $700 billion and $1.3 trillion, depending on how many and how high the corporate tax hikes. The other $2 trillion social spending part of Biden’s plan has only a 50/50 chance of passage. The infrastructure and green energy rebuild should be understood as a return of Big Government motivated by populism and Great Power competition – it is a geopolitical theme with enormous momentum. The result will be faster US growth and higher inflation expectations, with the upside risk of a productivity boom (or boomlet) from the combination of public and private sector innovation. Investors should not bet against the cyclical bull market even though any increase in long-term potential GDP is speculative. A Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis And The Cuban Missile Crisis Biden’s American Jobs Plan reserves $50 billion for US semiconductor manufacturing, a vast sum, larger than expectations and far larger than the relatively small public investments that helped revolutionize the US chip industry in the 1980s. But it will take a long time for these investments to pay off in the form of secure and redundant supply chains, while a semiconductor shortage is raging today that is already entangled with the US-China rivalry and tensions over the Taiwan Strait. The risk of a diplomatic or military incident is urgent because the chip shortage exacerbates China’s vulnerabilities at a time when the Biden administration is about to make critical decisions regarding the tightness of new export controls that cut off China’s access to US semiconductor chips, equipment, and parts. If the Biden administration appears to pursue a full-fledged tech blockade, as the Trump administration seemed bent on doing, then China will retaliate economically or militarily. Before going further we should point out that there are still areas of potential US-China cooperation under the Biden administration that could reduce tensions this year (though not over the long run). Biden and Xi Jinping might meet virtually as early as this month to discuss carbon emission reduction targets. Meanwhile China is positioning itself to serve as power-broker on two major foreign policy challenges – Iran and North Korea. Biden expressly seeks Chinese and Russian assistance based on the mutual interest in nuclear non-proliferation. Notably, Beijing’s renewed strategic dealings with Iran over the past month highlight its confidence that Biden does not have the appetite to stick with Trump’s “maximum pressure” but rather will seek to reduce sanctions and restore the 2015 nuclear deal. Hence China will seek to parlay influence over Tehran in exchange for reduced US pressure on its trade and economy (Chart 7). Beijing is making a similar offer on North Korea. Chart 7China Holds The Key To Iran, As With North Korea? Ironically both Iranian and North Korean geopolitical tensions should skyrocket in the short term since high-stakes negotiations are beginning, even though they are ultimately more manageable risks than the mega-risk of US-China conflict over Taiwan. China cannot gain the advanced technology it needs to achieve a strategic breakthrough if the US should impose a total tech blockade, e.g. draconian export controls enforced on US allies. Yet it is highly unlikely to gain the tech by seizing Taiwan, since war would likely destroy the computer chip fabrication plants and provoke global sanctions that would crush its economy. The result is that China is launching a massive campaign of domestic production and indigenous innovation while circumventing US restrictions through cyber and other means. Still, a dangerous strategic asymmetry is looming because the US will retain access to the most advanced computer chips via its alliances and on-shoring, whereas China will remain vulnerable to a tech blockade via Taiwan. This brings us to our chief global geopolitical risk: a US-China showdown in the Taiwan Strait. Highlighting the urgency of the risk, Admiral John Aquilino, the nominee for Commander of the US Indo-Pacific Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that China might not wait six years to attack Taiwan: “My opinion is that this problem is much closer to us than most think and we have to take this on.”5 To illustrate the calculus of such a showdown – and our reasons for maintaining an alarmist tone and building up market hedges and safe-haven investments – we turn to game theory. Game theory is not a substitute for empirical analysis but a tool to formalize complex international systems with multiple decision-makers. An obvious yet fair analogy to a US-China-Taiwan crisis is the Cuban missile crisis of 1962.6 The standard construction of the Cuban missile crisis in game theory goes as follows: if the US maintains a blockade and the Soviets withdraw their missiles a compromise is achieved and war is averted; if the US conducts air strikes and the Soviets maintain or use their missiles then war ensues. The payouts to each player are shown in the matrix in Diagram 1. Diagram 1Cuban Missile Crisis, 1962 One concern about this construction is that the payouts may underestimate the costs of war since nuclear arms could be used. We insert a comment into the diagram highlighting that the payouts could be altered to account for nuclear war. Note that this alteration does not change the final outcome: the equilibrium scenario is still US blockade and Soviet withdrawal, which is what happened in reality. If we model a US-China-Taiwan conflict along similar lines, the US takes the role of the Soviet Union while China stands where the US stood in 1962 (Diagram 2). This is a theoretical scenario in which the US offers Taiwan a decisive improvement in its security or offensive military capabilities. However, because of the unique circumstances of the Chinese civil war, in which the victors established the People’s Republic of China in Beijing in 1949 and the defeated forces retreated to Taiwan, China’s regime legitimacy is at stake in any showdown over Taiwan. If Beijing suffered a defeat that secured Taiwan’s independence while degrading Beijing’s regime legitimacy and security, the Chinese regime might not survive the domestic blowback.7 Diagram 2Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis – What Happens If The US Offers Game-Changing Military Support To Taiwan? Thus we reduce the Chinese payout in the case of American victory. In the top right cell of Diagram 2, the row player’s payout falls from two points (2ppt) in the first diagram to one point (1ppt) in this diagram. This seemingly slight change entirely alters the outcome of the game. Beijing now faces equally bad outcomes in the event of defeat, whereas victory remains preferable to a tie. Therefore as long as China believes that the US will not resort to nuclear weapons to defend Taiwan (a reasonable assessment) then it may make the mistake of opting for military force to ensure victory. Fortunately for global investors the US is not providing Taiwan with game-changing military capabilities, although it is ultimately up to China to decide what threatens its security and the US is in the process of upgrading Taiwan’s defense in an effort to deter Beijing from forceful reunification. Thus the exercise demonstrates why we do not expect immediate war – no game-changer yet – but at the same time it shows why war is much likelier than the consensus holds if the military or political status quo changes in a way that China deems strategically unacceptable. A lower-degree Taiwan crisis should be expected – i.e. one in which the US maintains tech restrictions, offers arms sales or military training that do not upend the military balance, or signs free trade agreements or other significant upgrades to the US-Taiwan relationship.8 We would give a 60% probability to some kind of crisis over the next 12-24 months. The global equity market could at least suffer a 10% correction in a standard geopolitical crisis and it could easily fall 20% if US-China war appears more likely. What would trigger a full-fledged Taiwan war? We would grow even more alarmed if we saw one of three major developments: Chinese internal instability giving rise to a still more aggressive regime; the US providing Taiwan with offensive military capabilities; or Taiwan seeking formal political independence. The first is fairly likely, the second lends itself to miscalculation, and the third is unlikely. But it would only take one or two of these to increase the war risk dramatically. Bottom Line: The Taiwan Strait is still the critical geopolitical risk and Biden’s policy on China is still unclear. Iranian and North Korean tensions will escalate in the short run but the fundamental crisis lies in Taiwan. Since some kind of showdown is likely and war cannot be ruled out we advise clients to accumulate safe-haven assets like the Japanese yen and otherwise not to bet headlong against the US dollar until it loses momentum. Emerging Markets Round-Up In this section we will briefly update some important emerging market themes and views: Chart 8Favor USMCA Over Putin's Russia Russia: US-Russia tensions are escalating in the face of Biden’s reassertion of the US bid for liberal hegemony, which poses a direct threat to Russia’s influence in eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Ukraine is expected to see a renewed conflict this spring. The top US and Russian military commanders spoke on the phone for the second time this year after Ukrainian military reports indicated that Russia is amassing forces on the border. We also assign a 50/50 chance that the US will use sanctions to prevent the completion of the NordStream II pipeline from Russia to Germany, an event that would shake up the German election as well as provoke a Russian backlash. The Russian ruble has suffered a long slide since Putin’s invasion of Georgia in 2008 and Crimea in 2014 and the country’s currency and equities have not staged much of a comeback amid the global cyclical upswing and commodity price rally post-COVID. We recommend investors favor the Canadian dollar and Mexican peso as oil plays in the context of American stimulus and persistent Russian geopolitical risk (Chart 8). We also favor developed market European stocks over emerging Europe, which will suffer from renewed US-Russia tensions. Brazil: Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro’s domestic political troubles are metastasizing as expected – the rally-around-the-flag effect in the face of COVID-19 has faded and his popular approval rating now looks dangerously like President Trump’s did, relative to previous presidents, which is an ominous warning for the “Trump of the South,” who faces an election in October 2022 (Chart 9). The COVID-19 deaths are skyrocketing, with intensive care units reaching critical levels across the country. The president has reshuffling his cabinet, including all three heads of the military in an unprecedented disruption that compounds fears about his willingness to politicize the military.9 Meanwhile the judicial system looks likely (but not certain) to clear former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva to run against Bolsonaro for the presidency, a potent threat (Chart 10). Bolsonaro’s three pillars of political viability have cracked under the pandemic: the country remains disorderly, the systemic corruption and the “Car Wash” scandal under the former ruling party are no longer at the center of public focus, and fiscal stimulus has replaced structural reform. Chart 9Brazil: Will ‘Trump Of The South’ Face Trump’s Fate? Our Brazilian GeoRisk Indicator has reached a peak with Bolsonaro’s crisis – and likely breaking of the fiscal spending growth cap put in place at the height of the political crisis in 2016 – while Brazilian equities relative to emerging markets have hit a triple bottom (Chart 11). It is too soon for investors to buy into Brazil given that the political upheaval can get worse before it gets better and a Lula administration is no cure for Brazil’s public debt crisis, though a short-term technical rally is at hand. Chart 10Brazil’s Lula Looks To Be A Contender In 2022? Chart 11Brazil: Policy Risk Peaks, Equities Hit Triple-Bottom Versus EM India: A lot has happened since we last updated our views on India, South Asia, and the broader Indian Ocean basin. Farmer protests broke out in India, forcing Prime Minister Narendra Modi to temporarily suspend his much-needed structural reforms to the agricultural sector, while China-backed military coup broke out in Myanmar, and the US election set up a return to negotiations with Iran and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Perhaps the biggest surprise was the Indo-Pakistani ceasefire, despite boiling tensions over India’s decision to make Jammu and Kashmir a federal union territory. The ceasefire is temporary but it does highlight a changing geopolitical dynamic in the region. India and Pakistan ceased fire along the Line of Control where they have fought many times. The ceasefire does not resolve core problems – Pakistan will not stop supporting militant proxies and India will not grant Kashmir autonomy – but it does show their continued ability to manage the intensity of disputes while dealing with the global pandemic. An earlier sign of coordination occurred after the exchange of air strikes in early 2019, which preceded the Indian election and suggested that India and Pakistan had the ability to control their military encounters. India’s move to revoke the autonomy of Jammu and Kashmir in August 2019, along with various militant operations, created the basis for another major conflict this year. After all, the Kargil war in 1999 followed nuclear weaponization, while the 2008 conflict followed the Mumbai attack. But instead India and Pakistan have agreed to a temporary truce. A major India-Pakistan conflict would be a “black swan” as nobody is expecting it at this point. Not coincidentally, India and China also reduced tensions after the flare-up in their Himalayan territorial disputes in 2020. China may be reducing tensions now that it no longer has to distract its population from Trump and the US election. China is shifting its focus to the Myanmar coup, another area where it hopes to parlay its influence with a Biden administration preoccupied with democracy and human rights. Sino-Indian tensions will resume later, especially as China continues its infrastructure construction at the farthest reaches of its territory for the sake of economic stimulus, internal control, and military logistics. The Biden administration is adopting the Trump administration’s efforts to draw India into a democratic alliance. But more urgently it is trying to withdraw from Afghanistan and cut a deal with Iran, which means it will need Indian and Pakistani cooperation and will want India to play a supportive role. Typically India eschews alliances and it will disapprove of Biden’s paternalism. For both China and Pakistan, making a temporary truce with India discourages it from synching up relations with the US immediately. Still, we expect India to cooperate more closely with the US over time, both on economic and security matters. This includes a beefed up “Quad” (Quadrilateral Security Dialogue) with Japan and Australia, which already have strong economic ties with India. Biden’s attempt to frame US foreign policy as a global restoration of democracy and liberalism will not go very far if he alienates the largest democracy in the world and in Asia. Nor will his attempt to diversify the US economy away from China or counter China’s regional assertiveness. Therefore Biden will have to take a supportive role on US-India ties. We are sticking with our contrarian long India / short China equity trade (Chart 12). India cannot achieve its geopolitical goals without reforming its economy and for that very reason it will redouble its structural reform drive, which is supported by changing voting patterns in favor of accelerating nationwide economic development. India will also receive a tailwind from the US and its allies as they seek to diversify production sources and reduce supply chain dependency on China, at least for health, defense, and tech. Meanwhile China’s government is pursing import substitution, deleveraging, and conflict with its neighbors and the United States. While Chinese equities are much cheaper than Indian equities on a P/E basis, they are not as pricey on a P/B and P/S basis (Chart 13) – and valuation trends can continue under the current macro and geopolitical backdrop. Indian equities are more volatile but from a long-term and geopolitical point of view, India’s moment has arrived. Chart 12Contrarian Trade: Stick To Long India / Short China Bottom Line: Stay long Indian equities relative to Chinese and stay short Russian and Brazilian currencies and assets. These views are based on political and geopolitical themes that will remain relevant over the long run but are also seeing short-term confirmation. Chart 13Indian Stocks Not As Over-Priced On Price-To-Book, Price-To-Sales Investment Takeaways To conclude we want to highlight two investment takeaways. First, while the market has rallied in expectation of the US stimulus package, Biden must now get the package passed. This roller coaster process, combined with the inevitable European recovery once the vaccine rollout gets on its feet (Chart 14), will power an additional rally in cyclicals, value stocks, and commodities. This is true as long as China does not tighten monetary and fiscal policy too abruptly, a risk we have highlighted in previous reports. Chart 14Europe's Vaccination Problem While the US is pursuing “Buy American” provisions within its stimulus package, its growing trade deficit shows that it will be forced to import goods and services to meet its surging demand. This is beneficial for its nearest trade partners, Canada and Mexico, and Europe – as well as China substitutes further afield in some cases. Our European Investment Strategist Mathieu Savary has pointed out the opportunities lurking in Europe at a time when vaccine troubles and lockdowns are clouding the medium-term economic view, which is brightening. He recommends going long the “laggard” sectors and sub-sectors that have not benefited much relative to “leaders” that rallied sharply in the wake of last year’s stimulus, vaccine discovery, and defeat of President Trump (Chart 15). The laggard sectors are primed to outperform on rising US interest rates and decelerating Chinese economy as well (Chart 16). Therefore we recommend going long his basket of Euro Area laggards and short the leaders. Chart 15Europe’s Laggards And Leaders Chart 16Macro Forces Favor The Laggards over the Leaders Chart 17Will OPEC 2.0 Maintain Production Discipline To Keep Oil Supplies Tight? Commodities – especially base metals – will continue to benefit from the global and European reopening as well as the US infrastructure buildout, assuming that China does not shoot its economy in the foot. Our Commodity & Energy Strategy highlights that global oil prices should remain in a $60-$80 per barrel range over the coming years on the back of tight supply/demand balances and ongoing OPEC 2.0 production management (Chart 17). We continue to see upside oil price risks in the first half of the year but downside risks in the second half. The US pursuit of a deal with Iran may trigger sparks initially – i.e. unplanned supply outages – but this will be followed by increased supply from Iran and/or OPEC 2.0 as a deal becomes evident.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 White House, "Remarks by President Biden on the American Jobs Plan," Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, March 31, 2021, whitehouse.gov. 2 A bipartisan bill is conceivably, barely, since Republicans face pressure to join with such a popular bill, but they cannot accept the corporate tax hikes, unionization, or green boondoggles that will inevitably occur. 3 The pandemic and President Trump’s hands-off attitude toward it helped galvanize this revival of Big Government, but the revival was already well on its way prior to the pandemic. 4 White House, "Remarks by President Biden in Press Conference," March 25, 2021, whitehouse.gov. 5 Again, "the most dangerous concern is that of a military force against Taiwan," though he implied that Beijing would wait until after the February 2022 Winter Olympics before taking action. He requested that the US urgently increase regional military defense. See Senate Armed Services Committee, "Nomination – Aquilino," March 23, 2021, armed-services.senate.gov. 6 At that time the Soviet Union stationed nuclear missiles in Cuba that threatened the US homeland directly and sent a convoy to make the missile installation permanent. The US imposed a blockade. A showdown ensued, at great risk of war, until the Soviets withdrew and the Americans made some compromises regarding missiles in Turkey. 7 Note that this was not the case for the US in 1962: Cuba did not have special significance for the legitimacy of the American republic and the American regime would have survived a defeat in the showdown, although its security would have been greatly compromised. 8 Taiwan is proposing to buy a missile segment enhancement for its Patriot Advanced Capability-3 missile defense system for delivery in 2025, though this is not yet confirmed by the Biden administration. See for example Yimou Lee, "Taiwan To Buy New U.S. Air Defence Missiles To Guard Against China," Reuters, March 31, 2021, reuters.com. 9 See Monica Gugliano, "I Will Intervene! The Day Bolsonaro Decided To Send Troops To The Supreme Court," Folha de São Paulo, August 2020, piaui.folha.uol.com.br.

Informe especial

The inflation/deflation debate has been dominating the news flow and we are compelled to offer our thoughts in two-part series of Special Reports on this widely discussed, but also widely misunderstood topic. Over the past year, we have been inundated with countless questions about our outlook on inflation given the dual monetary and fiscal stimuli that have been ongoing since Covid-19 hit (Chart 1). We take this opportunity to provide detailed answers on everything inflation in this series of Special Reports. Specifically, in this first report we focus on the long-term and structural forces behind US core CPI inflation. We go in depth into the drivers behind the current deflationary trend and also examine what other variables might break that trend in the future. We also try to ignore the medium-term outlook because the inflation story is well-known as the financial media is littered with charts that slice and dice the ISM manufacturing release in every possible way showing that inflation will rebound. Hence, there is no disagreement about the medium-term path for the core CPI inflation. Chart 12020 Stimuli The important question that we look to answer in this Special Report is whether this rebound is a paradigm shift that will push the US into a new era of consistently high (i.e. above 3%/annum) core CPI inflation, or is it a merely counter trend inflationary spike within the broader deflationary megatrend? Laying The Groundwork Before we wrestle with the structural forces behind inflation, first we must get the question of quantitative easing (QE) and its effects on the real economy and inflation out of the way. Undoubtedly, QE is an integral part of any discussion about the real-word and/or financial asset price inflation, and while it tickles the public’s imagination with hyperinflationary fears, the reality is that those fears are largely misplaced (Chart 2). In fact, pundits have established a consensus: “QE only affects the financial economy as it increases bank reserves that can never escape in the real economy. On the other hand, fiscal stimulus affects the real economy and can cause genuine inflation.” There clearly hasn’t been any material inflation since the GFC, so the argument of “QE only affecting the financial economy” appears to be correct, but at closer look there is room for a different interpretation. What is important to understand is that QE is nothing but a tool, sometimes a signaling tool, in the Fed’s arsenal, and like any tool, it can be used in different ways. Chart 2Boogeyman?  The fact that there has not been any material real-world inflation since the housing bubble is neither because QE is structurally deflationary nor because it “cannot touch” the real economy, but because policy makers chose to use the QE tool to rescue creditors (the financial sector) rather than debtors (the real economy) during the GFC. Delving deeper in the Great Recession, the banks were largely undercapitalized with cash accounting for a tiny portion of overall assets and Treasury holdings being at historic lows (Chart 3). The rest of the assets were tied to loans and other risky securities. Once NINJA loans and other subprime loans along with the derivative CLOs/CDOs house of cards began imploding, the banking sector could not stomach the losses owing to the nonexistent cash buffer, and the entire system went into insolvency mode. This is when the Fed stepped in with QE (and the Treasury with TARP in order to recapitalize the banks) to bail out the nervous system of the US economy by boosting reserves and giving freshly printed money to the banks in exchange for their Treasurys, MBS and other risky securities. By providing support to the banking system, the Fed was counterbalancing a deflationary financial industry shutdown (the Richard Koo balance sheet type recession) rather than injecting an inflationary real economic stimulus. As a result, nearly all of the newly created money was stuck in the financial system in the form of new reserves, and as far as the real economy was concerned, no new money entered directly into the real world. This is how the consensus of “QE only affecting the financial economy” was formed, and why we did not observe a long-lasting rise in CPI despite all of the GFC-brought about stimuli. Chart 3Banks Were Well-capitalized Fast-forward to today, and the backdrop could not be more different. The banking sector was well capitalized, so doing an aggressive QE to boost reserves and to stimulate the financial sector would have only provided marginal benefits. The deflationary shock came through the real economy, not the financial economy, meaning that a real (i.e. fiscal) stimulus was needed. Once again, the QE tool comes to the rescue. This time however, QE was also used to finance Main Street stimulus programs as the Fed bought long dated Treasury (and other) securities that pushed interest rates to rock bottom levels and helped facilitate government stimulus spending. Consequently, a more meaningful fraction of QE money reached Main Street and had an effect on the real economy and was not just locked in new reserves. As a reminder, when rates fall to zero and the Fed embarks on QE, the lines between monetary and fiscal policies get blurred. When QE (instead of the foreign or private sectors) is used to facilitate government expenditures, which later on gets distributed into the real economy, QE can provide inflationary support and can reach the real economy. Chart 42008 Versus Today Perhaps the best way to illustrate the difference between 2008 and 2020 is by showing M2 money supply data. The spike in M2 data in 2020 dwarfs the one in 2008; in 2020 QE money reached the real economy and ended up in private sector’s bank accounts (thus contributing to M2 growth), whereas in 2008 QE money was mainly locked in bank reserves. True the money multiplier and M2 money stock velocity are still in hibernation, and were we to see a sustainable inflationary impulses both of these indicators would have to show signs of life (Chart 4). So does this mean that there are grounds for longer-term inflationary concerns since in 2020 QE actually reached the real economy? To answer this question, we now dig deeper into the secular inflation forces and split them in two camps: pro-inflationary and anti-inflationary. Pro-Inflationary Driver #1: The Buenos Aires Consensus Our view since last June has been that fiscal deficits are here to stay as far as the eye can see and the shift from the Washington to the Buenos Aires Consensus1 is a paradigm shift with staying power. The most important long-term consequence of the Buenos Aires Consensus will be higher inflation. And we are not talking just the asset price kind – which investors have enjoyed over the past decade – but of the more traditional flavor: consumer price inflation. Crudely put, as long as fiscal support remains in place (proverbial helicopter drop, Chart 5) after the pandemic is long forgotten it can serve as a meaningful catalyst for structural inflation, instead of being a one-off counterbalancing short-term boost. To reiterate just how much more powerful fiscal spending is outside of a recession, we conduct a labor market analysis and show that a large percentage of the present-day stimulus is being used to counterbalance the deflationary pandemic shock, rather than contributing to driving inflation higher. Table 1 shows our proxy for total payroll losses incurred by America households as a direct result of the pandemic. Our estimate is $501 billion from March 2020 until today. Chart 5Helicopter Checks The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget also publishes detailed statistics on the dollar flow of every pandemic stimulus program to a specific economic sector. As of today, US households received $1,400 billion, but some of the stimulus categories simply defer a payment that households still have to make in the future, instead of injecting brand-new money. After stripping those categories out, we arrive to a cleaner number of roughly $1,000 billion – that is how much new money US households received. Next, we subtract our total payroll loss proxy resulting into a net inflow of approximately $500 billion or 2.3% of 2020 US GDP. This is a respectable sum and 2.3% is significant. However, it has one major drawback. The 2.3% GDP stimulus number assumes that every single dollar was actually spent into the real economy, which we know is not true. Table 1The Counterbalancing Effect A recent New York Fed study on how American households used their stimulus money concluded that: “36.4% of the stimulus money was used to boost savings, 34.5% to paydown debt, 25.9% was spent on essentials and non-essentials, and finally the rest of the money (3.2%) was donated”. It is worth noting that this study also looked at the expected spending patterns for the new round of stimulus checks, and the results were generally the same. To obtain a more realistic number of how much of the net $500 billion inflow actually entered the economy, we multiply it by 25.9% (how much money was used on spending according to the NY Fed) and arrive at a better estimate of $130 billion or 0.6% of 2020 US GDP, which is by no means an astronomical number that will shatter into pieces the current deflationary megatrend. This empirical exercise demonstrated how a large percentage of the present-day stimulus is being used to counterbalance the deflationary pandemic shock. However, if our thesis of a Buenos Aires Consensus in which governments spend even outside of recessions pans out, then there will not be the aforementioned counterbalancing effect, and all the fiscal dollars will go straight to contributing to rising inflation until the deflationary megatrend is broken. Pro-Inflationary Driver #2: Demographics In the long run, inflation tends to oscillate alongside a country’s demographics. More specifically, it is the relative size of the three age cohorts (young, working-age, and old) that plays a key role in driving inflation. People who are in the working-age cohort are at their peak productivity, which implies that their contribution to the production of goods and services is greater than the demand for new credit they generate, meaning that they produce a deflationary pull. The opposite is true for the other two age cohorts (the young and the old). Neither one is contributing to the production of goods & services, while both still generate new credit in the economy (for example student loans), and the end result is an inflationary pull. Hence, it is the interplay between these three age cohorts that serves as a structural force behind inflation. To put some numbers behind this conceptual framework, we turn our attention to a paper “The enduring link between demography and inflation” written by Mikael Juselius and Előd Takáts. In the paper, the authors conduct rigorous cross-country analysis and find that indeed, people 30-60 years of age (the working-age cohort) exert deflationary pressure, while the other two cohorts contribute to rising inflation. Chart 6 plots the age-structure effect for the US against inflation. The authors also quantified that over the 40-year period (1970-2010) the increase in the working-age population (due to baby-boomers) has lowered inflationary pressures by almost five percentage points in the US (Chart 7). Meanwhile, by extrapolating the likely path of demographic data by 40 years (2010-2050), the authors observed a shift from deflationary to inflationary age pressure mainly due to the incoming increase in the proportion of the old cohort. Their estimate of the expected pull on inflation in the US will be approximately two and a half percent (Chart 8). Chart 6Demographics Are A Mighty Force Chart 7From Deflationary... Chart 8...To Inflationary Going forward, US demographics will be more inflationary than deflationary. Pro-Inflationary Driver #3: De-Globalization The “apex of globalization” or “de-globalization” is our third pro-inflationary driver. We have written about this theme extensively at BCA Research and it is the mega-theme of our sister Geopolitical Strategy (GPS) service. Odds are high that countries will continue looking inward as the US sustains its aggressive trade policy, China’s trend growth slows, and US-China strategic tensions intensify. Chart 9 shows that we are at the conclusion of a period of tranquility. Pax Americana underpinned globalization as much as Pax Britannica before it. The US is in a relative decline after decades of geopolitical stability allowed countries like China to rise to “great power” status and rivals like Russia to recover from the chaos of the 1990s. Chart 9The Tide Is Turning De-globalization has become the consensus since the election of Donald Trump. But Trump is not the prophet of de-globalization; he is its acolyte. And now, President Biden is continuing in Trump’s footsteps. Globalization is ending because of structural factors, not cyclical ones. And its decline was pre-written into its “source code.” Three factors stand at the center of this assessment, first outlined in a 2014 GPS Special Report, “The Apex Of Globalization – All Downhill From Here”: multipolarity, populism and protectionism. Events have since confirmed this view. The three pillars of globalization are the free movement of goods, capital, and people across national borders. We expect to see marginally less of each in the future and this should prove inflationary. Pro-Inflationary Driver #4: US Dollar Bear Market The path of least resistance is lower for the US dollar and it represents our final pro-inflationary driver. Chart 10 highlights the ebbs and flows of the trade-weighted US dollar since it floated in the early-1970s. The DXY index has moved in six-to-ten year bull and bear markets. The most recent trough was during the depths of the Great Recession, while the peak was in early-2020. If history repeats, eventually the dollar will mean revert lower in the 2020s, especially given the fiscal profligacy (Buenos Aires Consensus) of the current administration that may continue into 2024. Chart 10Time For A Downcycle? True, the US dollar remains the global reserve currency, but that exorbitant privilege is clearly fraying on the edges as the balance-of-payments dynamics are heading in the wrong direction. While the US Congressional Budget Office (CBO) expects some normalization in the US budget deficit over the next 4 years since the pandemic shock will be over, looking further into the future the CBO forecasts a further reacceleration in deficit spending. Assuming a stable to grinding lower current account deficit in the next several years, the path of least resistance is lower for the currency. BCA’s US dollar model also corroborates the twin deficit message and suggests ample structural downside for the USD (Chart 11).  The apex of globalization will also hurt the greenback in a reflexive manner. In a world where all the markets are integrated, borrowers in EM nations often use the reserve currency to issue liabilities at a lower cost. This boosts the demand by EM central banks for US dollar reserves to protect domestic banking systems funded in USD. Moreover, some countries like China implement pegs (both official and unofficial) to the US dollar in order to maintain their competitiveness and export their production surpluses to the US. To do so they buy US assets. If the global economy becomes more fragmented and the Sino-US relationship continues to deteriorate structurally as we expect, then these sources of demand for the dollar will recede. Overlay the widening US current account deficit, and you have the perfect recipe for a depreciating trade-weighted US dollar. Importantly, the 1970s is an interesting period to examine in more detail. As the Nixon administration floated the greenback this aggravated the inflationary pressures (Chart 12) that were building all along the 1960s when the US adopted the Mutually Assured Destruction Doctrine along with the Cold War space race that eventually saw the US landing on the moon in 1969. Chart 11A Bearish Outlook Chart 12The Greenback In The 1970s A lower greenback is synonymous with rising commodity and import prices and given that the US is the consumer of last resort (70% PCE), the commodity/import price pendulum will swing from a deflationary to an inflationary force. Anti-Inflationary Driver #1: Technology’s Creative Destruction Schumpeter’s “creative destruction” forces dominate technology companies in general and Silicon Valley in particular, and represent our fist anti-inflationary driver. These creative destruction forces in the tech industry are inherently deflationary. As a result, tech business models have evolved to thrive during disinflationary periods. Chart 13 shows the software sector deflator derived from national accounts, and since the mid-1980s more often than not it has been mired in deflation. US semiconductor prices, computer hardware prices, and almost any tech related category from the PCE, PPI and CPI releases looks more or less the same as software, underscoring that this is a technology sector wide modus operandi. More recently, Uber Technologies and Airbnb, to name a few, continually bring existing capacity online and that adds another layer of deflation forces at work in select industries they operate in. Tack on technology infiltrating finance and soon the extremely opaque health care services industry that comprises almost 20% of US GDP or $4tn and a deflationary impulse will likely reverberate across these large segments of the US economy that have managed to sustain high pricing power over the decades. Chart 13Technological Progress Is Deflationary Thus, these creative destruction processes remain alive and well in tech land and will continue to exert deflationary/disinflationary pressure (of the good kind) on the US economy. Anti-Inflationary Driver #2: Income & Wealth Inequality The growing trend in income and wealth inequality is our second anti-inflationary force. We first want to focus on the issue of income inequality as it leads to wealth inequality. Income inequality refers to the distribution of wages and profits generated by the economy. It is the proverbial “share of the pie” that households from different socioeconomic brackets receive. The link with inflation comes through the marginal propensity to save statistic of those different brackets. Lower income households have nearly nonexistent propensity to save as they live paycheck to paycheck. Therefore, any additional income inflow they receive gets immediately syphoned into the real economy. In contrast, the top 10% have a high propensity to save as all of their living expenses are well covered, so any additional income they receive is stashed away into savings and does not enter the real economy. This is why following the Trump’s tax cut that benefitted the top 10% there has not been a durable spike in CPI inflation. The fact that in the US the income share of the top 10% is growing at stratospheric rates at the same as time as the bottom 90% are struggling to cover even a $400 unexpected expense needs no introduction. The exact reasons as to why that happened would require a separate Special Report, but one of the main reasons is the multi-decade suppression of unions, which does not allow employees to bargain effectively for a larger slice of corporate profits. Given that profits are an exact mirror image of labor expenses, it is not surprising that the union movement is being marginalized (Charts 14 & 15). Staying on the topic of inflation, as we already outlined, when the lower and medium socioeconomic brackets receive more income, it does not disappear in the savings accounts, but instead it is redirected into the real economy causing a healthy inflationary uptick. Chart 14No Power = No Money Chart 15The Tug Of War​​​​​​​ Chart 16 shows the wealth share of the top 10% of American households on inverted scale. Since the 1920s, inflation and the wealth share of the top 10% has moved in opposite directions. There were two distinct periods when the wealth share of the bottom 90% rose: from the early 1930s until the early 1950s, and from the mid-1960s until the mid-1980s. Both of these periods were accompanied by rising CPI inflation. Chart 16Wealth Equality Is Inflationary At the same time, when looking at any other period outside of those golden days for the bottom 90%, US inflation was anemic. This empirical evidence further underscores the importance of income and wealth distribution in the economy, and given the current US political and economic realities, we do not expect any material changes in labor dynamics to take root. The top 10% will continue benefitting at the expense of the bottom 90%, which will keep US CPI inflation suppressed. Concluding Thoughts In this Special Report our goal was to look beyond the already known medium term inflation outlook, and present both sides of the argument about the long-term inflation trend. We took a deep dive into six structural forces behind inflation that we identified. Four of those forces were pro-inflationary, while the remaining two were anti-inflationary (Table 2). We also assigned a value on our subjective strength scale for each force. Each value incorporates how quickly a particular force will come to fruition, and how strong it will be over the next 5-to-10 year period. Based on our analysis, we conclude that there are rising odds that the deflationary megatrend has run its course and has reached an inflection point of turning inflationary. Table 2Inflation Dots In the next Special Report from our Tinkering With Inflation series, we will conduct a thought experiment and explore a world in which our forecasts prove to be accurate, and a new inflationary paradigm engulfs the US economy. Under such a backdrop what will the US equity sector winners and losers, especially given the related shift in the stock-to-bond correlation? Stay tuned.   Arseniy Urazov Research Associate ArseniyU@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1     Buenos Aires Consensus is our catchall term for everything that is opposite of the Washington Consensus: less globalization, fiscal stimulus as far as the eyes can see, erosion of central bank independence, and a dirigiste (as opposed to laissez-faire) approach to economics that seeks to protect “state champions,” stifles innovation, and ultimately curbs productivity growth.

Informe especial

Dear client, Next week, in lieu of our weekly report, I will be hosting a webcast on Tuesday, March 30 at 9:00 am HKT and Tuesday, March 30 at 10:00 am EDT. In the webcast, I will share our outlook on China’s post-pandemic economic and policy dynamics. Best regards, Jing Sima, China Strategist   Highlights China is aiming for a massive adoption of new energy vehicles (NEVs) to help achieve its 2030 peak carbon dioxide emissions target. The country’s NEV share of total vehicle sales will likely rise significantly to 40% in 2030, from only 5.4% in 2020. This will translate into a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 24%-25% in Chinese NEV sales in this decade. China will become increasingly competitive and important in the global NEV supply chain. The country will maintain its leading position in global electric vehicle battery production while reducing its dependence on imported auto chips.   The Chinese NEV production/sales boom will likely reduce the country’s crude oil consumption while increasing the country’s copper demand during 2021-2030. It will also impact more positively on nickel and lithium demand than on cobalt demand. The Chinese NEV stocks could be a good long-term investment, but we recommend waiting for a better entry point. Feature China's production and sales of new energy vehicles (NEVs) have ranked first in the world for six consecutive years. The country’s NEV sales quadrupled during 2015-2020, propelled by supporting policies such as significant amounts of subsidies to buyers.  We believe China will continue to be the leader in both global NEV sales and production this decade. The country’s NEV production and sales will get supercharged by continuing favorable polices and increasing consumers’ interest in NEVs. Many market-driven factors, including falling NEV prices, longer driving range per charge, rapid expansion in the NEV charging/battery-swapping network, as well as new functions including autonomous driving and more software applications-based services, will accelerate NEV adoption in China during 2021-2030. According to the country’s NEV development roadmap, the NEV share of total vehicle sales in China aims to rise to at least 40% in 2030, from only 5.4% in 2020. This will likely translate to a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 24%-25% in Chinese NEV sales in this decade. In 2030, the NEV sales in units could be eight to nine times its 2020 level, rising from 1.37 million units to 12-13 million units (Chart 1). Benefiting from the massive scale of the domestic NEV market, China will become increasingly competitive and important in the global NEV supply chain. The country will maintain its leading position in global electric vehicle battery production while reducing its dependence on imported auto chips. The Chinese NEV production/sales boom will help reduce transportation fuel consumption, leading to less carbon dioxide emissions (Chart 2).  Chart 1Chinese NEV Sales: A Supercharged Decade Ahead Chart 2China: Booming NEV Sales Reduce Oil Demand, Leading To Less CO2 Emissions In addition, the country’s copper demand will likely be increase due to booming NEV production during 2021-2030. Meanwhile, the impact will be more positive on nickel and lithium demand than on cobalt demand. Given such  significant growth ahead for the Chinese NEV market, we believe Chinese NEV-related stocks are a potential good buy, but we recommend waiting for a better entry point.   China’s NEV Market: A Supercharged Decade Chinese NEV market is entering a supercharged decade (Box 1). Box 1 Our Forecast Of China’s NEV Sales In 2030 Our estimates of China’s NEV sales in 2030 were derived from two assumptions. First, we assume the NEV share of total Chinese automobile sales in 2030 to be 40%. Based on last October’s report, “Technology Roadmap 2.0 for Energy-Saving and New Energy Vehicles,” published by the China Society of Automotive Engineers (China-SAE), the China-SAE projects that NEVs will account for at least 40% of total automobile sales in China in 2030. The China-SAE is under the supervision of the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT). Second, as car ownership – the share of households owning one car – has already risen to over 50% in China, we assume the CAGR of the country’s automobile sales will slow to 1.5%-2.5% in the next decade from 3.4% in the past decade. Based on this assumption, China’s automobile annual sales will likely increase to 29-32 million units in 2030. What Are The Underlying Drivers For Such Significant Growth? First, the interest in buying a NEV is rapidly growing in China. In a September 2020 survey done by Roland Berger, 80% of surveyed potential car buyers in China were considering buying an electric vehicle as their next car, the highest among major economies (Chart 3). Last year, this surveyed number for China was only 60%. We believe this shift in buying intention will continue and will consequently translate into a boom in NEV sales during 2021-2030. NEV battery costs have decreased by nearly 90% since 2010 and will continue to fall (Chart 4). This will drive down average NEV selling prices as the battery in general accounts 40-45% of the total production cost of NEVs, thereby making them more appealing to buyers. Chart 3China: Rising Interest In NEV Purchases Chart 4NEV Battery Costs Will Continue To Fall The average driving range per charge for NEVs will continue to rise. The average driving mileage per charge in China has nearly doubled, from 190km in 2016 to 360km in 2019.1 Currently, a growing proportion of NEV vehicles on the market can even achieve a mileage of 600km and above with a single charge. This is already comparable to traditional gasoline-powered vehicles, which can also cover approximately 600km per fuel tank.  More models with a wide range of selling prices will soon be on the market. Last June, the cheapest electric car with a selling price of only RMB 28,800 (about US$4,000) was released into the Chinese market. Since then the sales of this model have quickly surpassed the Tesla Model 3 to become the hottest seller in China. This shows consumer enthusiasm for affordable NEVs. In the meantime, the success of Tesla electric cars in China demonstrated Chinese consumers’ strong interest in high-quality and expensive NEVs. Chart 5China Has The Most NEV Models In The World Chart 5 shows that China is the country with most electric vehicle models in the world. The number of available electric vehicle models  was 227 in China in 2019, significantly higher than all other individual countries. According to McKinsey, more than 250 new battery electric vehicle (BEV) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) models will be introduced in the next two years alone. Most of these models will likely be sold in China, adding more purchase options for Chinese consumers. Faster charging time for EV batteries as well as expanding charging/battery-swapping networks are in the making. This will greatly reduce recharge waiting time for NEV drivers. Chart 6Chinese NEV Charging Infrastructure: The Rapid Expansion Will Continue Based on the data from the China Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Promotion Alliance (EVCIPA), the number of both public and private charging poles has increased significantly from 2015 to 2020. In addition,  the number of private ones has already exceeded the number of public ones each year since 2017 (Chart 6). The rapid expansion in the country’s charging station network will continue. The number of total charging poles will likely rise from 1.7 million units to the government’s target of 5 million units in 2025. In addition, Wood Mackenzie last May forecasted this number could reach 9.8 million units in 2030. Roland Berger last September reported that the number of charging locations per 100 km of roadway was about 6.1 in China, significantly higher than 2.2 in Germany and 0.5 in the US (Chart 7). In terms of the number of charging stations per 1000 NEVs, China has also significantly exceeded other major automobile producing countries (Chart 8). Chart 7The Number Of Charging Locations Per 100 km Of Roadway Is Higher In China Than In Many Other Countries… Chart 8…The Same Is True Of The Number Of Charging Stations Per 1,000 NEVs Meanwhile, the Chinese government is also promoting an expansion of battery-swapping networks. The Chinese auto manufacturer Nio has been the leader in this area. The company currently has a network of 178 battery-swapping stations located in and between major cities such as Beijing and Shenzhen; by the end of the year, it plans to have 500 stations. The battery-swapping time for the Nio EV now can be as fast as 90 seconds, even faster than fueling up with gasoline. EVs will become increasingly equipped with functions such as autonomous driving and more software applications-based services. EVs will also become more integrated with intelligent and interactive networks. All these features will make EVs more attractive to automobile buyers.  Second, with the 2030 target for peak emissions, the Chinese authorities will likely continue to develop favorable polices for the domestic NEV sector. China’s key policy support tools for NEVs include tax reductions, direct subsidies to manufacturers, consumer subsidies, and mandated government procurements. In the past, China has provided immense support for NEVs by spending billions of dollars on direct subsidies to manufacturers2 and on consumer subsidy programs.3 In the future, the country’s policy focus will be on NEV charging/battery-swapping network development as well as on NEV-related technology research and investment. For example, since 2019, auto manufacturers have received credits for each NEV produced. The credits take into consideration factors such as the type of vehicle, as well as its maximum speed, energy consumption, weight, and range. This measure will encourage NEV automakers to put more emphasis on technological change. These government supports of technology and network development, coupled with strong interest in NEV purchases by domestic consumers, should offset the impact of the government’s reduced direct subsidies for NEV production and sales. China has reduced overall direct subsidies to both NEV manufacturers and consumers, and vehicles must meet minimum technical and performance criteria to qualify. In 2021, subsidies will be reduced by 20% on NEVs for personal use, and by 10% on NEVs for public transport, including buses and taxis, from their respective 2020 level. In addition, NEV subsidies and tax exemptions will expire at the end of 2022 and subsidies will be limited to 2 million NEVs per year from 2020 to 2022. A vehicle price limit for passenger cars of CNY300,000 has also been introduced. The NEV subsidy level is currently less in China than in European countries as well as in the US, showing the Chinese NEV market’s diminishing dependence on subsidies. Bottom Line: The country’s NEV production and sales will get supercharged by continuing favorable polices and by increasing consumer interest in NEVs during 2021-2030. We expect China’s NEV sales to reach 12 to 13 million units in 2030, eight to nine times its 2020 level of 1.37 million units. Growing China’s Competitiveness In The Global NEV Supply Chain The global NEV market has two main subsectors – plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV) and battery electric vehicles (BEV). The former can be operated in either the electric-powered mode or internal-combustion engines (ICE) mode. The BEVs can only run in electric mode and are also called pure electric vehicles. Traditional ICE vehicle manufacturers from Europe, US, Japan, and South Korea have more competitive advantages in the global PHEV subsector supply chain due to their long-term dominance in the global traditional ICE vehicle market. Chart 9BEVs Account For Over 80% Of Chinese NEV Sales China has been putting more focus on the new BEV market as it has enabled a level playing field with traditional ICE vehicle players. Hence, China has stronger competitiveness in the global BEV subsector. BEVs account for approximately 82% of Chinese NEV sales (Chart 9). According to China-SAE, this ratio could reach 95% by 2035 as China will increase its development of the BEV market and the adoption of BEV vehicle options.   We expect China’s competitiveness will continue to grow along the global NEV supply chain, especially in the BEV subsector. Having the largest domestic NEV market in the world gives China the advantage of attracting NEV manufacturers and building a more integrated global supply chain. During 2017-2020, accumulated world NEV sales were about 8.8 million units, with the largest share of 49% coming from China, higher than 31% for Europe and 14% for the US (Chart 10).   China is the largest NEV battery producer in the global NEV supply chain. The battery is the most important component of a NEV, and its technological progress holds the key to transitioning away from fossil fuel dependence. Data shows that six out of the world’s top ten NEV battery producers are Chinese companies, together accounting for 41% of global battery sales in kwh last year (Chart 11). Chinese company CATL has been the largest NEV battery producer for the past four years. Chart 10China Has The Largest NEV Market In The World Chart 11Chinese Companies: Major Players In The Global NEV Battery Market The development of charging/battery-swapping infrastructure will continue to be faster in China than in other countries/regions due to the country’s much larger scale of EV users and related policy support. This allows China to collect more NEV charging-related data, which may be used to improve the country’s NEV manufacturing process, charging pole production, and the country’s charging infrastructure development.  The development of the 5G network is much more advanced in China than in any other countries. This allows NEV makers to work closely with IT/internet companies such as Huawei, Baidu, Tencent and Alibaba to test integrated applications such as the autonomous driving and AI functions of NEVs. This will help promote the technology advancement related to NEVs in all aspects in China. Chart 12Chinas NEV Net Exports Are Set To Go Up Due to its competitive advantages, China has become a net exporter of electric vehicles (Chart 12). In 2019, Chinese NEV sales abroad accounted for only 1.7% of the world total in US dollar terms, far below the US (31%), Germany (15%), and South Korea (9%). We expect growing competitiveness will allow China to gain share in global NEV exports. The area China needs to work on the most along the NEV supply chain is the design/manufacturing of automotive chips. There is still no Chinese company among the top ten global auto chip semiconductor companies based on sales revenue (Chart 13). Chart 13China’s Greatest Weaknesses Lie In Automotive Chip Design/Manufacturing Non-Chinese companies account for about 90% of the global auto chip supply while China contributes no more than 5%. The current automotive chip shortage has done much more severe damage to automakers in China than in any other country. Bloomberg recently reported the global auto industry might lose US$61 billion of 2021 sales from chip shortages, with 42% of the losses from China. In the recent National People’s Congress, the Chinese government reiterated the importance of addressing this weak link, with an urgency on reducing the country’s dependence on foreign auto chips. Bottom Line: China will become globally more competitive in the NEV supply chain. Impact On Commodity Markets The evolution in China’s NEV markets in this decade will have various impacts on commodities such as crude oil, copper, nickel, cobalt, and lithium. During 2021-2030, massive NEV adoption will only modestly reduce Chinese crude oil consumption for the transportation sector, while significant growth in NEV/charging pole/battery production will increase the country’s copper demand. Meanwhile, as NEV battery production requires raw materials including nickel, cobalt and lithium, rapid growth in NEV battery production will also have different impacts on these commodity markets.    Crude oil: In 2019, the total number of vehicles in China was 252.6 million units and the country’s total gasoline and diesel consumption was about 6,800 thousand barrels per day (kbpd) of crude oil equivalent. This equals 26.7 kbpd per 1000 vehicles. Annual NEV sales in China will rise from 1.37 million units in 2020 to about 12 million units in 2030. Assuming all these NEVs are only using their electric battery, this will cut oil consumption/imports by an increasing amount every year, ranging from 50 kbpd in 2021 to 320 kbpd in 2030. The reduction from increased NEV sales will have a relatively minuscule impact on China’s total crude oil imports. A 50-kbpd reduction in 2021 would account for less than half a percent of China’s 2020 crude oil imports. By 2030, this number could potentially rise to 1-3%, but is still insignificant. Copper: An average gasoline powered car uses only about 20kg of copper, while a hybrid car uses about 40 kg and a fully electric car uses roughly 80kg. In addition, NEV batteries and charging station chargers also require copper. Table 1 shows our rough calculation of the copper demand from the expansion of Chinese NEV market. Chinese copper demand may increase by 210 thousand tons in 2021 and by about 1,500 thousand tons in 2030. To put this into perspective, China consumed about 15 million tons of copper in 2020 based on World Bureau of Metal Statistics (WBMS) data. The increase in copper demand in 2021 is only 1.4% of 2020 copper consumption in China. However, when it increases to 1,500 thousand tons in 2030, it will account for 10% of China’s current copper consumption. Table 1China's Copper Demand Due To EV Adoption In 2021 And 2030 Chart 14Chinas NEV Boom Will Have A More Positive Impact On Nickel And Lithium Demand Than On Cobalt Demand Nickel: The NEV battery technology is on a trend to reduce the use of cobalt given its high price and limited supply, while increasing the use of nickel. This will be a long-term positive factor for nickel prices (Chart 14, top panel). Cobalt: EV battery makers are trying to reduce or even avoid the use of cobalt. In the next couple of years, the demand for cobalt will likely remain strong as the technology of non-cobalt batteries is still in the developing stage. Non-cobalt batteries in development include solid-state , lithium-sulphur, sodium-ion and lithium-air batteries. However, cobalt prices may face increasing headwinds in the longer term (Chart 14, middle panel). Lithium: Lithium is a very abundant mineral produced from either brines or hard rock sources, with products from clays also in the pipeline. There is no structural constraint on global lithium production. Lithium prices may remain elevated in the near term but as the supply catches up over a longer run, we expect lithium prices to go down (Chart 14, bottom panel). Bottom Line: The massive growth in the Chinese NEV market in this decade will have a small negative impact on crude oil demand and a more positive impact on commodity demand such as copper, nickel, cobalt, and lithium. However, cobalt may face a substitution risk due to its elevated prices while lithium may face the risk of increasing supply. Investment Implications On NEV-related Stocks Chart 15The Chinese NEV stocks: A Good Long-term Investment, But We Recommend Waiting For A Better Entry Point We believe share prices of the Chinese NEV makers and NEV battery producers will deliver considerable positive long-term returns. The basis for this assumption is that many of them will experience strong revenue growth over this decade. While NEV maker stock prices have recently fallen considerably, we think they are still overpriced and recommend waiting for a better entry point (Chart 15).    Ellen JingYuan He     Associate Vice President ellenj@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1Source: “Technology Roadmap 2.0 for Energy-Saving and New Energy Vehicles,” released on October 27, 2020 by the China Society of Automotive Engineers (China-SAE). 2For example, as part of China’s 2012 “Energy-Saving and New Energy Vehicle Industry Development Plan (2012–2020),” the central government allocated over $15 billion to support the development of energy-efficient vehicles and NEVs, pilot car projects, and electric vehicle infrastructure. Source: "Chinese Government Support for New Energy Vehicles as a Trade Battleground", published by The National Bureau of Asian Research" on September 27, 2017. 3For example, the central government had provided 60,000 yuan (approximately $8,700) and 50,000 yuan (approximately $7,250) per car in subsidies for electric vehicles and plug-in hybrid vehicles, respectively, covering 40%–60% of the cost of the vehicle. Local governments also created their own subsidy programs that provided additional discounts for NEV purchases through cash subsidies, free parking, or free license plates. Source: "Chinese Government Support for New Energy Vehicles as a Trade Battleground", published by The National Bureau of Asian Research" on September 27, 2017. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations