グローバル

ハイライト IEAの最新予測によれば、2021–22年の期間における世界の発電設備増加のうち、再生可能エネルギーの設備容量が90％を占める見込みです。これは、昨年追加された再生可能エネルギーの発電設備容量が前年同期比で45％増加したこと（COVID-19パンデミック下でも発生した）を受けたものです（今週のチャート）。 再生可能エネルギーと電気自動車（EV）への継続的な投資、および世界経済の回復により、銀行や商社の銅価格予測は1トンあたり約13,000～20,000ドルのレンジに引き上げられつつあり、現在の約10,600ドル/トン（約4.80ドル/ポンド）と比べて高い水準となっています。 これらのより強い金属価格見通しが的中すれば、カーボン回収やサーキュラー利用技術を通じて化石燃料の低炭素利用を延長する投資の魅力が高まるでしょう。 これらの技術への投資は、投資を評価するための明確な世界的参照価格が存在しないため限定的でした。カーボン市場や炭素税がそのような基準を提供すれば投資は加速します。これはカーボン・マーケット・クラブを通じて監視でき、税を公表し徴収する加盟国に取引を限定します。1 特集 IEAの最新の再生可能エネルギーに関するアップデートによれば、昨年の再生可能エネルギーの設備容量増加はほぼ280GWで、前年同期比45％増と1999年以来の最大の伸びでした。2 今年および来年については、再生可能エネルギーが設備容量増加の90％を占めると見込まれており、特に太陽光PVへの投資は約50％増の162GWに達すると予想されています。風力は昨年90％増の114GWにまで成長し、2022年末までに約50％増加する見込みです。 再生可能エネルギーの発電量の増加と電気自動車（EV）への投資の拡大に伴い、バルク（鉄鋼および鉄鉱石）や、銅を先頭とするベースメタルの需要が価格を押し上げるでしょう。これは、2020年末までの4年間で供給の伸びが停滞し物理的な不足が続いた背景のもとで起きています（チャート2）。IEAによれば、2020年9月から2021年3月の期間で鉄鋼および銅価格が40％上昇したことが、太陽光PVモジュール価格上昇の一因となりました。 今週のチャート 再生可能エネルギー設備容量の急増 金属価格の急騰とカーボンキャプチャーの必要性 金属価格の急騰とカーボンキャプチャーの必要性 我々の評価では、銅市場の供給側は今年と来年も不足が続く見込みであり、Wood Mackenzieが想定するように、今後20年間で需要が年率約2％で成長し、鉱山事業者が需要に見合う設備投資（capex）に踏み切らない場合、この傾向は継続する可能性があります。3 チャート2 物理的な赤字が銅の在庫を引き下げる... 現物不足が銅在庫を取り崩す… 現物不足が銅在庫を取り崩す… 銅や、再生可能エネルギーの構築やインフラに必要な他の金属に関するESGリスクは、価格上昇に伴って高まり、コストを押し上げます。4 こうしたコスト上昇とESGリスクの増大は、我々の見解ではカーボン回収やサーキュラーエコノミー技術への投資魅力を高めます。これにより、もし技術が世界をネットゼロの方向へ近づけられるなら、低炭素の化石燃料の利用期間を延長することが可能になります。しかし、政府の政策がこの投資を誘発しない限り—例えば世界的なカーボン取引価格や炭素税を通じて—、これら技術への投資は低迷し続ける可能性が高いでしょう。 カーボン回収技術の果たせなかった約束 カーボン回収・利用・貯留（CCUS）の歴史は、高い期待と達成されない期待の繰り返しでした。気候変動緩和の手段として一般に認識されているものの、その導入は期待ほど速く進んでいません。 低炭素技術は化石燃料に基づく技術に比べてより多くの重要金属を必要とします（チャート3）。コストの問題に加え、再生可能エネルギー移行のために金属採掘が増えれば、採掘に伴うESGリスクも増大します。これについては当社の過去のリサーチで議論しました。5 Wood Mackenzieによれば、低炭素世界への移行を支えるのに必要な金属供給のために、鉱業会社は今後15年でほぼ1.7兆ドルの投資を行う必要があると推計しています。6 チャート3 低炭素技術は金属集約的である 金属価格の急騰とカーボン・キャプチャーの意義 金属価格の急騰とカーボン・キャプチャーの意義 こうした金属に関する差し迫った物理的需要を考えると、市場が現在織り込んでいるよりも長い期間、化石燃料が橋渡しとして使われるか、あるいは炭素をハイドロカーボンから除去する技術の成功度合いに応じて将来の一部として使われ続ける可能性が高いと言えます。そうであるならば、移行期において化石燃料を使い続けつつその環境影響を軽減するには、CO2やその他の温室効果ガス（GHG）排出を低減するための高度に焦点を絞った技術が必要になります。 そこでCCUS技術です：この技術は、化石燃料やバイオマスを用いて現代社会に必要なエネルギーを生産する過程で発生するCO2を捕捉します。現在の形態では、CO2は圧縮されて輸送されるか、地質構造や海洋貯留層に貯留されます。これを増進回収（EOR）に利用して、炭化水素を含む貯留層にCO2を注入することで採取が困難な油を抽出することも可能です。7 CCUS投資の余地 CCUSへの投資支出は増加しており、この技術を利用または実証する予定の施設数も増えています。IEAの『Energy Technology Perspectives 2020』の2020年版では、2017年以降に30件の新しい統合型CCUS施設が発表され、主に米国や欧州など先進国で進められているが、一部の新興国でも計画があると指摘しています。2020年時点で計画が高度な段階にあるプロジェクトは合計で270億ドルに相当し、2017年時点の計画投資の2倍以上となっています（チャート4）。 パリ協定の多くの目的の一つは、21世紀後半に人工的な排出と温室効果ガス（GHG）吸収（シンク）による除去との間でバランスを取ることです。実務的には、多くの国、特に新興国はこの期間中に開発のために化石燃料を使用し続ける必要があるでしょう（チャート5）。8 チャート4 ここまでのカーボン回収プロジェクト 急騰する金属価格とカーボンキャプチャーの必要性 急騰する金属価格とカーボンキャプチャーの必要性 チャート5 新興国の開発には化石燃料エネルギーが必要になる 高騰する金属価格とカーボン・キャプチャー導入の必要性 高騰する金属価格とカーボン・キャプチャー導入の必要性 エネルギー分野におけるCCUS 石炭に比べてGHG排出が少ない燃料、すなわち石炭のCO2の半分程度しか排出しない天然ガスは、グリーン発電への橋渡し（ブリッジ）として有効に使うことができます（チャート6）。 チャート6 天然ガスはブリッジ燃料として引き続き魅力的である 金属価格の急騰とカーボン・キャプチャ導入の必要性 金属価格の急騰とカーボン・キャプチャ導入の必要性 天然ガス中のCO2は、パイプライン品質のガスやLNGとして販売される前に除去する必要があります。通常、このCO2は大気中に放出されますが、CCUS技術を用いることで地質貯留層へ再注入し、増進回収（EOR）に利用することができます。このため、世界最大のLNG輸出国である米国のLNG企業は、より環境に配慮した事業運営を目指してCCUS技術への投資を検討しています。9 CCUSはまた、天然ガスや石炭を用いて低コストの水素（いわゆるブルー水素）を生産するためにも利用できます。これは再生可能エネルギー由来の電力を用いる電気分解による「グリーン水素」よりもコストが低く、ブルー水素の低コスト化は新興国にクリーンな水素を普及させ、脱炭素化に向けた新たな利用経路を開く可能性があります。 その他産業におけるCCUSの価値 CCUS技術は既存の発電所や産業プラントに後付けで導入することが可能であり、IEAによれば、そうでなければ2050年に約80億トンのCO2を排出し続ける可能性があるとされ、これは2020年のエネルギー部門の年間排出量のおよそ4分の1に相当します。 化石燃料を燃焼する発電所のうち、石炭火力発電は最大のCO2課題を抱えています。排出の大部分は中国やその他のアジア新興国から生じており、平均設備年齢は20年未満です。米国規制委員会協会によれば石炭火力発電所の平均寿命は40年であるため、これらの発電所は残存稼働年数が長く、2050年まで稼働し続ける可能性があります。既存の発電所や産業プラントを廃止したり用途変更したりする代替手段として、CCUSは唯一の選択肢となり得ます。 IEAは、ネットゼロ炭素排出を達成するにはCCUSが不可欠であると考えています。同機関のSustainable Development Scenarioでは、エネルギー部門からの世界のCO2排出が2070年までにネットゼロに減少するシナリオにおいて、CCUSは累積排出削減の15％を占めます。もし世界が2050年までにネットゼロを達成する必要がある場合、ほぼ50％多いCCUSの導入が必要となります。10 適切に実装・拡大されれば、CCUSは産業が石油、ガス、石炭を使い続けつつネットゼロ目標を達成することを可能にし、中期的には化石燃料需要を後押しする可能性があります。これは特に新興国の開発にとって重要です。 なぜCCUSはもっと進んでいないのか？何ができるか？ CCUSが広く使われていない主な理由はコストです。 現在、CO2を捕捉するコストはCO2濃度に基づいて変動し、直接空気回収（Direct Air Capture）が最も高価です（チャート7）。こうした高コストのために、CCUSは商業的に成立していません。 ただし、同じ議論は再生可能エネルギー導入に対してもかつては成り立ちました。かつて再生可能エネルギーの平準化発電コストは高価でしたが、政府補助金による拡大とスケールアップにより、ムーアの法則的なコスト低下曲線に沿ってコストは下がりました。Lazard Ltd.が報告する技術横断比較が可能な太陽光発電の平準化発電コストでは、2009年から2019年にかけて発電コストが89％低下し、359ドル/MWhから40ドル/MWhになりました（チャート8）。この学習曲線は、太陽光技術の導入を促進した政府補助金によって可能になりました。 チャート7 CCUSは高コストになり得る 金属価格の急騰とカーボンキャプチャーの必要性 金属価格の急騰とカーボンキャプチャーの必要性 チャート8 太陽光と同様に補助金がCCUSを支援し得る 補助金は、太陽光発電で行われたのと同様にCCUSを支援できる 補助金は、太陽光発電で行われたのと同様にCCUSを支援できる CCUS技術のコストは低下しています。例えば、2019年にGlobal CCS Instituteは、カナダのBoundary Damで2014年に稼働したCCSユニットでの捕捉コストが1トン当たり100ドルであったと報告しました。3年後に建設された米国のPetra Novaで、改良技術を用いた捕捉コストは1トン当たり65ドルでした。いずれも石炭火力発電所です。報告書はまた、Boundary DamやPetra Novaと同様のCCS技術を用いて2024–28年に稼働開始予定の石炭火力発電所では、学習曲線の進展、研究、規模の経済による資本コスト低下、デジタル化などにより1トン当たり約43ドルになると見込まれていると指摘しました。これらのコスト削減の共通点の一つは、企業がCCUSにより多く投資し、この技術に慣れ親しむ必要があるという点です。 再生可能エネルギーの事例と同様に、政府補助金はCCUSの運用コストの参入障壁を下げ、この技術の改良への参加を促します。初期の先駆的なCCUSは高価ですが、資本支援や税額控除といった補助によりCCUSの実装と研究は増加します。Boundary DamとPetra Novaは政府補助金の恩恵を受けた例であり、CCSユニット建設時にそれぞれカナダ政府および米国の機関から1億7,000万ドルと2億ドルの支援を受けました。 米国はまた45Q税額控除制度を導入しており、貯留されたCO2に対しては1トン当たり50ドル、増進回収のような用途で使用されたCO2に対しては1トン当たり35ドルを施設に支払います。Global CCS Instituteによれば、2019年末時点で米国に追加された8件の新しいCCUSプロジェクトのうち4件は、45Qの存在を主要な推進要因として挙げていました。 カーボン市場と炭素税の活用 2005年に導入されたEUの排出権取引制度（ETS）は、企業に市場の力を使って排出削減を促す革新的な政策の一例です。これらの市場で計測される炭素価格は、これまで記録されてこなかった負の外部性に具体的な価値を与えます。ETSの欠点は、長期の需給分析や計画を複雑にする政策変更に左右されるEUの環境政策実施に依存している点です。例えば、最近の目標引き上げでは2030年までに温室効果ガス排出を少なくとも55％削減することが掲げられました。 排出権の政策主導トレードに代わる手段としては、政府が課し徴収する排出量当たりの炭素税があります。これにより、鉱業で使用されるような化石燃料を用いる技術のコストが上昇し、再生可能エネルギー移行に必要なバルクやベースメタルの供給を増やすための技術を供給・使用する企業にCCUSなどでCO2を削減するインセンティブが与えられます。 ETS市場と政府によるCO2課税は、ウィリアム・ノードハウス（2018年ノーベル経済学賞受賞者）が提唱した技術であるカーボン・マーケット・クラブを形成することができます。これにより、加盟国がパリ協定で求められる実際の削減を取引や税制で示し参加していることを実証できる国に取引を限定できます。11 グリーンエネルギー移行が勢いを増し、各国がネットゼロ政策を実施するにつれて、炭素の価格は上昇するでしょう。炭素価格が上がると、企業の排出に関連するコスト負担が増加します。市場参加者が炭素価格が記録的水準に達した後も上昇を続けると見込む中で、EUで事業を行う企業にとってCCUS技術を採用するインセンティブは強まり、炭素税に直面する企業にとっても同様に導入の動機が高まります。12 要点： 緑の金属価格の急騰、設備投資の不足、そして低炭素未来のために採掘される金属に伴うESGリスクを踏まえると、我々は市場の織り込み以上に化石燃料が低炭素社会への移行で大きな役割を果たすと予想します。各国が気候目標を達成しつつ化石燃料を利用できるようにするためには、CCUS技術の利用が重要です。CCUSの普及を高めるためには、再生可能エネルギーの事例にならい、需要が確立するまで政府がこの技術を補助する必要があります。また、ETSや炭素税の導入促進も行動を触発するために必要です。   Robert P. Ryan チーフ・コモディティ＆エネルギー・ストラテジスト rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam リサーチ・アソシエイト コモディティ＆エネルギー戦略 ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com     コモディティ概況 エネルギー： 強気 記事作成時点で、ブレント原油価格は70ドル/バレルの水準に迫っていました。これはIEAが2021年後半の強い需要回復を評価したことを受けた動きです（チャート9）。IEAは2021年前半の需要増加見通しを27万b/d引き下げましたが、インドやOECDアメリカ、欧州でのCOVID-19による需要減少が主因であり、後半の見積りは維持しており、今年の総需要増は540万b/dとしています。EIAも今年の需要増を540万b/d、来年は370万b/dと見込んでいます。OPECは2021年通年の需要増を600万b/dのまま維持しました。OPEC 2.0は6月1日に再び会合し、我々の見立てでは市場により多くのサイドライン生産を戻すことを検討するでしょう。来週のレポートで需給バランスと価格見通しを更新する予定です。 ベースメタル： 強気 記事作成時点で、CME/COMEXのスポット銅価格はおおむね4.80ドル/ポンド付近で推移していました。チリでの増税の脅威（そのような税を求める法案が議会を通過しつつあること）、鉱山労働者のストライキの可能性、そして採鉱で使用される硫酸の不足（パンデミックによる製油所の稼働減少が原因で世界的に硫黄供給が減少したことによる）などが、ブルームバーグによれば銅を強く買われた状態にしています。当社の12月限COMEX銅の目標は5ドル/ポンド（LMEで約11,000ドル/トン）です。物理的な供給不足が在庫取り崩しを強い続け、金利構造をバックワーディテートさせると予想しているため、当社は2022年カレンダー物のCOMEX銅をロング、2023年をショートのポジションを継続しています。 貴金属： 強気 水曜日の米国のCPIデータは、4月の総合インフレ率が前年同月比で4.2％上昇したことを示しました。これは2008年以来の高水準ですが、この上昇はベース効果（昨年の同時期にパンデミックで物価が下落していたため）による部分もあると考えられます。物価上昇は金をインフレヘッジとしての需要を高めますが、もしこのデータを受けてFRBが金利を引き上げれば米ドル高となり、金価格にはマイナスに働きます（チャート10）。ただし我々はFRBがこの報告で指針を急激に転換するとは予想しておらず、中銀がこの一時的な上振れと扱うと見ています。昨日の終値時点でCOMEXの金は1,835.9ドル/オンスで取引されていました。 農産物／ソフト商品： 中立 記事作成時点で、シカゴ大豆市場は水曜日に発表予定のWorld Agriculture Supply and Demand Estimates（WASDE）レポートを前に上昇していました。先物の期近は約16.70ドル/ブッシェルで、日中で2％上昇していました。今月のWASDEには、2021/22作付年に対するUSDAの初の需要見積りが含まれ、需要の強まりにより供給が引き締まるとの見通しが市場で予想されています。 チャート9 ブレント価格が上昇中 ブレント価格が上昇中 チャート10 新型コロナの不確実性が金の需要を押し上げる可能性がある 新型コロナの不確実性が金の需要を押し上げる可能性がある   脚注 1     詳細はWorld Bankが2016年7月に公表したカーボン・マーケット・クラブと新パリ体制を参照してください。こうした技術の知的および計算の枠組みは、2018年ノーベル経済学賞受賞者のウィリアム・ノードハウスによって開発されました。 2     今週IEAが公表した再生可能エネルギー市場アップデート、2021年および2022年の見通し.pdfを参照してください。 3    WoodMacは「追加の大規模な投資がない限り、2024年以降生産は減少する。需要の伸びと相まって、この生産減少は理論的には2040年までに約16Mtの不足をもたらすだろう」と指摘しています。コンサルタントは、この期間の銅需要を満たすためにさらに3,250億～5,000億ドル以上の投資が必要になると見積もっています。詳細は供給成長の欠如は銅業界にしっぺ返しをもたらすか？（woodmac.com、2021年3月23日）をご覧ください。 4    当社が2021年4月29日に公表した需要拡大に伴う再生可能エネルギーのESGリスクの増大を参照してください。ces.bcaresearch.comで入手可能です。 5    脚注4を参照してください。 6    Reutersが公表した低炭素世界には1.7兆ドルの鉱業投資が必要をご覧ください。 7     この方法は石油生産を増加させるために用いられます。炭化水素の特性を変え、貯留層圧力を回復し、貯留層内での油の置換を促進します。EORを用いることで、石油会社は貯留層中の原油原始埋蔵量の30％から60％を回収することができます。詳細は米国エネルギー省が公表する増進回収をご覧ください。 8    ReutersのコラムCO2排出制限と経済開発を参照してください。 9    World Oilの記事米国のLNG業者はグリーンなイメージ向上のためにカーボン回収を唱えるをご覧ください。 10   IEAのカーボン回収・利用・貯留に関する特別報告（Energy Technology Perspectives 2020の一部）をご覧ください。 11    上の脚注1を参照してください。 12    Financial Timesの記事EUで汚染のコストが急騰、炭素価格が記録的な€50に達するを参照してください。 投資見解とテーマ 戦略的推奨事項 タクティカル・トレード コモディティ価格および取引参考表 2021年にクローズした取引 クローズした取引の要約 より高いインフレが到来 より高いインフレが到来

Highlights The modern-day version of the Phillips curve posits that core inflation is determined by long-term inflation expectations and the amount of slack in the economy. In practice, using the Phillips curve to forecast inflation is complicated by uncertainty over: 1) the true size of the output gap; 2) the degree to which changes in the output gap affect inflation; and 3) the drivers of long-term inflation expectations. While economists should be humble in forecasting inflation trends, the bulk of the evidence suggests that core inflation will remain subdued for the next two-to-three years. However, when inflation eventually does begin to rise, it could happen faster and more forcefully than expected. For the time being, inertia in inflation expectations will allow the Fed and other central banks to maintain a highly accommodative monetary stance. This will keep a lid on bond yields, while fueling further gains in equity prices. Today’s goldilocks environment will give way to a period of stagflation in the second half of the decade, however.  The Phillips Curve: Flat… For Now It has become fashionable to criticize the Phillips curve. The reason is understandable: Wild swings in the unemployment rate over the past few decades have failed to translate into meaningful changes in inflation. As we argue in this report, however, it is too early to write off the Phillips curve. Perhaps not today, perhaps not tomorrow, but at some point, it will come roaring back. Investors need to be on guard for when it happens. Conceptually, the modern-day version of the Phillips curve posits that core inflation is a function of long-term inflation expectations and the amount of slack in the economy. Mathematically, it can be written as:   Where πt is core inflation at time t, πe is expected long-term inflation, y is GDP, ȳ is the potential (or “full employment”) level of GDP, and α is a parameter specifying how sensitive inflation is to changes in the output gap, yt – ȳt. A positive output gap implies that output is above potential while a negative gap implies output is below potential. The equation reveals three sources of uncertainty about inflation: 1) the true size of the output gap; 2) the degree to which changes in the output gap affect inflation; and 3) the drivers of long-term inflation expectations. Let’s examine all three sources of uncertainty in order to gauge where the balance of risks to inflation lie over the coming months and years.   1. What Is The Current Size Of The Output Gap? Chart 1Prime-Age Employment-To-Population Ratios Remain Below Pre-Pandemic Levels The short answer is that no one knows. The employment-to-population ratio in the OECD for workers between the ages of 25-to-54 was still more than two percentage points below pre-pandemic levels as of the end of last year (Chart 1). The labor market has tightened since then, especially in the US. However, even if US payrolls rise by 1 million in April as per Bloomberg consensus estimates, total employment would still be down 4.7% from January 2020. Admittedly, other data point to a much tighter labor market. US small businesses surveyed by the NFIB have been reporting grave difficulty in finding qualified workers (Chart 2). The job openings rate is at an all-time high, while the quits rate is near pre-pandemic levels (Chart 3). Chart 2US: Temporary Labor Shortage (I) Chart 3US: Temporary Labor Shortage (II)     How does one square widespread stories of labor shortages with the fact that total employment remains depressed? A pessimistic interpretation is that the pandemic pushed up structural unemployment. We are skeptical of this thesis. A similar narrative was invoked shortly after the Great Recession to justify tighter fiscal policy and an early start to rate hikes. In the end, not only did the unemployment rate return to pre-GFC levels, but it dropped to a 50-year low. A more plausible explanation is that many service sector workers are currently reluctant to re-enter the labor market due to lingering fears about the pandemic, and in some cases, the need to remain home to look after young children studying remotely. In addition, generous unemployment benefits – which for more than half of US workers exceed their take-home pay – have reduced the incentive to work. Expanded unemployment benefits will expire in September. As the pandemic winds down and schools fully reopen, more workers will rejoin the labor force. Bottom Line: Temporary dislocations are curbing labor supply. However, the level of employment will probably not return to its pre-pandemic trend for another 12 months in the US. It will take even longer to get back to full employment in the euro area and Japan. 2. How Do Changes In The Output Gap Affect Inflation? The Phillips curve was reasonably steep between the mid-1960s and mid-1980s. As such, a falling output gap generally corresponded to rising inflation and vice versa. The result was a series of “clockwise spirals” in inflation-unemployment space, as illustrated in Charts 4A & 4B. Chart 4AThe Phillips Curve Was Steep In The 1960s-1980s Chart 4BThe Phillips Curve Has Been Flat In Recent Decades Starting in the 1990s, the Phillips curve flattened out. By the time of the Great Recession, the slope of the curve was indistinguishable from zero. Will the Phillips curve remain flat? Over the next two years, the answer is probably yes. However, looking beyond then, it is likely to re-steepen again. Chart 5 shows that the “wage version” of the Phillips curve never became very flat. Even after the mid-1980s, there was still a consistently strong negative correlation between wage growth and the unemployment rate. Chart 5The Wage Version Of The Phillips Curve Is Alive And Well Chart 6Inflation Started Accelerating Quickly Only When Unemployment Reached Very Low Levels In The 1960s   Why, then, did stronger wage growth fail to translate into rising price inflation over the past three decades? To a large extent, the answer is that the Fed began to hike interest rates every time the labor market showed signs of overheating. Higher rates, in turn, led to asset busts. During the 1991 recession, it was the commercial real estate bust; in 2001, it was the dotcom bust; and in 2008, it was the housing bust. All three asset busts led to recessions and higher unemployment before wage growth could seep into inflation. What is different this time is that the Fed is a lot more patient. This means that the economy may eventually overheat to a degree not seen in recent history. How long will that take? Probably a few more years. Consider the case of the 1960s. The unemployment rate was at or below its full employment level for four straight years before inflation took off in 1966 (Chart 6). The shortage of workers spawned a major wage-price spiral. Workers demanded higher wages in response to rising prices, which forced firms to further lift prices in order to defend profit margins. Chart 7US Wage Barometers Disaggregated The US is nowhere near that point now. While some measures of wage growth have accelerated, this mainly reflects a “composition bias” in the way wage indices are constructed. The pandemic led to significant job losses in low-wage sectors such as retail and hospitality, which skewed the calculation of average hourly wages and median weekly earnings to the upside. Cleaner measures of wage growth, such as the Employment Cost Index or the Atlanta Fed Wage Tracker, have been fairly stable over the course of the pandemic1 (Chart 7). Bottom Line: There is good reason to think that the Phillips curve is “kinked”, meaning that inflation might not rise much until the labor market has severely overheated. For now, no major economy is near the kink.   3. Will Long-Term Inflation Expectations Stay Well Anchored? One of the distinguishing features of the clockwise spirals in Chart 4 is that they trace out a series of “higher highs” and “higher lows” for inflation during the period between the mid-1960 and early-1980s. In essence, what happened back then was that inflation would rise, prompting the Fed to step on the brakes ever so gingerly. Inflation would then decline modestly, but not by enough to bring it back to its original level. The “stickiness” of inflation during that era highlights the importance of inflation expectations. In the context of the Phillips curve, a change in long-term inflation expectations could, at least theoretically, affect realized inflation independent of what happens to the output gap. In practice, however, the size of the output gap is likely to influence inflation expectations and vice versa. A persistently positive output gap will cause inflation to consistently exceed its long-term expected value. As Milton Friedman and Edmund Phelps pointed out more than four decades ago, this will eventually prompt businesses and the public to revise up their expectations of inflation. Unless the central bank lifts interest rates by enough, a rise in inflation expectations could spur people to increase spending in advance of higher prices. This could cause the economy to further overheat, leading to even higher inflation expectations. In other words, a positive output gap could lead to higher inflation expectations, and higher inflation expectations, in turn, could push aggregate demand even further above potential. Suppose that people jettison the expectation of a stable long-term inflation rate and adopt an “adaptive” approach whereby they assume that inflation this year simply will be what it was last year. This is equivalent to replacing πe in the Phillips curve equation with πt-1, yielding:   This is the “accelerationist” version of the Phillips curve. It says that the output gap determines the change in inflation rather than the level of inflation. With an accelerationist Phillips curve, inflation can increase without bound if the central bank tries to keep output above its potential level. The transition to an accelerationist Phillips curve appears to have happened in the 1970s. As my colleague Jonathan Laberge has argued, and as recent empirical work has emphasized, changes in inflation expectations generally have a larger impact on realized inflation than changes in the output gap. In particular, it is difficult to explain the Volcker disinflation solely based on the movement in the unemployment rate. Inflation continued to fall even after the unemployment rate peaked in December 1982. The surprising decline in inflation following the recession even prompted two young economists working at the Council of Economic Advisors, Paul Krugman and Larry Summers, to pen a memo entitled “The Inflation Timebomb?” in which they predicted a “significant reacceleration of inflation in the near future”. Chart 8Long-Term Inflation Expectations Remain Well Anchored Today Why did inflation keep falling in the 1980s as the economy recovered? A plausible theory is that Paul Volcker’s appointment to Fed chair marked a “regime shift” in the conduct of monetary policy. No longer would the Fed stand idly by as inflation galloped higher. Even if it took double digit interest rates and a deep recession, the Fed would do what was needed to break the back of inflation. This allowed the accelerationist Phillips curve of the 1970s to transition to its modern-day version characterized by low and stable inflation expectations. What does all this mean for today? Both survey and market-based measures of long-term inflation expectations remain well anchored (Chart 8). Given that inflation expectations have been low and stable for the past few decades, it may take even more overheating than what occurred in the 1960s to unmoor them. Such an unmooring of inflation expectations is not impossible, however. The Fed seems eager to overheat the economy. Fiscal policy is likely to remain highly accommodative long after the pandemic restrictions ease. Meanwhile, as we discussed in an earlier report, many of the structural factors that have suppressed inflation could go into reverse. Bottom Line: Inflation expectations are likely to remain well anchored for the next two years. However, they could become unmoored later on if monetary and fiscal policy remain highly accommodative. Concluding Thoughts There is a lot of concern over inflation these days. We would fade these concerns, at least for the time being. The much-discussed spike in manufacturing input prices is nothing new. The exact same thing happened in 2008 and 2011 (Chart 9). Pundits who hyperventilated about soaring inflation were proven wrong back then and they are likely to be proven wrong again this year. Chart 9Wholesale Inflation Rose (Briefly) In 2008 And 2011 Too Chart 10The Most Refined Measures Of Core Inflation Paint A Benign Picture   The pandemic distorted prices in all sorts of unprecedented ways. This means that looking at standard measures of core inflation may be misleading. It is much better to consider more refined measures of core inflation that go beyond simply stripping out the effects of volatile food and energy prices. Chart 10 shows that trimmed-mean inflation, median price inflation, and sticky price inflation all suggest that underlying inflation remains well contained. Continued low inflation will allow the Fed to maintain a highly accommodative monetary policy. This will keep a lid on bond yields, while fueling further gains in equity prices. When will it be time to worry? When the labor market starts to overheat to the point that a wage-price spiral erupts. As discussed above, that is not a near-term risk. However, such a spiral could occur in two-to-three years, setting the stage for a period of stagflation in the second half of the decade.   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist pberezin@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Unlike the widely followed average hourly wage series published every month in the payrolls report, the quarterly Employment Cost Index (ECI) does control for shifts in the weights of different industries in total employment. Thus, an increase in the relative number of low-paid hospitality workers would depress average hourly wages, but would not affect the ECI. Nevertheless, the ECI does not control for the possibility that the composition of the workforce within industries may change over time. The Atlanta Fed's Wage Tracker does overcome this bias because it uses the same sample of workers from one period to the next.   Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores

Highlights Massive slack in the US labour market means that the current uplift in US inflation is highly likely to fade by the end of the year. On a long-term horizon, investors should own US T-bonds. Equity investors should fade the reflation trade… …and rotate into the unloved defensive sectors such as healthcare, consumer staples, and personal products. These sector preferences imply an overweight to developed markets (DM) versus emerging markets (EM). On a 6+ month horizon, overweight US T-bonds versus German bunds. Fractal trade shortlist: France versus Japan; corn versus wheat; timber; and building materials. Feature Chart of the WeekMillions Of People Have Dropped Out Of The US Labour Market The near 40 percent of Americans not in the labour market is the highest level in 50 years. Moreover, the exodus out of the labour market during the pandemic was on an unprecedented scale in the modern era. This means that we should treat the US unemployment rate with a huge dose of salt, because it does not include the millions of people that have dropped out of the labour market (Chart I-1). Even the headline 14 million plunge in the number of US unemployed is deceptive, because it is almost entirely due to the furloughed workers that have returned to their jobs (Chart I-2). Chart I-2Furloughed Workers Have Returned To Their Jobs... Worryingly, the additional 2 million ‘permanent unemployed’ has barely budged from its pandemic peak and the number of economically inactive stands 5.5 million higher (Chart I-3). Meanwhile, population growth is increasing the potential labour force. In combination, underemployment in the US labour market amounts to around 10 million people. Chart I-3...But The Numbers Of Permanent Unemployed And Inactive Remain Elevated To its credit, the Federal Reserve is acutely aware of this. Last week, Chair Jay Powell pointed out that: “We’re a long way from full employment, payroll jobs are 8.4 million below where they were in February of 2020…these were people who were working in February of 2020. They clearly want to work. So those people, they’re going to need help” Implicit is the Fed’s belief that the massive slack in the US labour market will keep structural inflation depressed. And that the coming increases in inflation will be short-lived. Travel And Hospitality Cannot Move The Inflation Needle Some people argue that pent-up demand for things that we couldn’t do under social restrictions – such as travel and eat out – will unleash a major inflation. The flaw in this argument is that these things account for a tiny part of the inflation basket. For example, airfares are weighted at a negligible 0.6 percent in the US consumer price index (CPI). Eating out at (full service) restaurants is weighted at just 3 percent. So, even if these prices were to surge, they would barely move the overall inflation needle. By far the biggest component in US inflation is rent of shelter, weighted at 33 percent in the CPI and 42 percent in the core CPI. By far the biggest component in US inflation is rent of shelter, weighted at 33 percent in the CPI and 42 percent in the core CPI. The lion’s share of rent of shelter is so-called ‘owner-equivalent rent’, weighted at 24 percent in the CPI and 30 percent in the core CPI.1  Owner-equivalent rent is the hypothetical cost that homeowners incur to consume their own home, obtained by surveying a sample of homeowners. In the US, this hypothetical cost tracks actual rents. So, we can say that the biggest driver of US inflation is rent inflation (Chart I-4). Chart I-4Owner-Equivalent Rent Inflation Tracks Actual Rent Inflation Rent inflation has consistently outperformed the rest of the inflation basket. Hence, to get overall inflation to a persistent 2 percent, rent inflation must get to 3 percent and stay there – meaning a persistent 1.5 percent higher than it is now (Chart I-5). Chart I-5Core Inflation At 2 Percent Requires Rent Inflation At 3 Percent What drives rent inflation? The answer is the permanent unemployment rate. This is because the ability to pay rent relies on the security of having a permanent job. Empirically, a one percent decline in the permanent unemployment rate lifts rent inflation by one percent (Chart I-6). Chart I-6A 1 Percent Decline In The Permanent Unemployment Rate Lifts Rent Inflation By 1 Percent Pulling this together, the US permanent unemployment rate needs to fall by about 1.5 percent for core inflation to reach the Fed’s target persistently. Put another way, most of the additional 2 million permanent unemployed need to find work. Yet history teaches us that this will take a long time. The Post-Pandemic Productivity Boom Will Be Disinflationary When an industry sheds millions of jobs in a recession, it tends to substitute that labour input permanently with a new productivity-boosting technology or strategy. For example, after the Great Depression the smaller craft-based auto producers shut down permanently, while those that had adopted labour-saving mass production survived. The result was a major restructuring of the auto productive structure. Another example was the ‘typing pool’, a ubiquitous feature of office life until the late 1990s. After the dot com bust, the wholesale roll-out of Microsoft Word wiped out these typing jobs. It takes years for excess labour to get fully absorbed into a post-recession economy. Hence, the flip side of a post-recession productivity boom is that displaced workers need to re-skill, or even change career – requiring a long time for the excess labour to get absorbed into the restructured economy. After the dot com bust, it took four years. After the global financial crisis, it took six years (Chart I-7). Chart I-7How Long Does It Take To Absorb The Permanent Unemployed? The post-pandemic experience will be no different. In fact, compared to a common-or-garden recession, the pandemic has accelerated wider-reaching changes to the way that we live, work, and interact. This means that it might take even longer for the economy to attain the central bank’s goal of ‘full employment.’ Again, to its credit, the Federal Reserve is acutely aware of this. As Jay Powell went on to say: “It’s going to be a different economy. We’ve been hearing a lot from companies looking at deploying better technology and perhaps fewer people, including in some of the services industries that have been employing a lot of people. It seems quite likely that a number of the people who had those service sector jobs will struggle to find the same job, and may need time to find work” In summary, elevated permanent unemployment will subdue rent inflation. And subdued rent inflation will constrain overall inflation once the current supply bottlenecks clear. On a long-term horizon, investors should own US T-bonds. Equity investors should fade the reflation trade, and rotate into the unloved defensive sectors such as healthcare, consumer staples, and personal products. These sector preferences imply an overweight to developed markets (DM) versus emerging markets (EM). US And European Inflation Will Converge US and European inflation rates are not measured on an apples-for-apples basis. European inflation excludes the largest component in the US inflation basket – owner-equivalent rent (OER). To repeat, OER is the hypothetical cost that homeowners incur to consume their own home. European statisticians do not like to include any hypothetical item in the inflation basket that does not have a market price. So, euro area inflation includes actual rents, but it excludes OER. On an apples-for-apples comparison, inflation rates in the US and the euro area have been near-identical for many years. This means that US core inflation has a 30 percent higher weighting to an item that has persistently inflated at well above 2 percent. If we strip out OER, then the core inflation rates in the US and the euro area have been near-identical for many years (Chart I-8).2 Chart I-8On An Apples-For-Apples Comparison, Inflation In The US And Euro Area Are Near-Identical Alternatively, what if we include OER in euro area inflation? Despite European rent controls, actual rents have persistently outperformed core inflation. Hence, OER would likely outperform by even more. We can infer that including OER would have lifted euro area inflation very close to US inflation (Chart I-9). Chart I-9Omitting Owner-Equivalent Rent Has Depressed Euro Area Inflation All of this may sound like a petty academic difference, but this petty academic difference has generated huge economic and political consequences. As OER has boosted inflation in the US versus Europe, US and euro area monetary policy have diverged much more than they should. Which means US and euro area bond yields have diverged much more than they should. Which has structurally weakened the euro. Which has spawned the near $200 billion trade surplus for the euro area versus the US. And all because of a petty academic difference! What happens next? If, as we expect, US shelter inflation remains depressed then the major difference between US and euro area inflation will vanish. Reinforcing this will be a catch-up in euro area growth as the delayed roll-out of vaccinations takes effect. On this basis, a stand-out opportunity on a 6+ month investment horizon is yield convergence between US T-bonds and German bunds. Overweight US T-bonds versus German bunds. Candidates For Countertrend Reversals Corn prices have surged on increased demand from China combined with supply shortages resulting from poor weather in Brazil. This has caused an odd divergence between corn and wheat prices, which is now susceptible to a sharp correction (Chart I-10). Chart I-10The Rally In Corn Versus Wheat Is Vulnerable To Reversal Likewise, timber prices have boomed on the back of increased housebuilding demand combined with supply bottlenecks. But as these bottlenecks clear and/or higher bond yields cool demand, the sector is vulnerable to an aggressive reversal given its fragile fractal structure (Chart I-11). Chart I-11Timber Prices Are Vulnerable To Reversal To play this, our first recommended trade is to short the Invesco Building and Construction ETF (PKB) versus the Healthcare SPDR (XLV), setting the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 15 percent (Chart I-12). Chart I-12Short Building And Construction (PKB) Versus Healthcare (XLV) Finally, within stock markets, the recent divergence of France versus Japan is highly unusual given that the two markets have near-identical sector compositions. This divergence has taken France versus Japan to the top of its multi-year trading range (Chart I-13). Chart I-13Short France Versus Japan Hence, our second recommended trade is to short France versus Japan (MSCI indexes), setting the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 4.8 percent. Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The PCE has broadly similar weights as the CPI. 2 We have approximated the removal of OER by removing the whole shelter component. Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Equity Market Performance   Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - ##br##Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - ##br##Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - ##br##Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - ##br##Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

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