アメリカ合衆国

Highlights 2022 has had a rough start for equity investors: the S&P 500 is now down 8% from its peak, and NASDAQ is officially in correction territory.  The question on everyone’s mind is how long this correction will last, and whether it is the right time to start buying beaten-up Tech stocks. Looking “under the hood” of the NASDAQ, we observe that with the technology space being top-heavy and dominated by the likes of Microsoft and Apple, index returns mask the heavy losses of some of the smaller, and less profitable, constituents, with many down 40-50% from their peaks.  Analysis of the market breadth shows that three-quarters of NASDAQ names are trading below their one-week highs, which, according to our analysis, indicates that Tech is (almost) ripe for a bounce back. However, the sector is currently under duress from rising rates and imminent monetary tightening.  Historically, Tech’s worst performance was two to three months prior to the first rate hike – the current pullback is a “textbook” behavior.  It will take another couple of months after the rate hike for a sustainable rebound. In addition to headwinds from rising rates, there is also an ongoing slowdown in demand for tech products and services, which translates into a deceleration of earnings and sales growth. On the valuations front, Technology is trading with a significant premium to the market, while its expected earnings growth is on par with that of the S&P 500. We recommend investors to be patient: While Tech appears oversold, and recent volatility is a function of market panic, the stars have not yet aligned for the sector.  We are tactically bearish but structurally bullish. Feature 2022 has had a rough start for equity investors: Since the beginning of January, the S&P 500 has pulled back 8%.  Market consensus is that this violent rotation is a repricing of risk, triggered by the Fed’s new hawkish stance aimed at taming the runaway inflation that has surged to a nearly 40-year high. The market expects the first rate hike as soon as March, followed by three more into the year-end. It is also grappling with the timing and degree of quantitative tightening (QT), which will follow on the heels of tapering. Energy and Financials are the only sectors in the green so far this year, with Real Estate, Healthcare, and Tech being hit the hardest (Chart 1). Internet Retail is down almost 20% from its local peak in mid-2021 and Interactive Media, home of Facebook, is down 11%. NASDAQ is officially in correction territory (Chart 2). Rising rates have hit growth and interest-rate-sensitive areas of the market the hardest. While these negative returns indicate a sharp pullback, they don’t do justice to how painful this correction has been, as much of it was happening under the radar. The S&P 500 and many of its tech-related sectors and industries are top-heavy, being home to FAANG+M, which has proven to be more immune to rising rates.  It is the smaller growth companies that have fallen much more than the top-line number indicates, with many down 40-50% from their peaks. However, now with more than 58% of stocks in the NASDAQ trading below their 30-week moving average, the natural question is: “Are we there yet?” or how much longer will this sell-off last? There are early signs of bottom-fishing among the stocks and industries hit hardest. Yet most days, both the S&P 500 and the NASDAQ start in the green, only to finish splattering to a new low (Chart 3). Chart 3Mega-cap Tech Has Fallen But Less Than Small-cap Brethren In this report, we will aim to gauge when the sell-off in tech names will have run its course by focusing on the S&P 500 Technology sector.    Also in today’s publication, we will reverse our usual course of analysis: We will start from the technicals as they are most helpful for timing entry points, and we will follow with macro and fundamentals.   Tech Sector Is Top Heavy The S&P 500 Technology sector is top-heavy, with each industry group dominated by one of the tech giants, such as Microsoft in Software and Services, Apple in Hardware and Equipment, and Nvidia in Semiconductors. We call this trio “MAN.” The MAN accounts for 50% of the S&P 500 Technology sector market capitalization (Chart 4). As a result, both sector performance and valuation are heavily affected by index composition.  To unpack what is going on within the Tech sector, we plotted the dispersion of last month’s performance within the sector through a market cap bucket, with the first bucket containing the MANs. The last couple of buckets, 10 and 11, contain some of the smallest stocks in the index. Unsurprisingly, the largest stocks in the sector have not fallen that much. The correction has most affected stocks in buckets 7 through 11, with a market cap of between $8 to $33 billion, and these are the names that may be most tempting for “bottom-fishing.” Technicals It Is A Blood Bath Out There A useful indicator of market breadth, allowing us a look under the hood”, is the percentage of stocks making new lows – which currently stands at nearly 75% (Chart 5). This is a high reading which has happened only 11% of the months since 2000.  However, once this metric rises above 85%, it indicates that the market is oversold.  When that happens, the Tech sector outperforms the S&P 500 by around 7% over the next six months, and returns are positive every month (Chart 6).  Based on this indicator, the NASDAQ in general, and Tech in particular, are close to the oversold conditions and are ready for a bounce.  Chart 5Pullback In Tech Stocks Is Broad-based However, the BCA Technical Indicator for the sector (Chart 7) is still in neutral territory. It is driven primarily by momentum components: It gauges the trend in equities and determines if the market is at an extreme in terms of momentum or investor psychology.  This indicator is highly affected by the performance of the largest index constituents. All in all, we conclude that from a technical standpoint, the Tech sector is getting closer to a rebound. Chart 7The Technical Indicator Is In The Neutral Territory Macroeconomic Backdrop New Rate Hiking Cycle Will Take Time Getting Used To Ok, Tech is oversold. Yet there is still the not-so-small matter of a new, tighter monetary regime. How does Tech fare in the environment of rising rates? Clearly, not so good so far. However, the question is, how long will it take for the higher rates to be priced in, and for Tech to rebound. To answer this question, we have run another empirical study, anchoring the performance of the Tech sector to the beginning of each hiking cycle since 1996 (Charts 8 and 9).   According to our analysis, Tech’s worst performance is two to three months prior to the first rate hike – the current pullback in Tech is a perfect illustration. While we may expect a rebound rally “when the second shoe drops” and the Fed announces the first hike, it appears that a sustainable rally may still be a couple of months away. Based on this analysis, we conclude that it will pay off to be patient and wait until the summer. It Is The Economy, Stupid! Apart from the headwind from rising rates, there is also an ongoing slowdown in demand for Tech Business Investment (Chart 10). Moreover, the Tech New Orders Index peaked at a high level at the end of 2021 and has recently turned (Chart 11). So has Private Tech Investment (Chart 12).  This indicates that demand is waning following the surge that accompanied the most recent push to digital transformation—which was accelerated by the onset of the pandemic.   Chart 10Slowdown In Tech Business Investment Chart 11Tech New Orders Have Peaked Chart 12Private Tech Investment Is Also Slowing The macroeconomic backdrop is unfavorable for the Tech Sector Fundamentals Sales And Earnings Growth Are Slowing While the Tech sector enjoyed a fantastic sales recovery in 2021, with sales growth exceeding pre-pandemic levels, this year may be different. Waning demand for tech products and services translates into a sales growth slowdown (Chart 13).   Chart 13The Tech Sector Sales Growth Is Slowing... Chart 14... So Is Earnings Growth With sales growth slowing, earnings growth is bound to follow (Chart 14), which is no different from the broad market. Technology sector earnings growth for the next 12 months is converging with that of the S&P 500: 10% vs. 9% respectively (Chart 15). Margins are expected to compress in 2022, albeit from the high levels (Chart 16). Chart 15Tech And The S&P 500 Expected Earnings Growth Has Converged Chart 16Margins Are Expected To Compress Of course, the Q4-2021 earnings results could bring a respite.  So far blended the year-on-year earnings growth rate is 15.8%: However, only 5 companies out of 71 have reported, beating expectations by 4.6%.  Will these results save the day? Possibly – expectations are a low bar to clear.  Time will tell.  But to prop up the sector, results from the MAN have got to be stellar. Valuations: Better But Not Good Enough While Tech earnings are expected to grow in line with the S&P 500, the sector is trading with a 28% premium to the market at 27x vs. 21x forward PE (Table 1). Relative PE NTM currently stands at 1.7 standard deviations above the five-year average. Although this may seem high, the froth has come off as, only two months ago, Tech was trading at 2.4 standard deviations. This is a significant change, but the sector is not yet cheap enough for bargain hunting. Adjusting for the growth rate differential between Tech and the S&P 500, we divide PE NTM over EPS Growth NTM, to arrive at PEG: Even so, Tech is still more expensive trading at 2.7 for a percentage of future growth, compared to 2.3 for the S&P 500. However, Tech is a growth sector, and perhaps by looking at only one-year-ahead earnings growth, we are being myopic. Let’s take a look at longer-term growth expectations. Curiously, over the next five years, Tech earnings are expected to grow at about an 18% annualized rate, while the S&P 500 is expected to grow at 21% (Chart 17). As a result, the PE/Long-Term Earnings Growth Rate for Tech is 1.5 vs. 1.0 for the S&P 500. Table 1Tech Valuation Premium Is Still Too High Chart 17Long-term Earnings Growth Does Not Justify Valuation Premium Either Of course, we need to keep in mind that since this sector is so top-heavy, the forward PE of the MAN affects overall sector valuations. As you can see in the table below (Table 2), MAN is trading with a premium to the sector. However, within the sector, companies with sky-high valuations are easier to find among smaller constituents (Chart 18). Valuations are elevated, while fundamentals are deteriorating  Table 2The Largest Tech Companies Are Trading With A Premium To The Sector Investment Implications While it is tempting to add to Technology on the back of this pullback, we recommend caution. Tech is oversold and recent volatility is a function of market panic, yet the stars have not yet aligned for the sector. Historically, Tech has delivered negative returns several months prior to rate hikes and underperformed the broad market. Economic normalization also brings a slowdown in demand for tech goods and services, which translates into less exciting sales and earnings growth, and margin compression. Although some froth has come off, valuations for the sector remain elevated, and the premium over the S&P 500 is not justified. The scorecard summarizes each of these points, and it is clear that, on balance, the sector has quite a few challenges ahead (Table 3). Table 3Technology Sector Scorecard On a more optimistic note, this sell-off has been fast and furious, and the worst is most likely behind. We are underweight the Technology sector. Within the sector, we are underweight Semiconductors, and Hardware and Equipment. We are still overweight Software and Services for portfolio diversification purposes. The Software sector will be one of our next “deep dives.” Stay tuned. Are we there yet?  No, we still have a few months to go. Structural Positioning While we reiterate our tactical underweighting of the Tech sector, we are bullish on it over the longer investment horizon. This sector is at the heart of US technological innovation, such as cloud computing, artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, chip design that powers EV and AV, and many others.  The sector is home to some of the best American companies, which have powered US equities throughout the past decade, and will continue to do so for decades ahead. Bottom Line Despite a sell-off of NASDAQ and the Technology sector, we are not yet recommending increasing cyclical allocation to Tech: While technicals appear attractive, tighter monetary policy, the slowdown in demand for tech goods and services, pressures on profitability, and elevated valuations remain headwinds. We reiterate our underweight to the Technology sector on a tactical basis.  We are structurally bullish.    Irene Tunkel Chief Strategist, US Equity Strategy irene.tunkel@bcaresearch.com   Recommended Allocation

Highlights Banks, households, and businesses are still swimming in cash: Asset purchases and zero rates are ending, but banks, households and businesses have more cash than they know what to do with. It will not be easy for the Fed to mop up enough accommodation to slow the economy in a material way this year. The flood of liquidity may be a headwind for interest rates in 2022, … : The biggest banks have positioned themselves to benefit from rising rates and may limit the backup in yields as they deploy their unused capital hoard into it.  … and protect equities from suffering meaningful de-rating: All the money has to go somewhere, and equities may be the default winner if bonds and cash are poised to deliver negative real returns. The rosy near-term outlook implied by the biggest banks’ observations suggests that the bull market in risk assets isn’t over yet: Households have ramped up spending but have barely begun to tap into their excess savings and businesses are confident and well-heeled. Above-trend economic growth should bolster corporate earnings, credit performance and financial asset prices, keeping the bull market going through the end of the year. What The Banks See The SIFI banks (BAC, C, JPM and WFC) and USB kicked off fourth quarter earnings across three days bracketing the Martin Luther King long weekend. Their performance wasn’t bad – the SIFIs squarely beat analysts’ consensus estimates and USB came up about 3% short – but investors apparently wanted more from a group that had burst out of the gate to start 2022. Banks were market darlings in the year’s first nine sessions as investors sought out stocks that could outperform in a rising rate environment, and the SIFIs and USB beat the S&P 500 by 12 percentage points (Chart 1). Over the three sessions that they reported earnings, they gave back more than a third of their relative outperformance, though they still have a 7-point year-to-date advantage. Chart 1Rate Play Our focus, however, is not on the banks themselves or their stocks’ relative performance. We’re after what the principal financial intermediaries are seeing from their privileged vantage point into activity across the economy. We examine the banks’ earnings releases and listen to their earnings calls for insight into the broad macro backdrop as revealed by borrower performance, lender willingness, the state of the financial system and the actions and intentions of households and businesses. Considering the banks’ calls from that perspective, several growth-friendly themes emerged. Households remain flush with cash, even at the lower end of the wealth distribution, heralding robust 2022 consumption. Deposits from households and businesses continue to pile up, supporting credit performance and likely pushing out the date when net charge-off rates will rise to more normalized levels. The deposit flows are increasing the banks’ capacity to lend, and they are champing at the bit to deploy their cash into new loans. Investment banking pipelines are full and rampant liquidity should see to it that new debt and equity offerings meet with a warm reception once they come to market, as long as the current bout of market turbulence doesn’t lead to a lasting rollback in animal spirits. All in all, the banks’ observations affirmed our constructive take on the economy through at least the end of the year. Households are already spending in a way that validates our time-release view of fiscal transfers and their incomes have apparently risen enough that they have not yet begun to deplete the savings they built up from Congress’ pandemic largess. Businesses remain flush and are looking to replenish depleted inventories to reduce their vulnerability to supply chain disruptions. M&A activity is still hot and underwriting calendars are full. Yields are poised to rise as the Fed dials down monetary accommodation, but it’s possible the banks’ eagerness to put their idle cash to work will help limit how high they can go. Households Have Been Spending (Chart 2), But They Still Have Loads Of Dry Powder (Chart 3) … [F]or the holiday period of November and December, [debit and credit] spending was up 26% over 2019. … And so far this year that strength continues. [S]pending of all types through January 17 … [was] up over 11% versus the start of ’21, which is well up over ’20 and ’19, and that bodes well for the rest of the year and quarter. (Moynihan, BAC CEO) Chart 2You Can't Keep An Avid Consumer Down Chart 32 Trillion Of Excess Savings ... [C]ombined credit and debit [card] spend was up 27% versus the fourth quarter of 2019, with each quarter in 2021 showing sequential growth compared to 2019. Within that, travel and entertainment spend was up 13% versus 4Q19, though we have seen some softening in recent weeks contemporaneously with the Omicron wave. (Barnum, JPM CFO) Consumer credit card spend also continued to be strong, up 28% from the fourth quarter of 2020 and up 27% from the fourth quarter of 2019. All spending categories were up in the fourth quarter compared to a year ago, with the largest increases in travel, fuel, entertainment and dining. (Scharf, WFC CEO) [W]hile there is some softening [from Omicron] in restaurant, travel and entertainment in recent weeks, overall spending remained strong in the first week of January with credit card up 26% and debit card up 29% versus the same week in 2020. (Scharf, WFC) [W]e are seeing increases in [card] spend volume … across the board, [with] branded card spend volumes up 24% and retail services spend volumes up 16%[.] People are using our cards, which is a good thing. (Mason, C CFO) [C]onsumer[s] [are] in really good shape, … spending … 25% more than they spent pre-COVID, 25% more. And that number drives all the order books for everybody else. (Dimon, JPM CEO) We believe there’s lots of potential spending capacity left as average deposit balances (Chart 4) continue to move up … despite … heavy spending[.] We had [only] one cohort of deposits that dipped [in any] month [in] the last part of the year: … customers who had balances of $2,000 or less pre-pandemic [saw their balances] dip by 1% [in November]. Other than that, every cohort from June [through] December [had their balances] grow every month. And what’s striking is that the balances for people who had less than $2,000 average balances before the pandemic [now have] five times [their pre-pandemic] balances. [C]ustomers who had $10,000 in their accounts before the pandemic are now sitting with two times [that] in their accounts. (Moynihan, BAC) Chart 4... Are Sitting In Checking Accounts, Waiting To Be Spent  … Helping Credit Performance (Chart 5) And Keeping A Lid On Card Balances (Chart 6) Chart 6Cash-Rich Consumers Don't Need To Carry Credit Card Balances The asset quality of our customers remains very healthy and net charge-offs this quarter fell to a historical low of … 15 basis points of average loans. … Our credit card loss rate was 1.42%, … less than half of the pre-pandemic rate, [and] it improved in every quarter during the year. (Borthwick, BAC CFO) [O]ur 30, … 60 or 90 days past [due consumer loans] are staying at … low levels. … [C]ustomer [checking account] balances, elevated in some cases five times [above] … pre-pandemic levels … probably account for a lot of the consumer credit quality improvement. We’re anticipating at some point it will go back towards more normal historical levels. We just think it’s going to bump around here for a little while. (Borthwick, BAC) [W]e’re exiting the fourth quarter with a card net charge-off rate of … something like 1.2% -- -- Which you’ll never see again (Barnum and Dimon, JPM) [C]redit card [charge-offs] has been a number that we’ve never seen in our lives. Middle market has been lower than ever. … Mortgages have been lower than ever. They’re all low. Eventually, they’re going to normalize. (Dimon, JPM) In terms of [card] losses, … [we are seeing] very low loss levels. [W]hen I look at the delinquency trend, there’s really nothing to focus on there. [Delinquencies] remain quite low and we don’t see any signs or areas of concern. (Mason, C) Payment rates do remain stubbornly high, [negatively] impacting our loan growth … in [our] cards businesses. (Mason, C) Consumer credit performance remains strong with higher collateral values for homes and autos and consumer cash reserves remain[ing] above pre-pandemic levels. (Santomassimo, WFC CFO) Credit quality remains strong. Over the next few quarters, we expect the net charge-off ratio to remain lower than historical levels, but normalize over time as the effects of the pandemic continue to subside. (Dolan, USB CFO) Business Borrowing May Be Turning A Corner (Chart 7) Chart 7Are Middle-Market Corporate Borrowers Really Back? [Sequential] growth was broad-based across all commercial lending segments. We saw improvement in new loans as well as improvement in utilization from existing clients. … In the all-important small business segment, lending activity is running consistently above pre-pandemic levels. (Moynihan, BAC) We are seeing an uptick in revolver utilization rates, … and it remains sort of skewed to the smaller clients. But we are starting to see an uptick … even in the bigger clients. … [O]ne driver of that is CEOs and management teams have been burned by low inventory levels as a result of the supply chain problems, wanting to run higher inventories and that is maybe driving higher utilization. … At the same time, we’re hearing quite a bit of confidence in the C suites, and all else equal that should be positive for C[ommercial]&I[ndustrial] loan growth. The levels there are modest still in a world where capital markets have been exceptionally receptive to … [bond] issuance … and so people [have been] well-funded [by the] capital markets. (Barnum, JPM) Commercial loan balances started to increase late in the third quarter and have now grown for four consecutive months with growth accelerating in December. … Increases in middle-market banking were driven by growth from our larger clients, a modest uptick in revolver utilization and strong seasonal borrowing. Growth in asset-based lending and leasing was driven by new client wins as well as increased levels from higher prices and some increase in inventory levels. (Santomassimo, WFC) We are encouraged by the loan growth momentum and we have a positive outlook for 2022, given improving client sentiment and business conditions, and continued strength in certain focused commercial portfolios, such as asset-backed securitization lending and supply chain financing. (Cecere, USB CEO) [W]e’re now starting to see a nice shift with respect to the commercial and the C&I portfolios. … At the end of the fourth quarter, we saw nice expansion of utilization rates, … like 60 basis points on average from the third quarter, but in December it was up almost 2.5%. … [P]eople are rebuilding their inventories on the commercial side. I think … they still have some [supply chain] concerns, so I think they’re being cautious about making sure they have inventory to be able to run their business. And I think they’re starting to make business investment ahead of the consumer spend and the economic growth they see in 2022. (Dolan, USB) [The] number one fourth-quarter trend that looks positive going into 2022 is the increase in utilization rates, which we haven’t seen for a number of quarters. (Cecere, USB) Banks Have Tons Of Dry Powder (Chart 8) And Want To Put It To Work (Chart 9) When The Time Is Right Chart 8Water, Water Everywhere And Not A Drop To Drink Chart 9Banks Are Eager To Lend Given continued deposit growth and low rates, our asset sensitivity to rising rates remains significant. (Borthwick, BAC) [W]e still have significant dry powder to put to work with either client demand [loans] or in an increasing rate environment [securities], which we expect. (Mason, C) [W]e have huge firepower to grow, to expand, to make loans, to extend duration. I’ve never seen a bank with [our level of] liquidity: $1.7 trillion in cash and marketable securities and $1 trillion in loans. There’s $500 or 600 billion of those cash and marketable securities that could be deployed in higher-yielding assets or loans when and if the time comes. (Dimon, JPM) [Our] expectation is that when long-term rates rise, which we’re starting to see now, we’re going to be able to take advantage of the rising rate environment. … We [deployed some cash into securities] in the fourth quarter but employed hedging strategies to keep the duration of those purchases relatively short … to maintain as much asset sensitivity going into 2022 as we possibly could. (Dolan, USB) [W]e want maximum flexibility as long-term rates start to rise. (Dolan, USB) Investment Implications​​​​​​​ Chart 10Comeback Or Head Fake? The biggest banks told a consistent story about the US economy on their earnings calls. Activity is rising, as evidenced by avid consumption that gathered momentum across 2021, a pickup in business and consumer appetite for borrowing that quickened toward the end of the year (Chart 10), and expressions of confidence from businesses that are directing capital to replenishing inventories and buying equipment. Credit performance is tremendously strong with record-low net charge-off rates and low delinquency rates underpinned by bloated business and consumer deposit balances. Abundant cash reserves provide further fuel for consumption and should keep GDP growth well above its trend level. The growth and credit tailwinds suggest that a recession is not lurking around the corner and therefore offer a green light for investors to overweight equities within multi-asset portfolios. As detailed in the last two reports on rate hikes’ impact, we do not view the recent equity turbulence, triggered by a surge in Treasury yields, as the start of an inflection point for financial markets. We are inclined to see the decline as more of a buying opportunity than a herald of a new shift in the business cycle. The Fed has the means to slow the economy if it sets its mind to it but given the amount of cash that is overwhelming banks, businesses, households and investors, draining enough accommodation to do so by the end of 2022 is an awfully tall order.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com

  Dear Client, The subject of cryptocurrencies elicits more emotion that any topic I can think of. As is true for the broader investment community, there is no unanimity of opinion among BCA strategists on the matter. This week, our Global Asset Allocation team is publishing a report taking a favorable view on NFTs. My report is far less sanguine on NFTs and the broader crypto landscape. I hope you enjoy the spirited debate. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights The price of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies has become increasingly correlated with the direction of equities. Stocks should recover over the coming months as bond markets stabilize and corporate earnings continue to expand thanks to a resurgent global economy. This could give cryptos a temporary lift. The long-term outlook for cryptocurrencies remains daunting, however. In most cases, anything that cryptocurrencies can do, the existing financial system can do better. Many of the most hyped blockchain applications, from DeFi to NFTs, will turn out to be duds. Concerns that cryptocurrencies are harming the environment, contributing to crime, and enriching a small group of early investors at the expense of everyone else will lead to increased regulatory scrutiny. Our long-term target for Bitcoin is $5,000. Investors looking to hedge their risks should consider going long Cardano, Solana, and Polkadot (three up-and-coming “proof of stake” coins) versus Bitcoin, Litecoin, and Doge (three doomed “proof of work” coins). The Cost Of Crypto Who pays for cryptocurrencies? That may seem like a simple question with a simple answer: The people who buy them! Yet, as economists have long known, purchases can produce externalities – costs or benefits that are borne by someone other than the person making the purchase. Some purchases can produce positive externalities, such as when you buy nice flowers to plant in front of your house. Other purchases produce negative externalities, such as when you buy a product that harms the environment. The negative externalities arising from Bitcoin mining are well known. A single Bitcoin transaction consumes 14 times as much energy as 100,000 Visa transactions (Chart 1). Bitcoin’s annual electricity consumption exceeds that of Pakistan and its 217 million inhabitants (Chart 2). The growth in crypto mining is one reason why electricity prices are so high in many countries.    Crime is another negative externality that cryptocurrencies facilitate. Bitcoin first entered the popular lexicon in 2013 when its price briefly eclipsed $1,000 due to rising demand for the currency as a medium of exchange on Silk Road and other parts of the so-called dark web. Fast forward to today and crime continues to be a major problem for the crypto industry. According to Chainalysis, illicit addresses received $14 billion in 2021, almost double 2020 levels (Chart 3). Scamming revenue grew 82% while cryptocurrency theft rose 516%.   Don’t Feed The Whales There is another cost arising from cryptocurrencies that is rarely mentioned – a cost borne by people who have never bought cryptocurrencies and probably assume they are immune from the vagaries of crypto markets: The holders of regular fiat money. Early investors in today’s most popular cryptocurrencies are sitting on huge profits. A recent study found that 1% of Bitcoin holders control 27% of supply. Ownership is even more concentrated for most other cryptocurrencies (Chart 4). If these whales were to sell their coins, they could purchase billions of dollars of goods and services. But since there is no indication yet that the proliferation of cryptocurrencies has expanded the aggregate supply of goods and services, their purchasing power must come at someone else’s expense.1  Still Waiting Cryptocurrency proponents would counter that blockchain technologies will usher in a golden age of innovation. Based on this perspective, Bitcoin is a lot like Amazon, a company that created immense wealth for Jeff Bezos and other early shareholders, but has reshaped the global economy in a way that arguably left most people, including those who never bought Amazon stock, better off. The problem with this argument is that Bitcoin is nothing like Amazon. Chainalysis estimates that online merchants processed less than $3 billion in cryptocurrency transactions in 2020, a number that has barely grown over time (Chart 5). While updated numbers for 2021 will be released in February, our analysis of data from Coinmap suggests that the number of merchants accepting cryptocurrency increased less last year than in either 2017 or 2018 (Chart 6). This is consistent with anecdotal evidence which suggests that the vast majority of cryptocurrency transactions continue to be motivated by investment flows rather than e-commerce. A Feature Not A Bug “Just wait and see,” crypto evangelists say. “Sure, Bitcoin has been around since 2008, but new applications are just around the corner.” There are good reasons to be skeptical of such pronouncements. The Bitcoin network can barely process five transactions per second, compared to over 20,000 for the Visa network (Chart 7). The fee for a Bitcoin transaction can fluctuate significantly, and is typically much greater than for a debit card (Chart 8). Chart 7We Apologize For The Wait Chart 8It Costs A Lot To Fill Up The Crypto Tank Bitcoin’s sluggishness is inherent to how it was designed. Due to their decentralized nature, blockchains must rely on elaborate procedures to prevent bad actors from taking control. Bitcoin and other popular cryptocurrencies such as Doge use the so-called “proof of work” algorithm. To see how this algorithm works in simple terms, think of spam email. One way of eliminating spam is to require everyone to waste $10 in electricity to send a single email. That is effectively how Bitcoin functions. It is secure, but it is also very clunky. An alternative to “proof of work” is “proof of stake.” Smaller cryptocurrencies such as Cardano and Solana use this algorithm, and Ethereum is in the process of migrating to it. Continuing with the spam analogy, imagine requiring everyone to put $10 down before they send an email. If the email is opened, the $10 is returned. If the email is deleted, the $10 is forfeited. A Solution In Search Of A Problem Proof of stake systems are arguably superior to proof of work systems since the former do not require wasteful energy consumption. But are they superior to the current financial system? That is far from clear. Listening to crypto enthusiasts, one would think that everyone is still using paper money, or perhaps shells or cattle, to make transactions. In fact, the global financial system is already nearly 100% digital. Digital transfer systems such as Zelle in the US and Interac in Canada permit instantaneous transfers at very little cost. Granted, cross-border payments are far from seamless. However, this largely reflects anti-money laundering rules and other regulations that banks must follow rather than some inherent technological limitations with, say, the SWIFT system. The DeFi Delusion Decentralized Finance, or DeFi, has become a hot topic of late. Like most things involving cryptocurrencies, there is more hype than substance. The idea that there will ever be large-scale crypto-denominated lending is wishful thinking. To see why, put yourself in the position of someone contemplating lending 25 bitcoins to a borrower who is interested in buying a house for, say, $1,000,000. On the one hand, if the price of bitcoin drops, you will likely be repaid, but in depreciated coins. On the other hand, if the price of bitcoin rises, you might not be repaid at all since the value of the loan will exceed the value of the house. Any way you cut it, there is no incentive to make the loan. There are other potential DeFi applications, such as those involving smart contracts, that could potentially prove useful. The Ethereum blockchain, where many of these contracts reside, is secured by ether (ETH). The market cap of ETH is currently $370 billion. How much ether is held for investment purposes and how much is held by people looking to make transactions on the Ethereum blockchain? It is impossible to be sure, but it would not surprise us if investment demand accounts for well over 90% of ETH holdings. It would be as if the price of oil rose to $1,000 per barrel, with 90% of that value driven by investment demand. Most people would agree that this would not be a sustainable situation. NFTs: Why So Ugly? Chart 9NFTs Have Taken Off The popularity of non-fungible tokens (NFTs) has soared over the past year. During the past four weeks, more than $250 million of NFTs were traded on average every day, up from almost nothing at the beginning of 2021 (Chart 9). NFTs allow artists to transform their work into verifiable assets that can be listed and sold on the blockchain. Or at least that is the claim. When they were first introduced, the expectation was that the most desirable NFTs would turn out to be unique and beautiful. Instead, as the CryptoPunks collection aptly demonstrates, many turned out to be repetitive and ugly. Why? One plausible answer is that many NFT buyers are not really looking to acquire digital art. Instead, they are looking to buy supercharged proxies for the cryptocurrency in which the NFT is denominated. As evidence, consider that 99% of the discussions in NFT forums are about how much money NFT buyers hope to make rather than about the “art” itself. Shadow Crypto Supply If this interpretation is correct, it undermines one of the main selling points of cryptocurrencies: That they are limited in supply. Just like banks can create money out of thin air whenever they make loans, the blockchain can spawn synthetic assets such as NFTs that increase the effective supply of the underlying cryptocurrency.2 And that is just for a single cryptocurrency. There is nothing that obliges someone to list a smart contract on the Ethereum blockchain as opposed to any other blockchain. Indeed, there is no limit to the number of blockchains, and by extension, the number of cryptocurrencies that can be created. Chart 10 shows that there are currently more than 9,000 cryptocurrencies in circulation, up from 1,000 in 2017 and less than 100 in 2013. At least with gold, they are not adding any new elements to the periodic table. The Paradox Of Low Gas Fees Competition among blockchains will favor those that offer the lowest “gas fees,” that is, those that require only a small amount of cryptocurrency to update their ledgers. As users abandon blockchains with high gas fees, the prices of their cryptocurrencies will fall. The cryptocurrencies of the more efficient blockchains will benefit, but probably not as much as one might assume. Just as the demand for petrol would decline if automobiles became much more fuel efficient but miles driven did not rise much, falling gas fees could reduce demand for cryptocurrencies unless activity on their blockchains increased proportionately more than the decline in prices. Crypto prices may fall dramatically if governments offer blockchain networks as a public good. The rollout of Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) could pave the way for this development. Concluding Thoughts On The Current Market Environment And Long-Term Outlook For Cryptos The price of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies has become increasingly correlated with the direction of equities (Chart 11). As we noted in our first report of the new year, average returns for the S&P 500 in January have been negative since 2000. This year has been especially trying given the rapid ascent in bond yields. Our end-2022 target for the US 10-year Treasury yield is 2.25%. Hence, while we expect yields to rise over the remainder of the year, the process should be a lot more gradual than over the past few weeks. Equities often experience a period of indigestion when yields rise sharply. However, as we stressed last week, stocks typically rebound as long as yields do not end up rising to prohibitive levels. The bull-bear spread in this week’s AAII poll fell back to its pandemic lows, a positive contrarian indicator for stocks (Chart 12). With global growth still firmly above trend, corporate earnings should rise by enough to propel stocks into positive territory for the year. A rebound in stock prices, in turn, could give cryptocurrencies a temporary lift. Chart 11Cryptocurrency Prices Have Become Increasingly Correlated With Stocks Chart 12The Bull-Bear Ratio Is Back To Its Pandemic Lows   Nevertheless, the long-term outlook for cryptocurrencies remains daunting. In most cases, anything that cryptocurrencies can do, the existing financial system can do better. Many of the most hyped blockchain applications, from DeFi to NFTs, will turn out to be duds. Meanwhile, concerns that cryptocurrencies are harming the environment, contributing to crime, and enriching a small group of early investors at the expense of everyone else will lead to increased regulatory scrutiny. Chart 13New Money Versus Old Money The prices of the most popular cryptocurrencies do not reflect this eventuality. Even after falling 32% from its highs, the aggregate market capitalization of cryptocurrencies is still only slightly less than the value of the entire stock of US dollars in circulation (Chart 13). Our long-term target for Bitcoin is $5,000. Investors looking to hedge their risks should consider going long Cardano, Solana, and Polkadot (three up-and-coming “proof of stake” coins) versus Bitcoin, Litecoin, and Doge (three doomed “proof of work” coins).   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1     One way that holders of fiat money could suffer is if the presence of cryptocurrencies reduced the demand for dollars, euros, and other central bank issued currencies. If that were to happen, inflation would rise as people sought to dispose of unwanted fiat currency by buying goods and services. Alternatively, if central banks wanted to constrain inflation, they would have to shrink the money supply by selling income-generating assets. Either way, the public would be worse off. 2     For instance, consider Alice and Bob. Both wish to have a certain amount of exposure to ETH in their investment portfolios. Suppose Bob uses some of his ETH to buy an item from the “Dopey Duck” collection that Alice has just  minted. If Bob regards his NFT as a substitute for the ETH he previously held, he will not want to buy more ETH to replace the ETH he lost. In contrast, Alice will end up with more ETH than she previously owned, and hence, will need to sell some of it. All things equal, this will lead to a lower price for ETH. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores

お客様各位、 来週のウィークリーブリテンの代わりに、1月28日金曜日午前11時（EST）に最近のドル動向についてのウェブキャストを開催します。ぜひご参加ください。 敬具、 Chester Ntonifor ハイライト 頻繁には議論されないが、ドルが割高であることはよく知られている。 評価は、転換点を迎えるまでは重要性が低くなる傾向があるのは事実だ。そうした転換は通常、特に過大評価された為替レートによって生じる大きな対外不均衡と同時に発生する。 米ドルはそのようなパラダイムに突入しつつある可能性がある — DXYは公正価値から1.5標準偏差上にあり、同時に物品貿易赤字は過去最大級となり、実質金利は深くマイナスになっている。 もっと重要なのは、このようなドルの構成には前例がほとんどないということだ。歴史的には、そのような高い評価を正当化するには、はるかに高い実質金利か、または国際収支の改善が必要だった。 当社のトレーディングモデルは、通貨が割高なときに売り、割安なときに買うことで時間を通じて超過リターンが得られることを示している。 当社の評価ランキングでは、最も割安なのはJPY、SEK、NOKである。貿易条件ベースではAUDが際立つ勝者だ。 特集 チャート 1 ドルの高評価と極端に低い実質金利は前例がない ドルが高く評価され、実質金利が極端に低い状況は前例がない ドルが高く評価され、実質金利が極端に低い状況は前例がない 評価は中期的な為替変動に関して通常あまり重視されないことが多い。特にここ数年は、マクロ経済環境が米ドルを動かす最大の要因であった。2011年から2020年のドルの強気相場は、米国の実質金利が他の先進国より高かった時期と一致している。実際、2008年以降、米連邦準備制度理事会（FRB）を除いて、200bps以上利上げできた先進国の中央銀行はほとんど存在しなかった。 先週の当社レポートは、FRBの積極的な利上げが短期的には米ドルにとって強気になり得るが、最終的には減価の前段階を作る可能性がある理由に焦点を当てた。本レポートでは、評価が今後1〜2年で通貨ストラテジーにとってより重要な要因になると主張する（チャート 1）。 ドルと対外収支 通貨と対外収支を理解する枠組みは単純だ — 貿易赤字（輸入 > 輸出）が拡大する場合、製造業の競争力を高めるために為替レートを下げるか、貿易赤字を減らすために支出を削減する必要がある。多くの先進国では、需要の押し下げや支出削減は、需要の蓄積や緩和的な財政政策があるため起こりにくい。したがって、広い貿易赤字を抱える国にとって自然な調整メカニズムは為替レートになるだろう。 先進国および新興国通貨の広範なスペクトルの中で、米ドルは実質実効為替レートベースで割高に見える（チャート 2Aおよびチャート 2B）。評価は転換点を引き起こすまでは重要性が低くなる傾向があるのは事実だが、そうした転換は通常、景気センチメントの変化とともに大きな対外不均衡が生じる時に起こる。 図表2 チャート2 米国では、これらの不均衡がすでに変化を引き起こし始めている。米国の貿易赤字は悪化しており、物品の貿易赤字は11月に過去最大の赤字である-980億ドルを記録した。ここ数年、拡大する貿易赤字を米国債の外国人購入で賄うことはますます難しくなっている（チャート 3）。一方、先週強調したように、ここ数年の大規模な株式流入は減速し始めている。 要するに、米国の基本収支（経常収支と対外直接投資の合計）は加速的に悪化している（チャート 4）。第3四半期の米国の経常収支は-2,148億ドルで、10年以上で最大の赤字となった。これは世界金融危機以降に改善した基礎的な収支の多くを巻き戻すものだ。基本収支がピークに達して悪化し始めると、ドルは複数年にわたって下落する傾向がある。 チャート 4 国際収支の状況悪化：米国の国際収支 国際収支の悪化動向 米国の国際収支 国際収支の悪化動向 米国の国際収支 チャート 3 拡大する赤字を資金調達することがますます困難になっている 拡大する赤字の資金調達がますます困難になっている 拡大する赤字の資金調達がますます困難になっている 財政政策は今後数年で引き締まる可能性が高く、為替レートに対する国内支出の制約を緩和するだろう。それでも、財政政策はパンデミック前の水準や雇用状況に比べれば緩和的なままである。歴史的に見ても、これは対外収支の悪化につながり、ドルの実質実効為替レートを押し下げてきた（チャート 5）。 チャート 5 ドルと財政赤字 ドルと財政赤字 ドルと財政赤字 実質金利とドル 米国で実質金利が最もマイナスに振れている一方で、単純な購買力平価（PPP）モデルではドルが数十年ぶりの割高水準にあるというのは注目に値する。これは、2010年に始まったドルの強気相場の初期の構成の完全な逆像であり、その時はドルは割安で実質金利はより支援的だった（チャート 1）。 経済理論によれば、通貨は国間でのリターンを均等化するように調整されるべきだ。これは裁定機会の不存在の条件である。1980年代初頭には、割高なドルは非常に高い実質金利に支えられていた。その後のドル下落も実質金利の低下と同時に起こった。事実、過去10年では相対的な実質金利がこれほどマイナスであるにもかかわらずドルが強いというのは異常事態だった（チャート 6）。 当社の見解は、米国の終端金利（ターミナル金利）は現在10年物米国債利回りに織り込まれている水準よりも高いべきだということだ。オーバーナイト・インデックス・スワップ（OIS）カーブによれば、FRBは金利を1.75％を超えて引き上げない見込みだ。これは過去のサイクルよりかなり低く、実質金利を低位に保つ。これは割高なグリーンバックを正当化しない。当社の短期金利モデルも、短期金利が過去1年でドルに有利に動いたにもかかわらず、DXYをやや割高と示している（チャート 7）。 チャート 6 相対的実質利回りの水準も重要 相対的な実質利回りの水準も重要である 相対的な実質利回りの水準も重要である チャート 7 当社のタイミングモデルは##br##反落を示唆している 当社のタイミングモデルは調整を示唆しています 当社のタイミングモデルは調整を示唆しています その他の考慮点 実質実効為替レートや購買力平価モデルは当社のお気に入りの評価指標の一つだが、万能ではない。構造的に高いインフレ率（それゆえ高い実質実効為替レート）を持つ国は、より高い生産性を有している可能性もある。バラッサ＝サミュエルソン仮説によれば、貿易可能財セクターの競争力は経済のすべてのセクターの賃金を押し上げ、結果的に物価を引き上げる。 この議論は、米国が成長の速い経済であり、そのために経常赤字を抱える傾向があると示唆する支持者に特に響くだろう。これは2000年代初頭のコモディティブーム期のオーストラリアに似た状況だという見方だ。一方で、米国は海外資産から得る収入が負債に対する支出を上回っており、資金ギャップは最終的に縮小するだろうという見方もある。 残念ながら、ドルの過大評価は米国の相対的な生産性の高さによるものではない。特に他国と比較するとそうだ。先進国および新興国の幅広いスペクトルにわたって、当社の生産性モデルによればドルは割高であると見える（当社の生産性モデルによれば）。購買力平価ベースで大きく割高に見える中国人民元（RMB）は、生産性を考慮に入れると公正価値に近くなる（チャート 8）。 チャート8 一方で、米国の大きな赤字はそのプラスの投資収支によって完全に相殺されているわけではない（チャート 9）。これは、中国のような成長の速い多くの国が経常黒字を生み出している時期に発生している（チャート 10Aおよびチャート 10B）。要するに、相対的な物価水準、相対的な生産性動向、あるいは政府資産の相対的な実質リターンのいずれを見ても、ドルは割高である。 チャート 9 プラスの所得収支は米国の投資状況の改善に寄与していない プラスの所得収支は米国の投資ポジションの改善に寄与していない。 プラスの所得収支は米国の投資ポジションの改善に寄与していない。 チャート10 チャート10 結論 昨夏、FX評価に関心のある方向けに通貨評価のためのトレーディングモデルを紹介した。社内の購買力平価モデル（PPP）と当社の中期タイミングモデルの両方を評価ツールとして使用したところ、2000年代以降、両方の評価モデルはバイ・アンド・ホールドの通貨戦略を大きく上回り、ボラティリティもはるかに低かった（チャート 11）。 通貨の評価は長期的には重要になりやすく、一方でマクロ環境は短期の通貨取引を支配する傾向がある。ドルがここ3〜5年にわたって割高であったことを踏まえると、上記の分析は、評価が今後より重要になり始める「長期的な」転換点に入ろうとしている可能性を示唆している。 当社の評価ランキングでは、最も割安なのはJPY、SEK、NOKである。貿易条件および生産性の観点ではAUDが勝者として際立っている。これは記録的な基本収支の黒字にも反映されている（チャート 12）。当社のトレード表ではAUDを70セントでロングしており、通貨ボラティリティが弱まる兆しが出れば高い確信度の賭けへと格上げする予定だ。 チャート 11 評価のみに基づくトレーディングルール バリュエーションのみに基づく取引ルール バリュエーションのみに基づく取引ルール チャート 12 AUDと国際収支 AUDと国際収支 AUDと国際収支 Chester Ntonifor 外国為替ストラテジスト chestern@bcaresearch.com 売買と予測 戦略的見解 タクティカル・ホールディング（0〜6か月） 予測サマリー

Highlights The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), Iraq, the UAE and Kuwait – the OPEC 2.0 states capable of increasing production this year – will have to step up for coalition members unable to lift output, including Russia. US shale-oil output also will have to increase to cover demand. The COVID-19 omicron variant has proven to be less severe than anticipated, which likely will translate into a faster recovery in oil demand than was expected in December. One risk looms large: China's zero-COVID policy greatly reduced virus transmission in the country; however, this also reduced natural antibody protection in its population. This is exacerbated by a lack of mRNA vaccine availability. Faltering supply and strong demand will keep inventories tight, reducing buffers to supply shocks – e.g., the Kirkuk–Ceyhan Oil Pipeline explosion this week. We are returning our Brent forecast for 2022 to $80/bbl; for 2023, we continue to expect $81/bbl (Chart of the week). Our forecast assumes OPEC 2.0 will increase supply so as to keep Brent prices below $90/bbl. US shale-oil output also is expected to rise. We continue to see oil-price risk skewed to the upside. Still, demand-destruction from high prices or widespread omicron-induced lockdowns remain clear risks to our outlook. Feature Given the relatively mild symptoms associated with the COVID-19 omicron variant, global oil demand likely will continue to recover lost ground and return to trend sooner than expected. Faltering supply from OPEC 2.0 member states means prices will remain elevated, and perhaps push higher. On the back of these fundamentals, we are restoring our Brent price forecast to $80/bbl for this year, and $81/bbl for 2023. This is the consensus view, and we find ourselves in the uncomfortable position of sharing it. Presently, the oil market is bulled up, expecting high prices this year and next, with Brent forecasts clustering in the $80-$85/bbl range out to 2025.1 Some headline-grabbing forecasts call for $100-plus prices, as top OPEC 2.0 producers – e.g. Russia, Angola and Nigeria– continue to strain in their efforts to restore production, and demand remains buoyant (Chart 2). A consensus usually emerges after most market participants have adjusted their positioning to reflect a commonly held view. This usually is a temporary equilibrium. The market typically finds the highest-pain price trajectory required to shatter the consensus view – e.g., selling off because widely held demand expectations are too high or supply expectations are too low, and vice versa. Ultimately, a fundamental shock destabilizes the consensus, and prices move higher or lower to reflect the new reality. The biggest risks to our price forecast are demand destruction from high prices or widespread omicron-induced lockdowns.2 To keep prices from finding a new equilibrium above $90/bbl, a policy response from OPEC 2.0 to increase production will be required. In addition, US shale-oil output will have to increase. This is not to say we are dismissing above-consensus price realizations: Inventories will continue to draw hard as long as the level of supply remains below demand. This will leave little in the way of buffer stocks to even out price spikes, as the Ceyhan pipeline explosion demonstrated earlier this week.3 Geopolitical tensions are high in eastern Europe as Russia and the West square off, and in the Persian Gulf as Iran squares off against GCC states and the US.4 These structural and geopolitical risks leave markets exposed to volatile price spikes. OPEC 2.0 Falters Our forecast is contingent on the core OPEC 2.0 member states ex-Russia – KSA, Iraq, the UAE and Kuwait – increasing production by an average of ~ 3.34mmb/d in 2022 and 2.76 mmb/d in 2023 relative to 2021. Most of the increases comes from KSA, Iraq and UAE (Chart 3). In addition, we expect US shale-oil producers to increase their average output by 0.6mm b/d this year, and 1.07mm b/d in 2023 relative to 2021 (Chart 4). In 2022, US crude oil supply reaches 11.7mm b/d, and in 2023 it goes to 12.13mm b/d in our estimates. The slower increase in US output this year largely is a function of the delay we expect in assembling rigs and crews to significantly lift production from current levels. These production increases are needed to make up for ongoing downgrades of OPEC 2.0 member states' ability to increase output, including Russia, where we expect crude oil production to remain flat at a little over 10mm b/d this year on average (Table 1). Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) To Dec23 Back in July 2021, the coalition agreed to restore 400k b/d of production taken off the market in the wake of COVID-19 demand destruction. Thus far, the coalition has only managed to restore ~ 1.86mm b/d of the 2mm b/d pledged for August to December 2021, according to the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies (OIES). For this year, the OIES notes OPEC 2.0 "will struggle to return more than 2 mb/d of withheld supplies in 2022, compared to the headline target of 3.76 mb/d."5 Our view rests on a policy call at the end of the day: We believe OPEC 2.0 – KSA in particular – is well aware of the demand-destruction potential high nominal prices and a strong USD pose, particularly as the US Fed is embarking on a rate-hike program to accompany the quantitative-tightening measures recently adopted. Absent a concerted effort to raise production by the core OPEC 2.0 states ex-Russia and the US shale producers, prices could move above $86/bbl as supply tightens and demand continues to rise. This can be seen in The Chart of the Week (the dashed brown curve depicting our estimate for prices without higher production). Importantly, even if such a concerted effort emerges, a failure to resolve the Iran nuclear talks with the US and its allies this year would keep more than 1mm b/d of production from returning to the market. This would push average Brent prices this year and next to or above $90/bbl. Oil Demand Recovery To Continue Provided we do not see widespread lockdowns resulting from the rapid transmission of the omicron variant, we expect global demand to grow close to 4.8mm b/d this year and 1.6mm b/d in 2023 (Chart 5). This reflects our view that – baring too-high prices or another full-scale COVID-induced lockdown in a key market like China – demand resumes its return to trend. It is important to point out that the increase in oil demand we expect is being driven by economic growth, which means consumers likely can withstand high prices, just as long as they do not become excessive – i.e., entrenched above $90/bbl in our view. Chart 5Global Oil Demand Forecast Remains Steady Chart 6OPEC 2.0 Production Policy Kept Supply Below Demand In our base case model, we continue to see markets remaining balanced (Chart 6) – assuming we get the policy calls right – and OECD oil inventories falling (Chart 7). Even with an uptick in inventories, which presently are 31.5mm barrels above the 2010-14 average, days-forward-cover for the OECD will remain low (Chart 8). Chart 7Crude Inventories Continue To Draw Investment Implications The consensus view calls for oil prices to remain at current elevated levels, and to perhaps push higher. We share that view – and have maintained it for some time – which gives us pause. A consensus not only reflects a shared view. It likely reflects broad similarities in the way market participants are positioned in their capex, investment and trading outlooks. This is inherently unstable. We expect oil prices to remain elevated, and have returned our 2022 Brent forecast to $80/bbl on average. Our 2023 forecast for Brent remains $81/bbl. We continue to recommend positions that benefit from tightening markets in which forward curves are backwardated and likely to remain so. Even if we see production increasing – from the OPEC 2.0 core producers ex-Russia and the US shales – we still expect forward Brent and WTI curves to remain backwardated (prompt-delivery prices exceed deferred-delivery prices). We remain long the S&P GSCI and the COMT ETF to express this view. If we fail to see production increase to keep prices from breaching and sustaining levels above $90/bbl, long index exposure will post higher gains. The risk to our view is two-fold: 1) High prices leading to demand-destruction, which is made more acute when the USD is strong; and 2) widespread omicron-induced lockdowns, which could once again reduce consumption and lead to global supply-chain gridlock. High prices leading to demand destruction, or another round of lockdowns would force us to reconsider our positioning.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com Paula Struk Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy paula.struk@bcaresearch.com Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish It's very early days, but EU experts are reviewing a draft plan leaked to the media earlier this month, which could result in gas- and nuclear-powered generation being included among sustainable energy sources, and suitable to bridge the global energy transition to renewable power. The draft of the common classification system for EU funding of sustainable economic activities, or taxonomy, apparently states gas plants can earn a “transitional” label if they meet several criteria, including an emissions limit of 270g of CO2e/kWh, or if their annual emissions average 550kg CO2e/kW or less over 20 years. This criterion would be applied to judging environmental performance of a gas plant over 20 years, but offers no guarantee that its emissions would drop over time. The chair of the expert panel said draft rules for nukes raised questions over "whether a plant can guarantee its green credentials today, if its obligation to manage nuclear waste – one of the main environmental concerns about the fuel – does not kick in until as late as 2050," according to euractiv.com, which broke the story earlier this month. Base Metals: Bullish Indonesia has become more restrictive with exports of raw commodities in order to attract more downstream investments and to play a bigger role in producing finished goods. Of these commodities, Indonesia’s supply of nickel, relative to the world is the highest, constituting ~ 38% of total global nickel supply. In 2020, the nation banned nickel ore exports, and is now considering a progressive export tax on low nickel content products such as ferronickel and nickel pig iron. This tax could reduce foreign investment in Indonesia’s nickel mines and global supply, which would, all else equal, support prices. These developments arrive on the back of low nickel inventories, which helped prices of the key battery metal reach a 10-year high last week (Chart 9).   Precious Metals: Bullish In 2021, gold ETFs were hit by outflows of ~ $9 billion, the main reason the yellow metal was unable to reach its 2020 high above the $2,000/oz mark (Chart 10). For this year, we expect a supportive gold market, as real interest rates will remain weak despite the Fed’s hawkish tilt to lift nominal interest rates higher. In line with BCA’s Foreign Exchange Strategy service, we expect the USD to fall over the 12-18 month horizon, which will also bolster gold. Chart 9       Footnotes 1     Please see Column: Oil prices expected to rise with big variation in projections: Kemp, published by reuters.com on January 19, 2022. 2     High nominal oil prices and a strong USD compound the former demand-destruction risk.  The latter risk of wide-spread omicron-induced lockdowns is elevated in China at present.  Its success in shutting down the transmission of earlier COVID-19 mutations has reduced the amount of antibodies to the virus in the population.  This is compounded by a lack of mRNA vaccine production and distribution, which leaves the country at risk to wide-spread omicron transmission.  In states with large shares of the population carrying COVID-19 antibodies – e.g., the UK – omicron is less of a risk and is on course to becoming endemic.  Please see 2022 Key Views: Past As Prelude For Commodities and Endemic COVID-19 Will Spur Commodities' Next Leg Higher which we published on December 16, 2021 and January 13, 2022 for discussions. 3    Oil flows are expected to return to normal in short order.  Please see Halted Iraq-Turkey flows to resume within hour: Botas, published by argusmedia.com on January 19, 2022. 4    Please see Russia/Ukraine: Implications From Kazakhstan and Geopolitical Charts For The New Year published by BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy service on January 7 and 14, 2022, respectively, for discussions. 5    Please see Key Themes for the Global Energy Economy in 2022 published by the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies on January 18, 2022.   Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Trades Closed in 2021

US defense stocks have been on a tear of late (outperforming SPX by 10% since late November), benefiting from both macro and geopolitical trends.   From a macro standpoint, the Defense industry has been neglected by investors for a while, and now trades at 15.4x forward earnings, with a 27% discount to S&P 500.  As a “value” industry, it is likely to outperform in the environment of rising rates. On a geopolitical front, there is a secular rise in geopolitical risks due to a great power rivalry, hypo-globalization, and rising nationalism across the globe. The recent rise in commodity prices also means that countries will get back to active competition over resources and territory, in the Middle East, the South China Sea, the Mediterranean, Central Asia.  As such, the US refocusing on great power competition means Democrats and Republicans both support larger defense budgets, and Biden’s Congress already confirmed this with a large 2021 defense spending bill ($780bn, an increase of 5% from the peak during Trump’s presidency). China is increasing defense spending for the same reason, attempting to carve out a sphere of influence in East Asia, secure supply chains, and deter America in the event of a conflict in China’s neighborhood such as over Taiwan. There is also a rise in defense spending among other emerging powers, such as India, which is coming into its own as a geopolitical force and expanding its military to meet the China challenge as well as the ongoing Pakistan threat. The US allied states, that were formerly dovish, such as Germany and Japan, are also ramping up their defense spending.  Bottom Line: Changing world order will inevitably bring a military buildup between major powers benefiting US defense stocks on a secular basis. The US defense industry is represented by the following companies: LMT, NOC, GD, LHX, AXON, HII. ​​​​​​​  

Highlights On US inflation and the Fed: If the Fed adheres to its mandate, it has no choice but to hike rates until core inflation drops toward 2% (from its current level above 4%). Yet, share prices will sell off before inflation converges toward the Fed’s target. On US TIPS yields: Rising TIPS yields will depress share prices in the richly valued equity markets like the US, support the greenback, and curtail portfolio flows into EM for a period of time. On China: Despite stimulus, China’s business cycle will continue disappointing over the near-term. Besides, a bottom in money/credit indicators does not always herald an imminent and sustainable equity rally. On financial market divergences: Major selloffs evolve in phases resembling domino effect-like patterns. In contrast, corrections are abrupt, and the majority of markets drop concurrently. Hence, the nature of current market dynamics is more consistent with a major selloff than a short-term correction. On regional allocation within a global equity portfolio: Overweight the euro area and Japan, underweight the US and EM. Feature Ms. Mea is a long-time BCA client and an avid follower of the Emerging Markets Strategy (EMS) service. Since 2017, I have been meeting with her twice a year to exchange thoughts on the global macro environment, to discuss the nuances of our views and to elaborate on investment strategy. We always publish our conversations for the benefit of all EMS clients. This virtual meeting took place earlier this week. Chart 1A Technical Breakout Is In US Bond Yields Ms. Mea: It has been two years since we last met in person. I did not imagine that world travel would stay so depressed for so long when the pandemic began two years ago. I have also been surprised by the recent behavior of financial markets. There have been divergences that I cannot reconcile, such as the woes in China’s real estate sector and resilient commodity prices, the diverging performance of the S&P 500, US small caps and a significant portion of NASDAQ-listed stocks. I will ask you about these later. But let’s start with your main macro themes. Since early last year, you have been advocating two macro themes: (1) China’s slowdown; and (2) rising and non-transitory US inflation. They were controversial a year ago but have now become widely accepted in the investment community. Financial markets have moved a great deal to reflect these macro themes. Don’t you think financial markets have already fully priced in these macro trends? Answer: You are right that these narratives have become well known and financial markets have been moving to price in these developments. However, our bias is that these themes are not yet fully priced in and these macro forces will continue to impact financial markets over the near term. Let’s first discuss US inflation and interest rate moves. Chart 1 illustrates that US government bond yields have broken above major resistance levels. Such a breakout technically entails higher yields. Odds are that US long-term bond yields will move up by another 50 basis points in the months ahead before they pause or reverse. The fundamental justification for higher US bond yields is as follows: The inflation genie is out of the bottle in the US. If the Fed adheres to its inflation mandate, it has no choice but to hike rates until core inflation drops toward 2%. In December, trimmed-mean CPI and median CPI printed 4.8% and 3.8% respectively, well above the Fed’s preferred range of 2-2.25% for core inflation (Chart 2). Critically, these inflation measures are not impacted by volatile components. These measures strip out outliers like used and new car prices, auto parts, as well as energy and food. The core CPI and PCE inflation measures will drop this year but super core inflation will remain north of 3%, well above the Fed’s preferred range. Importantly, a wage inflation spiral is already underway in the US. Employees have experienced substantial negative wage growth in real terms in the past 12 months. Labor shortages are prevalent, and the employee quit rate is very high. Employees are demanding very high wage growth and employers will have little choice but to meet these demands (Chart 3). Chart 2US Super Core Inflation Suggests Broad-Based Inflationary Pressures Chart 3US Wages Will Be Accelerating Chart 4Rising TIPS Yields = Equity Multiples Comparison As a result, the only way to bring down core inflation toward its preferred target range is for the Fed to slow the economy down and curb employment and wage gains. Yet before core inflation converges to the Fed’s target, risk assets will sell off first. Practically, the Fed will talk hawkish and hike until something breaks. The breaking point will be a major selloff in US share prices. US equities have been priced to perfection on the assumption that US interest rates will remain low for many years. As interest rate expectations rise further, US equity multiples are under pressure (Chart 4). Ms. Mea: The recent rise in US bond yields has been largely driven by the real component (TIPS yields), not inflation breakevens. That would usually imply improving US growth prospects. Yet US stocks have corrected as TIPS yields rose. How do you explain this and what should investors expect going forward? Answer: Indeed, the latest rise in US bonds yields is primarily driven by increasing TIPS yields, not inflation breakevens (Chart 5) TIPS yields have not been driven by economic growth expectations in the past couple of years. TIPS yields are breaking out and more upside is likely for reasons unrelated to US economic growth: The Fed’s rhetoric and guidance. TIPS yields typically move with 5-year/5-year forward yields, i.e., expectations for US interest rates in the long run (Chart 6). One of reasons why forward interest rates and TIPS yields have been low is the Fed’s commitment to keep interest rates extremely depressed for so long. As the Fed’s rhetoric has recently changed, so are interest rate expectations and TIPS yields. Given that core inflation will not drop to the Fed’s target range any time soon, the Fed will likely escalate its hawkish rhetoric. Hence, TIPS yields will keep rising, until something breaks. Chart 5US Tips Yields Have Broken Out After A Base Formation Chart 6US TIPS Yields More With Long-Term Interest Rate Expectations TIPS demand/supply and momentum. The TIPS market is relatively small, and it has been rigged by the Fed in the past two years or so. As a part of its QE program, the Fed has been buying a large share of TIPS, and it now owns 22% of this market. As a result, TIPS yields have fallen irrespective of economic growth dynamics. As the QE program ends, the Fed will stop purchasing TIPS. There has also been a rush into TIPS by institutional investors. In a quest for inflation protection when the Fed was complacent about inflation, investors have been opting for TIPS. This has also depressed TIPS yields. As the US central bank sounds more hawkish, investors’ demand for inflation protection will likely diminish. In addition, TIPS prices have recently plunged dramatically. Large losses could prompt further liquidation by investors pushing TIPS yields much higher. All of the above and the fact that TIPS yields remain negative suggest that they will continue rising in the coming months. Chart 7Rising TIPS Yields Warrant A Stronger US Dollar Ms. Mea: Your point that TIPS yields will continue rising in the months ahead irrespective of US inflation and growth dynamics is interesting. So, what are the implications of rising US bond yields, especially TIPS yields, on various financial markets? Answer: Falling/low TIPS yields have benefited long duration plays like US stocks, and especially US growth stocks. Declining TIPS yields were a drag on the US dollar (Chart 7). Finally, they also prompted portfolio capital flows to EM. Consistently, rising TIPS yields will depress share prices in the richly valued equity markets like the US (Chart 4, above) support the greenback, and curtail portfolio flows into EM for a period of time. Ms. Mea: But aren’t US share prices positively correlated with US interest rates? Answer: Not always. Chart 8 illustrates that the correlation between the S&P 500 and US Treasury yields varied over time. Prior to the mid-1960s, it was positive. From 1966 until 1997, US equity prices were negatively correlated with US Treasury yields. Since 1997, US share prices have been positively correlated with US government bond yields (Chart 8, top panel). Chart 8US Stock-Bond Correlation: A Paradigm Shift In 2022? Chart 9Early 2020s = Late 1960s? We believe US markets are now undergoing a major paradigm shift in the stock prices-bond yields correlation. The latter is about to turn negative like it did in the second half of the 1960s. In the mid-1960s, the reason why the stock-to-bond yields correlation turned negative was because US core inflation surged well above 2% in 1966 (Chart 8, bottom panel). This marked a paradigm shift in the relationship between equity prices and US Treasury yields. The same is happening now. As we wrote a year ago in our Special Report titled A Paradigm Shift In The Stock-Bond Relationship, the proper roadmap for the US stock-to-bond correlation is not the last 10 or 20 years, but the second half of the 1960s. After US core CPI surged substantially above 2%, the S&P 500 became negatively correlated with US Treasury yields (Chart 9). Ms. Mea: Let’s now turn to emerging markets. How will EM financial markets perform amid rising US bonds yields? Also, which US yields matter most for EM financial markets, US Treasury yields or TIPS? Answer: Neither US Treasury yields nor TIPS yields have a stable correlation with EM stock prices. Correlations between US nominal bond yields, EM currencies and EM domestic bond yields vary over time. However, US TIPS yields exhibit a reasonably strong positive correlation with mainstream EM local bond yields and the US dollar's exchange rate versus EM currencies (Chart 10). Mainstream EM includes 16 markets but excludes China, Korea and Taiwan. Hence, as US TIPS yields move up, it is reasonable to expect the US dollar to strengthen against mainstream EM currencies and their local bond yields to rise (Chart 10). Currency depreciation and rising domestic bond yields will prove to be toxic for the share prices of these mainstream emerging markets. To sum up, rising US TIPS yields will jeopardize the performance of EM equities, currencies, local rates and credit markets. Ms. Mea: Aren’t many EMs better prepared for rising US nominal/real yields than they were in 2013? Answer: Yes, they are: many EM countries that were running large current account deficits in 2013 now have current account surpluses or small deficits (Chart 11, top panel). Besides, mainstream EMs ramped up their foreign currency debt in the years preceding 2013 while their foreign debt has changed little in the past 6-7 years (Chart 11, bottom panel). Chart 10Rising TIPS Yields Are A Risk To EM Domestic Bonds Chart 11Mainstream EM: Less Vulnerable To The Fed Now Than in 2013 Table 1Current Account Balances In Individual EM Countries Table 1 illustrates the current account balance in individual developing countries. Further, the share of foreign investor holdings in EM local currency bonds has declined a great deal in the past 2 years (Table 2). Finally, many mainstream EM central banks have hiked rates aggressively and their local bond yields have already risen considerably in the past 12 months. These also provide some protection against fixed-income portfolio capital outflows. All in all, vulnerability from foreign portfolio capital outflows in EM is much lower than it was in 2013. Nevertheless, EM financial markets will not remain unscathed if US rates march higher, the US dollar rallies and US stocks wobble. Based on the parameters displayed in Tables 1 and 2, the most vulnerable countries among mainstream EMs are Peru, Colombia, Chile and Egypt. Table 2Foreign Ownership Of Domestic Bonds: January 2022 Versus October 2019 Chart 12China"s Construction Cycle In Perspective Ms. Mea: Let’s now move to your second theme - China’s slowdown. This is well known and arguably priced in financial markets. Importantly, policymakers have been ratcheting up stimulus. Don’t you think now is the time to upgrade the stance on Chinese stocks and China-related plays? Answer: Despite the new round of stimulus, China’s business cycle will continue disappointing over the near-term. As we wrote in last week’s report titled Chinese Equities: Valuations and Profits, Chinese corporate earnings are set to contract in the next 6 months. This means that the risk-reward profile of Chinese stocks in absolute terms is not yet attractive. Importantly, even though property market woes are well known and housing sales and starts have collapsed, housing construction activity has remained resilient (Chart 12). The bottom panel of Chart 12 demonstrates rising completions, which is one of reasons why raw materials prices have been resilient. However, new funding for property developers has dried up and they will be forced to scale back completions/construction activity. Historically, EM non-TMT share prices lagged the turning points in China’s money/credit impulses by several months (Chart 13). Even though the money/credit cycle is now bottoming, a buying opportunity in stocks will likely transpire in a few months. In brief, a tentative bottom in money/credit indicators does not always herald an imminent and sustainable equity rally. Chart 13China"s Credit Cycle And EM Non-TMT Stocks Ms. Mea: Another topic I wanted to discuss today is divergences in global financial markets. Some equity markets have already fallen significantly, while the S&P 500 index as well as a couple of individual EM equity bourses (India, Taiwan and Mexico) have been firm. There have been massive divergences within the US equity market in general and the NASDAQ index in particular. Besides, EM high-yield corporate spreads have widened but EM investment grade corporate spreads remain tight. Finally, commodity prices have remained firm despite both China’s slowdown and US dollar strength. How should investors interpret these divergences? Answer: Such divergences in financial markets often occur during major selloffs. Notable financial market downturns evolve in phases resembling domino effect-like patterns, where some markets lead while others lag. In contrast, corrections are abrupt, and the majority of markets drop concurrently. For example, the EM crises in 1997-98 did not occur simultaneously across all EM countries. It began in July 1997 with Thailand, then spread to Korea, Malaysia and Indonesia, and finally to the rest of Asia. By August 1998, Russian financial markets had collapsed, triggering the Long-Term Capital Management (LTCM) debacle. The last leg of the crisis appeared in Brazil and culminated in the real's devaluation in January 1999. Chart 14Domino Effect In 2007-08 Similarly, the US financial/credit crisis in 2007-08 commenced with the selloff in sub-prime securities in March 2007. Corporate spreads began widening, and bank share prices rolled over in June 2007. Next, the S&P 500 and EM stocks peaked in October 2007 (Chart 14). Despite these developments, commodity prices and EM currencies continued to rally until the summer of 2008 when they finally collapsed in the second half of that year (Chart 14, bottom panel). There was a domino effect in financial markets in both the 2015 and 2018 turbulences. Initially, the selloffs started in the weakest links while other parts were holding up. Then, the selloff spread to all without exception. For example, in 2018, US share prices and high-yield credit spreads were doing quite well until October 2018. Then, a broad-based selloff transpired in the fourth quarter of 2018.  Just as chains break at their weakest links, financial market selloffs begin in the most susceptible sectors. Overpriced US stocks with little or no profits and currencies with zero or negative interest rates have been most vulnerable to rising US interest rates. That is why these segments have sold off first in response to rising US nominal and real rates. Our hunch is that the selloff in global markets due to rising US interest rates will broaden in the coming months. This does not mean that global stocks on the verge of a major bear market, but a double-digit drop in global share prices is likely. The last asset class standing will be commodity prices. These will likely be the last affected by rising US interest rates because many investors buy commodities as an inflation hedge. Besides, oil prices have also been supported by the geopolitical tensions around Ukraine and Iran. It might take investor concerns about the US economy and a slowdown in global manufacturing to trigger a relapse in commodity prices. Chart 15Rising TIPS Yields = European Equities Outperforming US Ones Ms. Mea: What investment strategy do you recommend in the coming months? Answer: As US interest rates continue rising and China’s recovery fails to transpire immediately, EM financial markets remain at risk. Therefore, we recommend a defensive stance for absolute return investors in EM equity and fixed income. We are also continuing to short a basket of EM currencies versus the US dollar. As for global equity regional allocation, the outlook for EM performance is less certain than it was in the past 12 months. Clearly, rising US/DM interest rates herald US equity underperformance versus other DM markets, like the euro area and Japan (Chart 15). The basis is that non-US equities are not as expensive as US ones and, hence, are less vulnerable to rising interest rates. Chart 16EM Relative Equity Performance Is Correlated With The USD, Not US Bond Yields Whether EM outperforms or not is mainly contingent on the US dollar, rather than US bond yields. The top panel of Chart 16 demonstrates that EM relative equity performance against DM has a low correlation with US bond yields. Yet, EM equities will underperform their DM peers if the USD strengthens (the greenback is shown inverted on the bottom panel of Chart 16). However, if the greenback depreciates, EM will certainly outperform the US in both equity and the fixed income space. Putting it all together, asset allocators should overweight the euro area and Japan, and underweight the US and EM in a global equity portfolio. Ms. Mea: What about EM local bonds and EM credit markets? Answer: EM credit spreads will widen, and EM local yields will not drop as US bond yields head higher and EM exchange rates depreciate. We continue to recommend investors underweight EM credit versus US corporate credit, quality adjusted. As for local rates, we largely remain on the sidelines of this asset class. Our current recommendations are as follows: receiving 10-year rates in China and Malaysia, paying Czech 10-year rates and betting on 10/1-year yield curve inversions in Mexico and Russia. For a detailed list of our country recommendations for equities, credit, domestic bonds and currencies, please refer to Open Position Tables below. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com