債務動向

特別レポート

This week, we present the third edition of the BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) Global Credit Conditions Chartbook—a review of central bank surveys of bank lending standards and loan demand. The data from lending surveys during the first quarter of 2021 point towards easing standards in developed markets (Chart 1). Credit standards for business loans eased outright in most regions except for the euro area and New Zealand where the pace of tightening slowed significantly. On the whole, banks expected the easing trend to continue into Q2. Chart 1Credit Standards Moving Towards Or Deeper Into Easy Territory With credit spreads at historical tights, banks across the board cited increased competition from other lenders as a reason behind easing standards, confirming that easy financial conditions are not limited solely to booming financial markets. This will help maintain a market-friendly economic growth backdrop as developed economies put pandemic restrictions behind them. At the same time, an absence of tightening lending standards by commercial banks puts incremental pressure on central banks to move towards bond-bearish tightenings of monetary policy. An Overview Of Global Credit Conditions Surveys Chart 2Credit Standards And Spreads Are Correlated After every quarter, major central banks compile surveys to assess prevailing credit conditions. The purpose is to obtain from banks an assessment of how their lending standards and demand for loans, for both firms and consumers, changed over the previous quarter. Most surveys also ask questions about the key factors driving these changes and expectations for the next quarter.1 For fixed income investors, these surveys are valuable for a few reasons. Firstly, data on consumer lending is a window into consumer health while business loan demand sheds light on the investment picture. These help derive a view on the path of future economic growth and interest rates and, thus, the appropriate duration stance of a bond portfolio. Also, credit standards can tell us about the pass-through from fiscal and monetary policy measures to realized financial conditions (i.e. corporate borrowing rates). Most importantly, credit standards exhibit a direct correlation with corporate bond spreads (Chart 2). As loan officers have access to detailed, non-public information on a large number of borrowers, they are uniquely positioned to evaluate corporate health. When banks are tightening standards, they see an issue with the credit quality of current or future loans, which impacts borrowing costs in the corporate bond market. Tightening standards indicate a worsening borrowing backdrop and weaker growth, which then pushes up corporate spreads. Vice versa, easing standards imply a favorable backdrop and plentiful liquidity—both bullish signs for spread product. US In the US, a net percentage of domestic respondents to the Fed’s Senior Loan Officer Survey, reported easing standards for commercial and industrial (C&I) loans to firms of all sizes over Q1/2021 (Chart 3). Nearly 20% of respondents cited an improving or less uncertain economic outlook as a very important factor behind the decision to ease standards, while roughly one-third cited increased competition from other lenders. Chart 3US Credit Conditions Chart 4High-yield Borrowers Are Exposed To A Widening In Spreads Although it did not strengthen on net, C&I loan demand did weaken at a much slower pace in Q1. The factors driving loan demand suggest a buoyant economic backdrop—about a quarter of banks reporting increased demand cited merger and acquisition needs and increased investment as very important reasons. Meanwhile, weaker loan demand was attributed to less precautionary demand for cash and an increase in internally generated funds among customers. On the consumer side, loan demand improved slightly on the whole, driven largely by a significant improvement in auto loan demand. While consumer loan demand has historically correlated well with the year-over-year growth in personal consumption expenditures, those two series diverged remarkably in Q1, with spending growth far outpacing loan growth. This divergence reflects the tremendous impact of pandemic-related transfer payments and benefits. We expect a continued recovery in consumer lending demand as unemployment benefits are withdrawn and consumers once again have to borrow to finance spending. As part of the special ad-hoc questions in this edition of the survey, respondents were asked about how lending standards had changed compared to the pre-pandemic period by borrower risk rating. Interestingly, large banks actually eased their standards for investment grade borrowers, reflecting the impact of Fed’s massive liquidity injections (Chart 4). However, despite spreads on high-yield having tightened to post-GFC lows, credit standards for below-investment grade borrowers remain much tighter than before the pandemic. So far, lower-quality borrowers have been able to go to public debt markets for financing, but this highlights a downside risk—if there is an event which causes corporate bond spreads to widen, high-yield borrowers may be starved of cheap financing options with banks still holding purse strings taut. Euro Area In the euro area, banks continued to tighten standards to enterprises, albeit at a much-reduced pace, in Q1/2021 (Chart 5). The tightening, however, was lower than expected in the previous quarter, possibly reflecting prolonged policy support and improving risk sentiment. Deteriorating risk perceptions related to the general economic and firm-specific situation were the primary contributing factor to tightening. But this was partly offset by increased competition from other lenders. The reduced pace of tightening does confirm the signal from the high-yield default rate, which is rolling over. Going forward, banks expect the pace of tightening to slow very slightly going into Q2. Chart 5Euro Area Credit Conditions Chart 6Credit Standards For Major Euro Area Economies Business credit demand continued to weaken at a faster pace in Q1, marking three consecutive quarters of deterioration. Weak fixed investment continued to be the biggest drag on demand, while the previous positive contribution from inventory and working capital needs has disappeared entirely. As we highlighted in the last edition of this chartbook, the continued drag on demand for investment reflects a lingering uncertainty regarding the pandemic which could possibly lower potential long-term growth in the euro area.2 As in the US, however, the reduction in demand also reflected already built-up liquidity buffers and the availability of internal and market-based financing. In Q2, banks expect a strong rebound in enterprise loan demand, especially from small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Consumer credit demand continued to decline at a stronger pace in Q1, reflecting the continued pandemic-related restrictions in Europe over the quarter. The key drivers were lower durable goods spending and weakening consumer confidence. Banks also reported increased use of internally-generated funds, which is consistent with accumulated savings and pent-up demand during the lockdown. Assuming that the emerging Delta variant does not sidetrack the European return to normalcy, we will likely see the expected consumer credit demand rebound come to fruition. This would be consistent with recent strong consumer confidence prints out of the region. Looking individually at the four major euro area economies, credit standards for enterprises tightened in Germany, Italy, and Spain but were unchanged in France (Chart 6). In countries where standards tightened, worsening risk perceptions were the primary factor. In France, increased competition from other lenders contributed to easing on the margin. Going into Q2, standards are expected to tighten very modestly in the two core European economies while diverging in peripheral Europe—Spanish banks expect an increased pace of tightening while Italian ones expect standards to remain unchanged. UK In the UK, overall corporate credit standards, measured as an average of standards for medium and large non-financial firms, eased slightly in Q1/2021 (Chart 7A). This increase in credit availability was driven primarily by an improving economic outlook and sector-specific risk picture. As in the US and euro area, competition from capital markets also played a role and is expected to contribute to the further easing expected in Q2. Chart 7AUK Credit Conditions Chart 7BInvestment And Inventory Financing Expected To Pick Up In The UK Meanwhile, corporate loan demand is picking up at a pace not seen since Brexit, excluding the 2020 spike driven by emergency funding needs, signaling a buoyant picture. In particular, the surge in demand was driven by large non-financial firms which are also expected to drive the demand pick-up in Q2. Household loan demand fell slightly in the first quarter but is expected to rebound. Consumer confidence, which had initially lagged behind loan demand, appears to have caught up as the UK’s “Freedom Day” from pandemic restrictions approaches in July. Lenders are also expected to ease availability for unsecured household loans, primarily on the back of market share objectives. This should create the ideal backdrop for a consumption boom if the Delta variant does not further limit the UK government’s ability to deliver on its promise of a full reopening. Delving into the factors behind booming corporate loan demand, there are promising signs for the broader UK economy (Chart 7B). In a Special Report published earlier this year, we argued that UK real interest rates were depressed because the country suffered from a series of rolling economic and political shocks, the effects of which were now expected to fade.3 There are already some signs of this in the credit data, with capital investment and inventory financing demand expected to rebound in Q2. Despite work-from-home effects dampening the need for office space, on the margin, UK commercial real estate demand is strong and expected to further strengthen. Japan Chart 8Japan Credit Conditions In Japan, credit standards to firms and households eased at a slower pace in Q1/2021 (Chart 8). The vast majority of respondents indicated that standards were basically unchanged, with none of the firms reporting any tightening, and a small number reporting some degree of easing. The most important factors driving easing were aggressive competition from other bank and non-bank lenders, as well as strengthened efforts to grow the business. Going into Q2, the pace of easing is expected to continue to slow. Business loan demand, which behaves somewhat counter-cyclically in Japan, increased over Q1. The entirety of this pickup can be attributed to small firms; large and medium-sized firms on the whole decreased their loan demand. Counter to trends in other regions, firms in Japan actually saw a decrease in internally-generated funds, which was the most important factor contributing to increased loan demand. Consumer loan demand fell slightly on balance but was mostly unchanged from the previous quarter. Respondents reporting weaker demand saw a decrease in household consumption as the most important factor. Sentiment remains subdued and has lagged the recovery in loan demand seen last year. Our colleagues at BCA Research Foreign Exchange Strategy are eyeing a recovery for the Japanese economy as the government turns around its vaccination campaign and the Olympics jumpstart consumption.4 On that basis, the very modest recovery in loan demand expected by Japanese banks appears too pessimistic. Canada And New Zealand In Canada, business lending standards continued to ease at a faster pace in Q1/2021, coinciding with rebounding business confidence which is now back to pre-pandemic levels (Chart 9). This is in line with a remarkable vaccine rollout—68% of the population has already received its first dose and the pace of daily vaccinations is showing no signs of rolling over. Chart 9Canada Credit Conditions Chart 10New Zealand Credit Conditions However, housing is a major concern for Canadian policymakers. In a recent Special Report, co-authored with our colleagues at The Bank Credit Analyst, we highlighted both Canada and New Zealand as “higher risk” countries more exposed to ballooning house prices.5 In addition to low rates, mortgage lending standards, which have been easing since Q3/2020, have undoubtedly contributed to this issue. However, the Bank of Canada (BoC), with its hawkish messaging, has signaled that it will not idly stand by; there is also popular support behind raising rates to tamp down house prices. Expect mortgage standards to tighten and a pick-up in mortgage rates as the BoC nears liftoff, most likely in 2022. Credit standards in New Zealand were mostly unchanged in Q1/2021, reversing the tightening trend of previous quarters (Chart 10). Over the next six months, standards are expected to ease considerably. Business loan demand was unchanged on net, with corporates decreasing and SMEs increasing demand. SMEs are also expected to increase demand slightly over the next six months. Tepid loan demand is consistent with business confidence hovering around the neutral zero line. As in Canada, soaring house prices are a major issue for the New Zealand economy. Data on household lending is alarming on that front. Although consumer loan demand continued to weaken, demand for residential mortgages spiked to an all-time high in Q1. While demand is expected to normalize going forward, the Q1 datapoint indicates froth in the market. The Reserve Bank of New Zealand is considering a variety of macroprudential measures but will have to raise rates sooner rather than later to effectively cool down the housing market. Appendix: Where To Find The Bank Lending Surveys A number of central banks publish regular surveys of bank lending conditions in their domestic economies. The surveys, and the details on how they are conducted, can be found on the websites of the central banks: US Federal Reserve: https://www.federalreserve.gov/data/sloos.htm European Central Bank: https://www.ecb.europa.eu/stats/ecb_surveys/bank_lending_survey/ Bank of England: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/credit-conditions-survey/2021/2021-q1 Bank of Japan: https://www.boj.or.jp/en/statistics/dl/loan/loos/index.htm/ Bank of Canada: https://www.bankofcanada.ca/publications/slos/ Reserve Bank of New Zealand: https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/c60-credit-conditions-survey   Shakti Sharma Senior Analyst ShaktiS@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The weblinks to each individual survey for the US, euro area, UK, Japan, Canada and New Zealand can be found in the Appendix on page 12. 2 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Report, "GFIS Global Credit Conditions Chartbook Q1/2021: A Tentative Recovery", dated February 16, 2021, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "Why Are UK Interest Rates Still So Low?", dated March 10, 2021, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Research Foreign Exchange Strategy Report, "The Case For Japan", dated June 11, 2021, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "Global House Prices: A New Threat For Policymakers", dated May 28, 2021, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Euro Area debt loads have increased significantly during the pandemic. Debt loads are not uniform. While Germany and, to a lesser extent, Spain look best, France has a less attractive total debt profile than Italy. Government debt-service ratios are not a problem for Europe. Private sector debt service ratios do not represent an imminent risk, but the French corporate sector is an important source of long-term vulnerability for the region. As a result of this indebtedness, Euro Area bond yields will not rise much and will be capped below 1.5% over this business cycle. For now, Eurozone corporate bonds remain attractive within a European fixed-income portfolio. High-yield bonds are appealing, but investors should avoid the energy sector. Feature Like the US, the Eurozone economy has witnessed a large increase in debt following the COVID-19 crisis. This debt load will have a long legacy that will impact the ability of the European Central Bank to increase interest rates over the coming years. The French corporate sector will be a particularly vulnerable pressure point. Nonetheless, in the short-term, this uptick in indebtedness will not have a major impact on European debt markets. Disparate Debt Loads… Chart 1The Eurozone's Heavy Debt Load After a period of decline in the wake of both the GFC and the European debt crisis, total nonfinancial debt rose by 29% of GDP since the COVID-19 pandemic began (Chart 1). While some of this increase reflects a declining GDP, Euro Area Households and Corporations together added EUR609 billion of debt, while governments accumulated over EUR1 trillion more to their borrowings. The aggregate European picture does not impart the more complex reality. While all countries experienced a marked rise in indebtedness, some major economies are in a much more precarious position than others. The Good Among the largest Eurozone economies, Germany sports the most favorable debt profiles and represents the smallest threat to the Eurozone. Compared with the other major Euro Area countries, Spain shows healthier trends, even if its overall debt load remains important. At 202%, Germany’s nonfinancial-debt-to-GDP ratio is still below its all-time high of 211% (Chart 2, top panel). During the crisis, household debt rose by EUR296 billion or 4% of GDP, but it still stands well below the 72% registered at the turn of the millennium. In absolute terms, nonfinancial corporate debt has increased to a record, but it remains 5% below its 2003 high (Chart 2, third panel). Despite a 9% rebound to 70% of GDP, government debt still lies nearly 12% below its 2010 summit (Chart 2, bottom panel). In Spain, total nonfinancial debt rose by 45% of GDP since the pandemic started, but remains 12% below its 2013 all-time high of 301%. However, the private sector’s borrowing is well behaved, and it has only risen to 170% of GDP, well below the 227% level recorded in 2010 (Chart 3, top panel). Both the household and corporate sectors have gone a long way toward improving their debt situation, with borrowing 23% and 33%, respectively, below their crisis peaks (Chart 3, second and third panel). Spain’s problem is government debt. The pandemic forced the public sector to borrow EUR316 billion, which pushed its debt load to 120% of GDP (Chart 3, bottom panel). Chart 2Germany Is The Best Student Chart 3Spain's Previous Efforts Have Paid Off The Bad Chart 4Italy Remains Problematic Italian debt remains a troublesome spot for the Eurozone, which sheds some light on the higher interest rate commanded by BTPs. Burdened by tepid GDP growth, Italy’s total nonfinancial debt did not decline much in the years between the European debt crisis and the onset of the pandemic. As a result, overall nonfinancial debt jumped to an all-time high of 276% of GDP in response to COVID-19 (Chart 4, top panel). Private sector nonfinancial credit is high by Italian standards, but at 120% of GDP, it is low compared with other major European or G-10 nations. Italian household debt has hit a record high of 45% of GDP, which also compares well to other countries, while corporate debt rose to 76% of GDP, which is also well below historical highs and other nations (Chart 4, second and third panels). Italy’s perennial problem remains the public sector’s debt, which stands at 156% of GDP, the highest reading among major Eurozone nations. The Ugly The major Eurozone country with the worst debt situation is France, and we expect this country to become an increasingly large hurdle on the ability of the ECB to lift rates in the future. Next week, we will devote a Special Report to the French situation. Chart 5France's Debt Binge France’s nonfinancial debt towers above 350% of GDP, and the private sector nonfinancial debt has also hit an all-time high of 240% of GDP (Chart 5, top panel). No sector is spared. French households have accumulated EUR239 billion of liabilities during the pandemic, which pushed their leverage ratio to an all-time high of nearly 70% of GDP (Chart 5, second panel). Meanwhile, after rising by 21%, nonfinancial corporate credit stands above 170% of GDP (Chart 5, third panel). Finally, at 116% of GDP, public debt may not be as high as in Italy, but it is comparable to that of Spain (Chart 5, bottom panel). Bottom Line: The Eurozone indebtedness has hit a record high, but considering this factor in isolation oversimplifies a complicated picture. Among the major economies, Germany has the cleanest balance sheet, especially in terms of its private sector. Spain continues to sport high leverage, but the private sector remains in much better shape than last decade. Italy has made little progress, but it still looks good compared with France, where both the public and private sector borrowings stand at record highs. … And Debt Servicing Costs With the exception of the French corporate sector, debt-servicing costs do not represent a great risk for Europe. Chart 6Interest Payments Are Not The Government's Problem When it comes to governments, the picture is particularly benign. As Chart 6 illustrates, debt-servicing costs as a percentage of GDP or tax revenues are extremely low in both France and Germany. While these two variables are higher in Italy and Spain, they remain distant from the levels recorded during the European debt crisis. Beyond their low levels, a very accommodative policy environment limits the risk created by Europe’s public debt servicing costs. The ECB has purchased EUR1.3 trillion of government bonds since April 2020, which added to its already large ownership. Moreover, BCA’s Global Fixed Income Strategy service, as well as this publication, anticipates that the ECB will roll the stock of government paper purchased under the PEPP into the PSPP. Beyond the ECB’s actions, the NGEU funds also create the embryo of fiscal risk sharing in the EU, which limits how far yields (and thus debt servicing costs) will rise in the Italy or Spain. For the private sector, the picture is more nuanced. In Germany, household debt-servicing costs are low, both historically and compared with other nations. Meanwhile, BIS data highlights that the nonfinancial corporate debt services consume a larger share of operating cash flows than at any point over the past 20 years, but they remain low by international standards (Chart 7, top panel). Meanwhile, in Spain and Italy, both the household and nonfinancial corporate sectors sport historically low debt servicing costs (Chart 7, second and third panels), which also compare well to other OECD nations. Once again, France stands out. Its household debt servicing costs are historically elevated, even if they are not particularly demanding at a global level. However, the corporate sector spends a substantial share of its cash flow on debt, both compared with its own history and internationally (Chart 7, bottom panel). Chart 7Debt Servicing Costs Across Europe Bottom Line: Generally, the debt-service picture in Europe does not represent a major threat for now. While risks are particularly well contained on the government front, the French corporate sector creates danger for the private sector. Investment Implications The elevated debt load in the Euro Area, especially in the corporate sector, constitutes a crucial limiting factor for interest rates in Europe over the coming business cycle. Compared with global economies, the Eurozone corporate sector sports elevated debt ratios. As Chart 8 illustrates, the Eurozone’s net debt-to-equity ratio is higher than that of the US across most sectors, and even surpasses that of Canada, another country with a heavily indebted corporate sector, for telecommunication firms and financials. The picture is even worse when looking at the net debt-to-EBITDA ratio. Except for energy and utilities, the Eurozone carries poorer numbers than both the US and Canada (Chart 9). Chart 8Debt-To-Equity Ratio Comparison Chart 9Net Debt-To-EBITDA Comparison The picture for debt service payments is even more damning. Despite the very low European corporate bond rates, Eurozone corporations generally have poorer interest rate coverage ratios than both the US and Canada (Chart 10). This indicates that, unless the subpar European profitability is resolved, significantly higher interest rates will cause significant damage to the European corporate sector. Chart 10Interest Coverage Lags In Europe Chart 11The French Corporate Sector And Dutch Households Will Limit The ECB On this front, the French corporate sector once again stands out as the most likely place for an accident. As the top panel of Chart 11 shows, French firms are positioned especially poorly, with both their debt-to-GDP and debt-servicing costs among the highest in advanced economies. Meanwhile, in the household sectors, only the Netherlands represents a potential risk (Chart 11, bottom panel). The level of corporate debt in the Eurozone and in France in particular suggests that the current level of yields in Canada may represent a cap on European long-term rates. Thus, it will be difficult for German yields to move beyond the 1% to 1.5% zone this cycle. For now, despite the elevated debt loads of the European corporate sector, we continue to overweight corporate bonds within European fixed-income portfolios. The ECB will maintain very accommodative monetary conditions for the next 24 months, at least. Moreover, the European recovery, especially in the service sector, will improve the operating cash flows of the corporate sector, and thus, increase the tolerance of the private sector for higher yields in the near terms. Finally, the strength in the Euro anticipated by BCA’s Foreign Exchange strategists will limit the upside to Eurozone inflation, and thus, to yields in the region. Nonetheless, investors should avoid certain sectors (see next section). Market Focus: How To Play Euro Area High Yield Bonds? Chart 12Valuations Are Getting Expensive We have argued that investors should continue to favor investment grade corporate bonds within European fixed-income portfolios over high-yield corporate bonds. Eurozone investment grade credit still offered enough value to delay a move down in quality (Chart 12). However, this value cushion is thinning and spreads are only 10 bps from their 2018 lows. BCA Research’s Global Fixed-Income strategists have recently increased their allocation to Euro Area high-yield to overweight, with a focus on the Ba-rated credit tier, while maintaining a neutral weighting in IG credit.  However, European high-yield is also becoming expensive. The yield on the overall index is a meagre 44 bps away from its lows of 2018. Moreover, the breakeven spreads of European junk bonds have only been more expensive 11% of the time since 2000 (Chart 12, bottom panel). Despite these observations, high-yield credit is not a uniform block. Caa-rated debt still offers decent value, with a breakeven spread historical percentile standing at 27%. The stretched level of valuation suggests that investors should become more selective in the high-yield space, in order to avoid the industries with the worst risk profiles. To assess the sectors most at risk of experiencing significant spread widening or default occurrences in the coming quarters, we evaluate how the 10 main high-yield industry groups, as defined by Bloomberg Barclays, perform on the following credit metrics: Risk profile The share of firms rated Caa Growth in value of debt outstanding over the past 10 years Change in net debt-to-EBITDA ratio over the past 10 years Risk Profile Chart 13Risk Profile Of HY Sectors We look at the duration-times-spread (DTS) ratio to determine the risk profile of each sector (Chart 13). The DTS is a simple measure that correlates closely with excess return volatility for corporate bonds. The ratio of an issue’s, or sector’s DTS, to that of the benchmark index is loosely equivalent to the beta of a stock or industry to the equity benchmark. A DTS ratio above 1.0 signals that the sector is cyclical (or “high beta”); a DTS ratio below 1.0 indicates that the sector is defensive (or “low beta”). Cyclical sectors are expected to outperform (underperform) the benchmark when spreads are narrowing (widening), while the opposite is expected of defensive sectors. In Europe, only three sectors sport a high DTS. Within these cyclical sectors, energy clearly stands out as essentially being the one most at risk of underperforming during the next episode of spread widening. Meanwhile, materials, healthcare, and utilities display the lowest DTS ratios and should trade defensively relative to the high-yield benchmark index. Share of Caa-rated debt Chart 14High Share Of Caa-Rated Debt Implies Higher Risk Of Default The bulk of defaults happens in the Caa-rated space and below. Hence, evaluating sector risk starts by assessing the share of Caa-rated (and below) debt sported by each industry (Chart 14). Sectors bearing a larger share of low-rated debt should display higher spreads. Consumer non-cyclicals and healthcare have the highest instance of low-rated debt, 16% and 13% respectively, and yet their spreads do not adequately compensate investors for this threat. The energy sector also stands out: spreads are wide because, despite the low percentage of Caa-rated debt, this sector has amassed considerable debt and has seen a meaningful deterioration in net debt-to-EBITDA (see below). Meanwhile, utilities shine under this metric, as they have not issued debt rated Caa or lower. Debt Growth Chart 15Debt Growth Justify Spread Levels The speed and amount of debt accumulated during economic recoveries are other important determinants of future spread volatility, because the sectors that have rapidly levered-up are more likely to experience defaults. Chart 15 shows that, if we ignore the outlying utilities, then there is a robust positive linear relationship between this metric and spreads. Utilities, energy, and the tech sectors have added the most debt, while debt accumulation in the basic materials and health care sectors has lagged over the past 10 years. Crucially, tech and communications spreads trade below what their debt growth implies. Net Debt-To-EBITDA Chart 16Only Financials Have Improved Their Net Debt-To-EBITDA A rapid debt accumulation is not a concern, as long as earnings are rising more rapidly or at least at the same pace. From this case, we infer that companies are using the new debt issued efficiently, for CAPEX or to pursue projects exceeding their IRR. In this light, wide spreads are justified for the energy, consumer cyclical, and consumer non-cyclical sectors (Chart 16). Conversely, financials have seen improvement. Bottom Line: After surveying Euro area high-yield corporate sectors based on four credit metrics, it appears that the sectors most at risk are energy and consumer non-cyclical. By contrast, basic materials seem to be a good sector in which to hide.   Mathieu Savary, Chief European Investment Strategist Mathieu@bcaresearch.com Jeremie Peloso, Associate Editor JeremieP@bcaresearch.com Currency Performance Fixed Income Performance Government Bonds Corporate Bonds Equity Performance Major Stock Indices Geographic Performance Sector Performance

Highlights The US is withdrawing from the Middle East and South Asia and making a strategic pivot to Asia Pacific. The third quarter will see risks flare around Iran and the US rejoin the 2015 Iranian nuclear deal. The result is briefly negative for oil prices but the rise of Iran is a new geopolitical trend that will increase Middle Eastern risk over the long run. The geopolitical outlook is dollar bullish, while the macroeconomic outlook is getting less dollar-bearish due to China’s risk of over-tightening policy. Stay neutral USD and be wary of commodities and emerging markets in the third quarter. European political risk is bottoming. The German and French elections are at best minor risks. However, the continent is ripe for negative black swans, especially due to Russian aggression. Go tactically long global large caps and defensives. Feature Chart 1Three Key Views On Track (So Far) We chose “No Return To Normalcy” as the theme of our 2021 outlook. While the COVID-19 vaccine promised economic recovery, we argued that normalization would create complacency regarding fundamental changes that have taken place in the geopolitical environment. A contradiction between an improving macroeconomic backdrop and a foreboding geopolitical backdrop would develop in 2021 and beyond. The “reflation trade” has begun to lose steam as we go to press. However, global recovery will still be the dominant story in the second half of the year as vaccination spreads. The question for the third quarter and the rest of the year is whether reflation will continue. As a matter of forecasting, we think it will. But as a matter of investment strategy, we are taking a more defensive stance until China relaxes economic policy. In our annual outlook we highlighted three key geopolitical views: (1) China’s headwinds, both at home and abroad (2) US détente with Iran and pivot to Asia (3) Europe’s opportunity. All three trends are broadly on track and can be illustrated by looking at equity performance in the relevant regions for the year so far: Chinese stocks sold off, UAE stocks rallied, and European stocks rallied (Chart 1). However, these trends are not exclusively tied to absolute equity performance. The most important question is what happens to global growth and the US dollar as these three key views continue. Stay Neutral On The Dollar It paid off for us to maintain a neutral stance on the dollar. True, the global recovery and exorbitant US trade and budget deficits are bearish for the dollar and bullish for other currencies. But the greenback’s “counter-trend bounce” is proving more formidable than many investors expected. The fundamentals of the American economy and global position remain strong. Since the outbreak of COVID-19, the US has secured its recovery with fiscal policy, maintained rule of law amid a contested election, innovated and distributed vaccines, benefited from more flexible social restrictions, refurbished global alliances, and put pressure on its geopolitical rivals. In essence, the combined effect of President Trump’s and Biden’s policies has been to make America “great again” (Chart 2). From a geopolitical perspective, the dollar is appealing. Chart 2Trump-Biden Make America Great Again? In addition, the first two geopolitical views mentioned above – China’s headwinds and the US-Iran détente – imply a negative environment for China and the renminbi. The reason for the US to do a suboptimal deal with Iran, both in 2015 and 2021, is to reduce the risk of war and buy time to enable a strategic pivot to Asia Pacific. Three US presidents have been elected on the pledge to conclude the “forever wars” in the Middle East and South Asia. Biden is withdrawing US troops from Afghanistan in September. There can be little doubt Biden is committed to an Iran deal, which is supposed to free up the US’s hands (Chart 3). Meanwhile the US public and Congress are unified in their desire to better defend US interests against China’s economic and military rise. There has not yet been a stabilization of US-China policies. Biden is not likely to hold a summit with Chinese President Xi Jinping until late October at earliest – and that is a guess, not a confirmed summit. The Biden administration has completed its review of China policy and is maintaining the Trump administration’s hawkish posture, as predicted. The US and China may resume their strategic and economic dialogue at some point but it is impossible to go back to the status quo ante 2015. That was the year the US adopted a more confrontational stance toward China – a stance later supercharged by Trump’s election and trade tariffs. The hawkish consensus on China is one of the rare unifying factors in a deeply divided America. The Biden administration explicitly says the US-China relationship is now defined by “competition” instead of “engagement.”1 One exception to this neutral view on the dollar has been our decision to go long the Japanese yen and Swiss franc, which has not panned out so far. Our reasoning is that geopolitical risk will boost these currencies but otherwise the reduction of geopolitical risk will weigh on the dollar in the context of global growth recovery. So far geopolitical risk has remained subdued while the US dollar has outperformed. We are still sympathetic to these safe-haven currencies, however, as they are attractively valued as long as one expects geopolitical risks to materialize (Chart 4). Chart 3US Pivot To Asia Runs Through Iran Our third key view, that EU was the real winner of the US election last year, remains on track. This is marginally positive for the euro at the expense of the dollar. Given the above points, we favor an equal-weighted basket of the euro and the dollar relative to the renminbi (Chart 5). Chart 4Safe-Haven Currencies Attractive Chart 5Favor Euro And Dollar Over Renminbi The geopolitical outlook is dollar-bullish. The macroeconomic outlook is dollar-bearish, except that China’s economy looks to slow down. We expect China to ease policy in the second half of the year but it may come late. We remain neutral dollar in the third quarter. Wait For China To Relax Policy July 1 marks the centenary of the Communist Party of China. The main thing investors should know is that the Communist Party predates China’s capitalist phase by sixty years. The party adopted capitalism to improve the economy – it never sacrificed its political or foreign policy goals. This poses a major geopolitical problem today because the Communist Party’s consolidation of power across Greater China, symbolized by Beijing’s revocation of Hong Kong’s special status in 2019, has convinced the western democracies that China is no longer compatible with the liberal world order. China launched a 13.8% of GDP monetary-and-fiscal stimulus over 2018-20 due to the trade war and COVID-19 pandemic. So the economy is stable for the hundredth anniversary celebration. The centenary goals are largely accomplished: GDP is larger, poverty is nearly extinguished, although urban incomes are still lagging (Chart 6). General Secretary Xi Jinping will mark the occasion with a speech. The speech will contribute to his governing philosophy, Xi Jinping Thought, a synthesis of communist Mao Zedong Thought and the pro-capitalist “socialism with Chinese characteristics” pioneered by General Secretary Deng Xiaoping in the 1980s-90s. The effect is to reassert Communist Party and central government primacy after the long period of decentralization that enabled China’s rapid growth phase. It is also to endorse an inward economic turn after the four-decade export-manufacturing boom. The Xi administration’s re-centralization of policy has entailed mini-cycles of tightening and loosening control over the economy. The administration leans against the country’s tendency to gorge itself on debt and grow at any cost – until it must lean the other way for fear of triggering a destabilizing slowdown. For this reason Beijing tightened policy proactively last year, producing a sharp drop in money, credit, and fiscal expansion in 2021 that now threatens to undermine the global recovery. By our measures, any further tightening will result in undershooting the regime’s money and credit targets, i.e. overtightening, and hence threaten to drag on the global recovery (Chart 7). Chart 6China's Communist Party Centenary Goals Chart 7China Verges On Over-Tightening Policy Overtightening would be a policy mistake with potentially disastrous consequences. So the base case should be that the government will relax policy rather than undermine the post-COVID recovery. However, investors cannot be confident about the timing. The 2015 financial turmoil and renminbi devaluation occurred because policymakers reacted too slowly. One reason to believe policy will be eased is that after July 1 the government will turn its attention to the twentieth national party congress in 2022, the once-in-five-years rotation of the Central Committee and Politburo. The party congress begins at the local level at the beginning of next year and culminates in the fall of 2022 with the national rotation of top party leaders. Xi Jinping was originally slated to step down in 2022. So he needs to squash any last-minute push against him by opposing factions of the party. He may have himself named chairman of the Communist Party, like Mao before him. Most importantly he will put his stamp on the “seventh generation” of China’s leaders by promoting his followers into key positions. All of this suggests that the Xi administration cannot risk triggering a recession, even if its preferences remain hawkish on economic policy. Policy easing could come as early as the end of July. As a rule of thumb, we have noticed that the Politburo’s July meeting on economic policy is often an inflection point, as was the case in 2007, 2015, 2018, and 2020 (Table 1). Some observers claim the April Politburo meeting already signaled an easing in policy, although we do not see that. If July clearly signals relaxation, global investors will cheer and emerging market assets and commodities will rise. Table 1China’s Politburo Often Hits Inflection Point On Economic Policy In July Still we maintain a defensive posture going into the third quarter because we do not have a high level of confidence that policymakers will act preemptively. A market riot may precede and motivate the inflection point in policy. Also the negative impact of previous policy tightening will be felt in the third quarter. China plays and industrial metals are extremely vulnerable to further correction (Chart 8). Chart 8China Plays And Metals Vulnerable To Further Correction The earliest occasion for a Biden-Xi summit comes at the end of October, as mentioned. While US-China talks will occur at some level, relations will remain fundamentally unstable. While a Biden-Xi summit may improve the atmosphere and lead to a new round of strategic and economic dialogue, or Phase Two trade talks, the fact is that the US is seeking to contain China’s rise and China is seeking to break out of the strictures of the US-led world order. The global elite and mainstream media will put a lot of emphasis on the post-Trump return to diplomatic “normalcy” and summits. But this is to overemphasize style at the expense of substance. Note that the positive feelings of the Biden-Putin summit on June 16 fizzled in less than a week when Russia allegedly dropped bombs in the path of a British destroyer in the Black Sea. The US and UK were training Ukraine’s military. Britain denies any bombs were dropped but Russia says next time they will hit their target. (More on this below.) This episode is instructive for US-China relations: summitry is overrated. China is building a sphere of influence and the US no longer believes dialogue alone is the answer. Tit-for-tat punitive measures and proxy battles in China’s neighboring areas, from the Korean peninsula to the Taiwan Strait to the South and East China Seas, are the new normal. Bottom Line: Tactically, stay defensive on global risk assets, especially China plays. Strategically, maintain a constructive outlook on the cycle given the global recovery and China’s need eventually to relax monetary and fiscal policy. US-Iran Deal Likely – Then The Real Trouble Starts The US will likely rejoin the 2015 Iranian nuclear deal (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) by August and pull out of its longest-ever war in Afghanistan in September. The US is wrapping up its “forever wars” to meet the demands of a war-weary public. Ironically, the long-term consequence is to create power vacuums that invite new geopolitical conflicts in the context of the US’s great power struggle with China and Russia. But for now a deal with Iran – once it is settled – reduces geopolitical risk by reducing the odds of military escalation in the region. The Iran talks are more significant than the Afghanistan pullout. We are confident in a deal because Biden can rejoin the 2015 deal unilaterally – it was never approved by the US Senate as a formal treaty. The Iranians will not support any militant action so aggressive as to scupper a deal that offers them the chance of reviving their economy at a critical time in the regime’s history. Reviving the deal poses a downside risk for oil prices in the third quarter though not over the long run. It is negative in the short run because investors will have to price not only Iran’s current and future production (Chart 9) but also any resulting loss of OPEC 2.0 discipline. Brent crude is trading at $76 per barrel as we go to press, above the $65-$70 per barrel average that our Commodity & Energy Strategy service expects to see over the coming five years (Chart 10). Chart 9Iran's Oil Production Will Return Chart 10Brent Price Faces Short-Term Downside Risk From Iranian Crude The oil price ceiling is enforced by the cartel of oil producers who fear that too high of prices will incentivize US shale oil production as well as the global shift to renewable energy. The Russians have always dragged their feet over oil production cuts and are now pushing for production hikes. The government needs an oil price of around $50-55 per barrel for the budget to break even. The Saudis need higher prices to break even, at $70-75 per barrel. Moscow must coordinate various oil producers, led by the country’s powerful oligarchs and their factions, which is inherently more difficult than the Saudi position of coordinating one producer, Aramco. The Russians and Saudis have maintained cartel discipline so far in 2021, as expected, because the wounds of the market-share war last year are still raw. They retreated from that showdown in less than a month. However, a major escalation in Saudi Arabia’s strategic conflict with Iran could push the Saudis to seek greater market share at Iran’s expense, as occurred before the original Iran deal in 2014-15. Hence our view that the risk to oil prices will shift from the upside to the downside in the second half of the year if the US-Iran deal is reconstituted. Over the long run, the deal is not negative for oil prices. The deal is a tradeoff for lower geopolitical risk today but higher risk in the future. The reason is that Iran’s economic recovery will strengthen its strategic hand and generate a backlash in the region. The global oil supply and demand balance will fluctuate according to circumstances but regional conflict will inject a risk premium over time. Biden’s likely decision to rejoin the 2015 deal should be seen as a delaying tactic. It is impossible to go back to 2015, when the US had mustered a coalition of nations to pressure Iran and when Iran’s “reformist” faction stood to receive a historic boost from the opening of the country’s economy. Now the US lacks a coalition and the reformists are leaving office in disgrace, with the hardliners (“principlists”) taking full power for the foreseeable future. Iran is happy to go back to complying with a deal that consists of sanctions relief in exchange for temporary limits on its nuclear program. The 2015 deal’s restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program begin expiring in 2023 and continue to expire through 2040. Biden has no chance of negotiating a newer and more expansive deal that extends these sunset clauses while also restricting Iran’s ballistic missile program and regional militant activities. He will say that easing sanctions is premised on a broader “follow on” deal to achieve these US goals. But the broader deal is unlikely to materialize anytime soon. The Iranians will commit to future talks but they will have no intention of agreeing to a more expansive deal unless forced. The country’s leaders will never abandon their nuclear program after witnessing the invasions of non-nuclear Libya and Ukraine – in stark contrast with nuclear-armed North Korea. Moreover Biden cannot possibly reassemble the P5+1 coalition with Russia and China anytime soon. The US is directly confronting these states. They could conceivably work with the US when Iran is on the brink of obtaining nuclear weapons but not before then. They did not prevent North Korea. The Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, the soon-to-be-inaugurated President Ebrahim Raisi, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, the Ministry of Intelligence, and other pillars of the regime are focused exclusively on strengthening the regime in advance of Khamenei’s impending succession sometime in the coming decade. The succession could easily lead to domestic unrest and a political crisis, which makes the 2020s a critical period for the Islamic Republic. With Tehran focused on a delicate succession, it is not a foregone conclusion that Iran will go on the offensive to expand its sphere of influence immediately after the US deal. But sooner or later a major new geopolitical trend will emerge: the rise of Iran. With sanctions removed, trade and investment increasing, and Chinese and Russian support, Iran will be capable of pursuing its strategic aims in the region more effectively. It will extend its influence across the “Shia Crescent,” including Iraq. The fear that this will inspire in Israel and the Gulf Arab states has already generated a slow-boiling war in the region. This war will intensify as the US will be reluctant to intervene. The purpose of the deal is to enable the war-weary US to reduce its active involvement in the region. The US foreign policy and defense establishment do not entirely see it this way – they emphasize that the US will remain engaged. But US allies in the Middle East will not be convinced. The region already has a taste for the way this works after the US’s precipitous withdrawal from Iraq in 2011, which lead to the rise of the Islamic State terrorist group. Biden will try not to be so precipitous but the writing is on the wall: the US will reduce its focus and commitment. A scramble for power in the region will begin the moment the ink dries on Biden’s signature of the JCPA. Israel and the Arab states are forming a de facto alliance – based on last year’s Abraham Accords – to prepare for Iran’s push to dominate the region. Even if Iran is not overly aggressive (a big if), Israel and the Gulf Arabs will overreact as a result of their fear of abandonment. They will also seek to hedge their bets by improving ties with the Chinese and Russians, making the Middle East the scene of a major new proxy battle in the global great power struggle. As a risk to our view: if the Biden administration changes course this summer and refuses to lift sanctions or rejoin the Iran deal – low but not zero probability – then tensions with Iran will explode almost instantaneously. The Iranians will threaten to close the Strait of Hormuz and a crisis will erupt in the third or fourth quarter. Bottom Line: The US will most likely rejoin the Iranian nuclear deal by August to avoid an immediate crisis or war. The Biden administration will wager that it can lend enough support to regional allies to keep Iran contained. This might work, as the Iranians will focus on fortifying the regime ahead of its leadership succession. However, Iran’s hardline leadership will see an opportunity in America’s withdrawal from its “forever wars.” Iran will increasingly cooperate with Russia and China. Iran’s conflict with Israel and Saudi Arabia will be extremely difficult to manage and will escalate over time, quite possibly creating a revolution or war in Iraq. The Gulf Arabs are already under immense pressure from the green energy revolution. Thus while oil prices might temporarily fall on the return of Iranian exports, they will later see upward pressure from a new wave of Middle Eastern instability. European Political Risk Has (Probably) Bottomed By contrast with all the above we have viewed Europe as a negligible source of (geo)political risk in 2021. European policy uncertainty is falling in Europe relative to these other powers and the rest of the world (Chart 11). Chart 11Europe's Relative Policy Uncertainty Bottoming Chart 12EU Break-Up Risk Hits Floor (Again) The risk of a break-up of the European Union has wilted and remains at historic lows (Chart 12). There is no immediate threat of any European countries emulating the UK and attempting to exit. Even Italian support for the euro has surged. Immigration flows have plummeted. European solidarity is not on the ballot in the upcoming German and French elections. Germany is choosing between the status quo and a “green revolution” that would not really be a revolution due to the constraints of coalition politics. The Greens have lost some momentum relative to their polling earlier this year but underlying trends suggest they will surprise to the upside in the September 26 vote (Charts 13A and 13B). They embrace EU solidarity, robust government spending, weariness with the Merkel regime, and concerns about climate change, Russia, China, and social justice. Chart 13AGerman Greens Will Surprise To Upside Chart 13BGerman Greens Will Surprise To Upside We expect the Greens to surprise to the upside. But as they are forced into a coalition with the ruling Christian Democrats then they will be limited to raising spending rather raising taxes (Table 2). The market will cheer this result. Table 2German Greens’ Ambitious Tax Hike Proposals If the Greens disappoint then a right-leaning government and too early fiscal tightening could become a risk – but it is a minor risk because Merkel’s hand-picked successor, the CDU Chancellor Candidate Armin Laschet, will be pro-Europe and fiscally dovish, just like the mainstream of his party under Merkel. The only limitation on this dovishness is that it would take another global shock for there to be enough votes in the Bundestag to loosen the schuldenbremse or “debt brake.” In France, President Emmanuel Macron is likely to win re-election – the populist candidate Marine Le Pen remains an underdog who is unlikely to make it through France’s two-round electoral system. In Italy, Prime Minister Mario Draghi is overseeing a national unity coalition that will dole out EU recovery funds. An election cannot be held ahead of the presidential election in January, which will be secured by the establishment parties as a major check on any future populist ruling coalition. The risk in these countries, as in Spain and elsewhere, is that neoliberal structural reform and competitiveness are falling by the wayside. Fiscal largesse is positive for securing the recovery but long-term growth potential will remain depressed (Chart 14). Chart 14European And Global Fiscal Stimulus (Updated June 2021) Europe remains stuck in a liquidity trap over the long run. It depends on the rest of the world for growth. This is a problem given that China’s potential growth is slowing and there is no ready substitute that will prop up global growth. Europe is increasingly ripe for negative “black swan” events. The power vacuum in the Middle East described above will lead to instability and regime failures that will threaten European security. Russia will remain aggressive, a reflection of its crumbling structural foundations. The Putin administration has not changed its strategy of building a sphere of influence in the former Soviet Union and pushing back against the West, as signaled by the threat to bomb ships that sail in Crimean waters – a unilateral expansion of Russia’s territorial waters following the Crimean invasion. The Biden administration is not seeking anything comparable to the diplomatic “reset” with Russia from 2009-11, which ended in acrimony. In other words, European political risk may be bottoming as we speak. Investment Takeaways Chart 15Limited Equity Upside From Likely US Infrastructure Bill US Peak Fiscal Stimulus: The Biden administration is highly likely to pass an infrastructure package through Congress, either as a bipartisan deal with Republicans or as part of the American Jobs Plan. The result is another $1-$1.5 trillion fiscal stimulus, albeit over an eight-year period, with infrastructure funding taking until 2024-25 to ramp up. Biden’s other plans probably will not pass before the 2022 midterm election, which will likely bring gridlock. Investors are well aware of these proposals and the policy setting will probably be frozen after this year. Hence there is limited remaining upside for global materials sector and US infrastructure plays (Chart 15). The extravagant US fiscal thrust of 2020-21 will turn into a huge fiscal drag in 2022 (Chart 16). The Federal Reserve, however, will remain ultra-dovish as long as labor market slack persists – regardless of who is at the helm. Chart 16US Fiscal Drag Very Large In 2022 Chart 17Go Long Large Caps And Defensives China’s Headwinds Persist: China may or may not ease policy in time to prevent a market riot. China plays and industrial metals are highly exposed to a correction and we recommend steering clear. US-Iran Deal Weighs On Oil Price: Tactically we are neutral on oil and oil plays. An Iran deal could depress oil prices temporarily – and potentially in a major way if the Saudis agree with the Russians on increasing production. Fundamentals are positive but depend on the OPEC 2.0 cartel. The cartel faces the risk that higher prices will incentivize both alternative oil providers and the green revolution. Europe’s Opportunity: We continue to see the euro and European stocks offering value. Given the troubles with Russia we favor developed Europe plays over emerging Europe. The German election would be a bullish catalyst for European assets but headwinds from China will prevail, which is negative for cyclical European stocks. The Russian Duma election, also in September, creates high potential for Russia to clash with the West between now and then. Tactically, go long global large caps and defensives (Chart 17).   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Independent Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders recently felt it was necessary to warn against a second cold war. Sanders, a democratic socialist, is a reliable indicator of the left wing of the Democratic Party and a dissenter who puts pressure on the center-left Biden administration. His fears underscore the dominance of the new hawkish consensus. Appendix China Russia UK Germany France Italy Canada Spain Taiwan – Province Of China Korea Turkey Brazil Australia

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

ハイライト グローバル株式は大きな調整に非常に脆弱である。しかし景気循環的には米連邦準備制度（FRB）はインフレの上振れを容認する姿勢を取っており、世界経済は回復している。 中国の財政・信用インパルスが急低下しており、これによりグローバルの景気循環株およびコモディティは下押しを受けやすい。 短期を越えれば、中国の政治的安定の必要性が過度な政策引き締めを防ぐはずだ。リスクは前倒しになっている。 中国の国勢調査は当社のメガテーマの一つを裏付けている：中国の国内政治は不安定であり、ネガティブなサプライズをもたらし得る。 インドの州選挙は大規模なCOVID-19の波の最中に実施されたが、与党が2024年にも依然有利であることを示唆している。これは政策の継続を意味する。 景気循環派の強気バイアスを維持するが、中国が政策ミスを犯した場合には方針転換する準備をしておくこと。 特集 チャート 1 インフレ再浮上 インフレが頭をもたげる インフレが頭をもたげる 今週、米国のコアインフレが強く出たことと、長く眠っていたインフレが再び頭をもたげることへの幅広い懸念を受けて、グローバル市場は震撼した（チャート 1）。 景気循環的には、世界経済の回復に伴い投資家は米国株から国際株へローテーションし、米ドルは下落すると引き続き見ている（チャート 2）。しかしこの見方は、新興国株が先進国株に対してアウトパフォームし始めるべきだということも含んでおり、今年これまでのところはそれが実現していない。新興市場はテクノロジーに偏っており、米国の長期金利上昇に脆弱なだけでなく、中国の景気刺激がピークに達した今、さらに困難に直面している。 チャート 2 株式市場の動揺 株式市場が動揺 株式市場が動揺 チャート 3 世界経済とセンチメントの回復 世界経済とセンチメントは回復しつつある 世界経済とセンチメントは回復しつつある チャート 4 景気循環株対ディフェンシブの揺らぎ グローバルのシクリカル株とディフェンシブ株が揺らいでいる グローバルのシクリカル株とディフェンシブ株が揺らいでいる 我々が頼れる一つの事実は、COVID-19ワクチンの展開が続くことで世界的な成長回復を後押しするという点である（チャート 3）。米ドルもそれを示唆している。ドルは第1四半期に米国の相対的成長優位で反発したが、その後は下落に転じている。ドル安はディフェンシブに対して景気循環株にとってポジティブだが、景気循環株は短期的にはリフレーショントレードが過熱していることを示している（チャート 4）。 中国の成長が今や重要な焦点になる。中国の政策ミスは強気の景気循環見通しを覆すだろう。中国の金融・財政政策の引き締めは、今年我々が強調してきた主要なグローバルな政策リスクであり、今まさに顕在化している。しかし我々は引き締めの制約も指摘してきた。現時点で中国は我々のベンチマークによれば過度な引き締めの瀬戸際に立っている。さらなる引き締めが行われれば、我々は本質的によりディフェンシブな見方に転じるだろう。 本レポートではまた、中国の国勢調査の結果と、最新の大波のCOVID-19感染のもとで行われたインドの最近の州選の含意を検討する。我々はまだインドに対する強気見解を変更していないが、注視している。 中国：過度引き締めリスク 中国の問題は、対外貿易依存から内需依存への経済モデルの継続的な変化に起因している。これは習近平国家主席の台頭以前に共産党が採った戦略的決定であり、習はそれを体現し、戦略的ビジョンと米国との対立を通じて強化してきた。 北京の目標は滑らかで安定した移行を管理することだった。2015年の金融混乱や2018-19年の貿易戦争はその目標を危うくしたが、政策当局は最終的に持ちこたえた。そこへCOVID-19が発生し、1970年代以来の本格的な経済縮小をもたらした。中国はウイルスを抑え込み、貿易戦争開始から2021年のピークまでにGDP比13.8%に上る別の大規模な刺激で回復したが、今やさらに困難な移行に直面している。 チャート 5 中国の上昇する貯蓄傾向 中国の貯蓄傾向の高まり 中国の貯蓄傾向の高まり 潜在GDPが鈍化していることを考えると生活水準の改善の必要性は一層切迫している。債務の大幅な増加に鑑みると体系的な金融リスクを抑制する必要性も一層切迫している。米国が中国に対抗する民主諸国の連合を形成している今、経済の多角化の必要性も高まっている。長期預金比率などで測られる中国の家計・企業の「限界貯蓄性向」の急上昇は、国が困難に直面しアニマルスピリッツが抑えられていることの兆候である（チャート 5）。 2018-21年の大規模拡大の後、中国の財政・信用インパルスは低下に転じている。政策当局は昨年以降、緊急的な刺激を引き揚げるシグナルを出しており、その影響はハードデータに現れている。中国のマネー、クレジット、そして財政とクレジットを合わせたインパルスはいずれも、6〜9か月のラグの後に経済成長と相関する。これは中国のマネーとクレジットサイクルや経済活動を測る指標がどれであれ当てはまる（チャート 6Aおよびチャート 6B）。中国の経済モメンタムはピークに達しており、世界がワクチンと経済再開の追い風を享受しているにもかかわらず、今年後半から2022年にかけて世界経済にとって逆風となるだろう。 チャート 6A 中国の財政・信用インパルスが急落 … 中国の財政・信用インパルスが急落… 中国の財政・信用インパルスが急落… チャート 6B … マネー・アンド・クレジットのインパルスも同様に低下 ... マネー・アンド・クレジットのインパルスも同様である ... マネー・アンド・クレジットのインパルスも同様である 財政・信用インパルスのダウンシフトは、特に国内消費向けに中国が輸入するコモディティ、マテリアル、およびその他財の需要の鈍化を予示している（中国の輸出向け製造に投入される部品や中間財の輸入は、世界の回復とともに比較的健全に見える）。このシフトは、スウェーデン株などの中国関連プレイや急騰している金属価格が調整なしに上昇を続けることを困難にするだろう（チャート 7）。投機筋のポジショニングは現時点でコモディティに偏っている。中国とそれが支配する金属市場との乖離は短期的には耐え難いように見える（チャート 8）。 チャート 7 中国のリフレーショントレードはピーク付近 中国のリフレーショントレードはピーク付近 中国のリフレーショントレードはピーク付近 チャート 8 マネーサイクルとコモディティ価格の衝突 マネーサイクルとコモディティ価格の衝突 マネーサイクルとコモディティ価格の衝突 世界的なグリーンや再生可能エネルギーシステムへの移行（すなわち脱炭素化）は銅をはじめ金属にとって強気だが、短期的には中国の需要減を補うことはできないことを、我々のエマージング・マーケッツ・ストラテジーが示している。中国の建設・産業向けの銅の国内需要は世界総需要の約56.5%を占める一方、グリーンエネルギー競争（太陽光パネル、風力発電、電気自動車の生産等）は世界需要の約3.5%にすぎない。 この数値は既存のシステムや構造の再調整やレトロフィット（例：電力網）も見込まれているためグリーン計画をやや過小評価している面はある。しかし要点は、米国および欧州の消費が大幅に増加しても、中国の銅消費が減少すればそれに逆行することだ。特に米国のインフラ計画が早くても2022年まで本格的に始動しないことを考えれば、今後12か月で中国の影響で世界の銅需要は減速するだろう。 中国の政策当局はまだ過度な引き締めを懸念している、あるいは新たに政策を緩和する意思を示したわけではない。4月末の政治局会議は12月の中央経済工作会議や3月の政府活動報告から大きな政策変更を含んでいなかった（表 1）。しかしもし差異があるとすれば、昨年の緊急感をさらに後退させつつも、地方政府幹部を隠れ債務に対して説明責任を負わせるような何らかの仕組みを示唆した点にある。含意は引き続き引き締め的な政策であり、したがって過度の引き締めリスクは依然として大きい。 表 1 中国の最近のマクロ経済政策表明：刺激の縮小 中国は過度な金融引き締めの瀬戸際にある 中国は過度な金融引き締めの瀬戸際にある チャート 9 中国の政策引き締めのベンチマーク 中国の政策引き締めのベンチマーク 中国の政策引き締めのベンチマーク 確かに4月会議の「お茶の葉」は様々に読み取ることができる。4月の声明はマクロ経済政策指針から「必要な政策支援を維持する」という文言を外しており、これは経済への支援を減らすことを意味する可能性がある。しかし同時に、マネーサプライ（M2）とクレジット成長（社会融資総量）を名目GDP成長に合わせるという目標も外れており、これはクレジット成長の新たな上振れを許容するものと見なすこともできる。とはいえ中国人民銀行は第1四半期の金融政策報告書でこのクレジット目標を維持しており、確信は持てない。このルーブリックによれば、中国は我々がリスクを測るために用いる「過度引き締め」の瀬戸際にあることに注意されたい（チャート 9）。 過去20年の中国の政策運営に基づけば、我々は重大な転換点の発表は4月ではなく7月の政治局会議で行われると予想する。したがって4月は先の会合からの大きな変更とは見なしていないし、我々のチャイナ・インベストメント・ストラテジーも同様に見ていない。従って過度な政策引き締めは今後12か月で中国および世界経済に対する現実的なリスクであり、我々の過度引き締めチェックリストはこの点を強調している（表 2）。 表 2 中国の政策引き締めチェックリスト 中国、過度の引き締め寸前 中国、過度の引き締め寸前 中国の財政・信用のダウンシフトは、第20回党大会を控えて進行している。党大会は2022年を通じて行われ、秋に最高指導部（政治局常務委員）の交代で頂点に達する。共産党の100周年に当たる今年7月1日に向けて経済は十分に刺激されているため、政策当局は過剰を防ぐことに集中している。金融リスクの予防、反独占規制、不動産バブルの抑制が当面の命題である。企業および政府の債務不履行や破産の増加は、指導部が経済構造改革と改革を推し進める意志を裏付けており、近年これが確認されている（チャート 10）。 チャート 10 中国における創造的破壊 中国、過度な引き締め寸前 中国、過度な引き締め寸前 投資家は党大会があるからといって指導部が政策を緩和するだろうと想定してはならない。2017年の党大会の前にはむしろその逆のことが起きた。しかし、投資家はまた、中国が重要なイベントの前に自国経済を沈めるほど過度に引き締めるとも安易に想定してはならない。安定が目標となるだろう（2017年や以前の党大会でもそうであったように）──これは現行の引き締めが財政的・経済的にあまりにも痛みを伴う場合には政策緩和がいつか行われることを意味する。政策当局が転換点に達するまでは、中国関連資産は短期的に脆弱である。 ちなみに、第20回党大会の接近は政治的な暗闘や衝撃的な出来事を引き寄せるだろう。最高指導者は通常、党大会前に派閥の勢力を示すために有力なライバルを解任する。政府はまたメディア統制を強化し、事件の周辺で声を上げるか抗議するかもしれない反体制派を取り締まる。しかし2022年はその利害が一層高い。 習主席は当初2022年に退任すると見られていたが、今は退任しない見込みであり、これは少なくとも一部の反対を喚起するだろう。さらに習政権下で中国は三つの歴史的な政策革命を遂げた：強力な指導者モデルを採用し、前二代の集団指導モデルを損なったこと、経済の自給自足を重視して自由化と開放を犠牲にしたこと、そして大国としての地位を強調し米国や同盟国との協調を犠牲にしていることだ。 まとめ：中国の政策引き締めにより、グローバル株式、コモディティ、そして「中国プレイ」は大幅な調整リスクに直面している。当社のベースケースは中国が過度な引き締めを回避するというものだが、最新のマネーおよびクレジットの数値はその見方を変更する閾値に達している。これらの指標がさらに急落すれば見解を変更する必要がある。 中国の消えゆく労働力 最終的に過度な引き締めを抑制する制約の一つは、労働年齢人口の縮小による中国の潜在GDP成長の低下である。中国の第7回国勢調査が今週公表され、国とその経済に影響する深い構造変化を裏付けた。 過去10年の人口増加率は5.4%に鈍化し、1953年の最初の国勢調査以降で最低となった。出生率は2020年に1.3まで下落し、2.1の人口置換水準や2016年に一人っ子政策を緩和した際の目標1.8を下回っている。出生率は世界銀行の推計（2019年で1.7）や日本の数値よりも低い。人口1000人当たりの出生数も減少し、2020年の新生児数は1961年（大飢饉の年）以来の低水準となった。出生率は高所得国の水準に収束しており、経済発展が中国でも出産抑制の同じ効果をもたらしていることを示唆しているが、中国はこれらの国より発展段階が低い。 チャート 11 1990年代の日本より速く減少する中国の労働人口 中国、過度な金融引き締めの瀬戸際に立つ 中国、過度な金融引き締めの瀬戸際に立つ 最年少コホートの比率は16.6%から17.95%に上昇し、最年長コホートは2010年の8.9%から現在13.5%へ上昇、働き手層は75.3%から68.6%に低下した。労働年齢人口は2010年にピークに達し、過去10年で6.79ポイント減少した。対照的に日本の労働年齢人口は1992年にピークを迎え、その後の10年で2.18ポイント低下した（チャート 11）。 言い換えれば、中国は1990年代初頭に日本が経験した人口転換を経験しているが、中国の労働年齢人口はさらに速く減少する可能性がある。中国は日本が達したより低い1人当たり所得水準でこの大規模な社会経済的変化を経験している。 人口動態の課題は中国の社会経済的および政治的システムに圧力をかけるだろう。中国の奇跡は、他のアジアの奇跡と同様に、輸出製造により大量の貯蓄を生み出し、それを国家開発に再投資することを前提としていた。労働年齢人口の減少は経済発展と重なり、長期的には貯蓄率の低下をもたらすだろう。これはチャート 12に示されたように、二つの異なる中国の労働人口の図と国民貯蓄率を並べたものである。扶養比率が上昇するにつれて貯蓄率は低下し、再目的化に使える資金が減少する。資本コストは上昇し、経済構造改革は加速するだろう。 日本の場合、人口変化は1990年の金融危機と全国的な経済行動の変化と同時に起きた。貯蓄率は経済の変化とともに低下したが、生成された貯蓄は依然として投資を上回っており、これは民間需要の不足と大きな債務負担の圧力によるものであった。企業は投資と生産の拡大よりも債務圧縮に注力した（チャート 13）。これらは外部環境が良好だったときに起きたが、中国は地政学的緊張による経済的圧力が高まる文脈で同様の人口問題に直面している。 チャート 12 希少化する中国の労働者 中国の労働者が希少になりつつある 中国の労働者が希少になりつつある チャート 13 高貯蓄が債務拡大を可能にするが、やがて債務が圧倒する 高い貯蓄が借入拡大を促し、債務が耐え難くなるまで続く 高い貯蓄が借入拡大を促し、債務が耐え難くなるまで続く 中国はこれまで破滅的な金融危機や不動産価格の崩壊を回避しており、深刻な流動性の罠に陥る事態は避けている。中国当局は不動産バブルの危険を痛感しており、したがって金融の過剰を防ぎバブル的活動を抑制することに注力している。これが過度の引き締めリスクを重大なものにしている。しかしどちらか一方の誤りはデフレへの滑落を招き得る。習政権は活動が過度に減速したり金融の不安定性が手に負えなくなりそうな時は経済を刺激してきたが、これは難しいバランス行為であり、故に我々は過度引き締めリスクを綿密に監視している。 中国の国勢調査からのその他の注目点は以下の通りである： 二人っ子政策は現時点では成功していない。 COVID-19は出生率に悪影響を与えた可能性はあるが、タイミングの点で出生数を大きく歪めるほどではない。したがってトレンドはパンデミックだけで説明できない。 急速な都市化が続いており、都市化率は64%に達し、2010年から14ポイント上昇した。 政策議論は定年年齢の引き上げ、出産に対する財政的インセンティブの提供、子育てをより手頃にするための各種価格統制（特に不動産バブルの抑制）、および地方からの移住が続く中で中小都市の不動産価格が急落しないようにする措置を強調している。 中国の少数民族人口は総人口の9%を占め、過去10年で9%成長したのに対し、漢民族は91%で5%成長にとどまった。少数民族は一人っ子（二人っ子）政策の免除対象である。しかし、新疆のような自治区では民族間緊張が発生しており、中国の少数民族政策に対する国際的な監視が強まっている。 中国の人口動態上の課題は広く知られているが、最新の国勢調査はその規模を再確認させる。中国の潜在成長率は低下しており、上昇する扶養比率は政府に対する要求を強める社会変化を示している。より大きな財政・社会支出の必要は困難な経済的トレードオフと不人気な政治的決定を必要とするだろう。経済変化と人の移動は地域間および富の格差を深めるだろう。 これらすべての点は、我々の一貫したジオポリティカル・ストラテジーのメガテーマの一つを裏付けている：中国の国内政治リスクは過小評価されている。 まとめ：中国の2020年国勢調査は、中国の上昇する社会経済的・政治的課題の根底にある人口減少を強く裏付けるものである。中国は強力な中央政府を持ち、単一支配政党の下で権力が集約され、近年様々な課題を管理してきた実績はあるが、それでも現在進行中の変化の規模は圧倒的であり、ネガティブな経済的・政治的サプライズを招くだろう。 インド：州選はモディに対する転換点ではない インドで第2波のCOVID-19がピークにあった時期に、5州で選挙が行われた。中でも西ベンガル州の結果が最も重要だった。西ベンガルは大きな州であり、インド国会の議員のほぼ10分の1を占めている。ナレンドラ・モディ首相の与党バラティヤ・ジャナタ党（BJP）は294議席中約70%を獲得するとの目標を公言していた。 実際には、西ベンガルは地域政党であるオール・インディア・トリナムール会議（AITMC）の圧勝となった。AITMCは2期の反イナカム任期に直面していたにもかかわらず、議席数は過去最高を記録した。多くの予測を上回る結果であり、多くの世論調査が予想していなかったことが示された。 投資家はこの重要州でのBJPの敗北をどう受け止めるべきか。これはモディのパンデミック対応への反発か。2024年の総選挙で政権交代や国家政策の変更を予告するものか。そうとは言えない。ここで我々は三つの主要な示唆を挙げる： 示唆その1：BJPの成果は注目に値する チャート 14 インド：西ベンガルで足がかりを得たBJP 中国、過度な引き締めの瀬戸際 中国、過度な引き締めの瀬戸際 BJPは西ベンガルで目標には届かなかったが、この州はBJPの地盤ではない。BJPは英語で言えばヒンディー語圏で自然な支持基盤を持つとされ、西ベンガルは非ヒンディー語圏であり、伝統的にBJPは「外部勢力」と見なされてきた。またこの州は変化を受け入れにくいことで知られている。例えばAITMC以前は左派が34年という記録的な長期政権を維持していた。このような状況下で、BJPが2021年に77議席に増やしたことは注目に値する（2016年は3議席）（チャート 14）。 この成果によりBJPは西ベンガルで主要な野党となった。これはBJPが時間をかければ伝統的な強みを持たない州でも足場を築けることを示している。歴史的に弱い州でこの成果を上げたことは、BJPが依然として無視できない勢力であることの表れだ。 示唆その2：BJPの人気は後退したが、2024年に政権を維持する見込みは依然強い BJPに対する不満はCOVID-19対応の不手際とそれに伴う経済的困窮により高まっているが、国家レベルでBJPに代わる現実的な選択肢は存在しない。 最近の州選は、西ベンガルだけでなく、野党のインド国民会議（INC）がまだ体制を整えていないことを確認した。コングレスは西ベンガルで44議席から0議席に崩壊した。より重要なのは、コングレスが大衆にアピールする内部指導者を任命・選出する必要性と、識別可能な政策アジェンダを策定する必要性という二つの重要課題をまだ解決していない点である。 コングレスの弱さは、BJPの議席数が2019年のピークから減少する可能性があっても、我々の2024年のベースケースは依然としてBJP主導の政権がインドの政権を維持するというものであることを意味する。政策の継続性とある程度の構造改革の可能性がベースケースだ。 示唆その3：インドの地域政党の台頭 過去10年のBJPの台頭は、コングレスと地域政党の議席減少と同時に進んだ。しかし最近の州選は、BJPが地域政党の議席シェアを劇的に圧縮できないことを示している。例えば西ベンガルではBJPは単独で77議席を獲得したが、これはこの州で支配的なAITMCの犠牲になって得たものではない。一方、同月に選挙が行われた別の大州であるタミル・ナードゥでは二大地域政党の間で支配が揺れ続けている。 チャート 15 インド：BJPは2019年にピークを迎えたが2024年にも有力 中国は過度な引き締めの瀬戸際にある 中国は過度な引き締めの瀬戸際にある 2019年の総選挙では地域政党（BJPとコングレスを除く全党）のシェアは約40%から35%に低下した（チャート 15）。2024年の選挙では、BJPのピーク議席数が2019年の高水準から低下することにより、地域政党の議席シェアがやや上昇する可能性がある。 インドの地域政党の今後の台頭は単純な力学に根ざしている。BJPが2024年に二期目の現職となる可能性があるので、全国レベルでBJPに対する代替がない限り、有権者は差分的に地域政党を支持する選択をするだろう。 BJPは2024年に単独最大党として過半数を超える議席を獲得するポジションに留まるだろう。しかし与党が過半数を確保するために地域政党を取り込むシナリオも十分にあり得る。ただし2024年までは長い時間がある。COVID-19とその経済的影響への対応が、BJPが2019年の成果を超えることを難しくするだろう。次の重要な州選は2022年2月に予定されており、インド最大の州ウッタル・プラデーシュで選挙が行われる。ここでの結果は、BJPがパンデミックと経済ショックによる反イナカム効果をいかに緩和できるかを示すだろう。 結論：インドにおけるBJPの人気は揺らいでいるが劇的に崩れたわけではない。BJPは依然として2024年に過半数を超える単独最大政党になる位置にある可能性が高い。したがって当面この新興市場で政権不安は懸念されない。 中国の国内政治リスクとインドの政治的継続性を踏まえ、当面インド向けのトレードを維持する（チャート 16Aおよびチャート 16B）。ただし我々はインド全体のレビューを進めており、今後の特別レポートで顧客に結論を共有する予定である。 チャート 16A 新興国に対してインド債をロングで保有 インド債券を新興国（EM）に対してロングで維持する インド債券を新興国（EM）に対してロングで維持する チャート 16B インドロング／中国ショートを堅持 インドをロング、中国をショートで貫く インドをロング、中国をショートで貫く 投資上の示唆 短期的な安全資産トレードを維持する。天然ガス先物のロングは19.8%の利得でクローズ。 景気循環（12か月）の強気ポジションを維持し、グロースよりバリューを優先する。レアアースを含むコモディティおよび新興市場のロングを維持する。ただし、中国が我々のベンチマークに従って過度の引き締めを行った場合にはこれらのトレードをカットする準備をすること。 当面は新興国同業と比較してインドのローカル通貨建て債をオーバーウェイトし、インド株を中国株に対してロングする。だがインドに対する強気姿勢は精査中である。 チャート 17 テック売りの中で回復するサイバーセキュリティ株 サイバーセキュリティ株がテック株の暴落の中で反発 サイバーセキュリティ株がテック株の暴落の中で反発 サイバーセキュリティ株はロングで保有を継続すべきだが、地政学的「職場復帰」トレードとしてはサイバーよりも航空宇宙・防衛を引き続き好む。先週の一般的なテック売りの中でサイバーセキュリティ株はテックセクターに対して持ち直した。米国で発生した大規模なColonial Pipelineのランサムウェア攻撃は、東海岸の燃料供給の約45%を支える主要ネットワークを一時的に停止させた（チャート 17）。それでも重要インフラに対する攻撃はサイバーセキュリティが長期的なテーマであることを浮き彫りにしており、投資家はエクスポージャーを維持すべきである。サイバー株はワクチン発見以降、テック全体をアウトパフォームしている（チャート 18）。 チャート 18 サイバーセキュリティは構造的テーマである サイバーセキュリティは長期的なテーマである サイバーセキュリティは長期的なテーマである Matt Gertken バイスプレジデント 地政学ストラテジー mattg@bcaresearch.com Yushu Ma リサーチ・アソシエイト yushu.ma@bcaresearch.com Ritika Mankar, CFA 編集者／ストラテジスト Ritika.Mankar@bcaresearch.com

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

特別レポート

Highlights The Scottish parliamentary election does not present a near-term risk of a second referendum on Scottish independence. Independence is possible down the road but very unlikely due to a host of economic and geopolitical challenges still relevant in the twenty-first century. Book gains on long CHF-GBP. Go long FTSE 100 versus developed markets excluding the United States. Feature British equities have underperformed developed markets over the past decade – even if we exclude the market-leading United States (Chart 1). The British equity market is heavily concentrated in cyclical sectors like financials and materials and has a low concentration in information technology and communications services. As such the bourse has sprung to life since the advent of the COVID-19 vaccine and the prospect of a government-stimulated global growth recovery. In keeping with our strategic preference for value over growth we also look constructively at British equities. A potential source of geopolitical and political risk is Britain’s ongoing constitutional crisis, which flared up with the failed Scottish independence referendum in 2014 and the successful referendum to leave the EU in 2016. Tensions within the UK and between the UK and EU are part of the same problem – a loss of popular confidence and trust in the current nation-state and governing institutions in the aftermath of hyper-globalization.1 This constitutional crisis added insult to injury for UK stocks by jacking up policy uncertainty and undermining the attractiveness of domestic-oriented UK companies that suffered from trade disruptions with the European Union. Chart 1UK Referendums Added Insult To Injury Chart 2Post-Brexit Trading Range For GBP-EUR Now the COVID-19 pandemic and its aftermath have changed the global scene entirely and Brexit is no longer Britain’s chief concern. But there is still a lingering question over Scotland’s status. The Scottish question has recently weighed on the British pound and reinforced the new trading range for the GBP-EUR exchange rate in the aftermath of a “hard” exit from the European Union (Chart 2). Scotland voted for a new parliament on May 6 and the preliminary results are coming in as we go to press. The pro-independence Scottish National Party is still the most popular party and even if it falls short of a majority, as online betting markets expect, it has pro-independence allies with which it could form a coalition (Chart 3). Its leader, Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, has promised to pursue a second popular referendum on seceding from the United Kingdom by 2023. Chart 3Betting Markets Doubt Single-Party Majority For SNP British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, backed by a strong Conservative Party parliamentary majority, has vowed not to allow a second referendum, arguing that the 2014 plebiscite was supposed to lay the question to rest for a while. Scottish opinion in favor of secession stands at 43.6% today, right near the 44.7% that nationalists achieved in 2014 (Chart 4). Chart 4Support For Independence Ticks Down, Still Shy Of Majority Our takeaway is to fade the Scottish risk. Book gains on our long CHF-GBP tactical trade. Go long British equities relative to DM-ex-US on the expectation of global economic normalization, which is beneficially for the outwardly oriented British multinationals that dominate the British bourse. Does Scotland Have Grand Strategy? The history of Scotland is marked by internal differences that prevent it from achieving unity and independence. Even in the twenty-first century, when many factors have coalesced to make Scottish independence more likely than at any time since the eighteenth century, the 2014 referendum produced a 10% gap in favor of remaining in the United Kingdom. This majority is all the more compelling when viewed from the perspective of geography because cross-regional support for the union is clear (Map 1). Map 1Scottish Independence Referendum Result, 2014 Why is Scotland always divided? Because it is trapped by the sea and adjacent to a greater power, England. England is usually strong enough to keep Scotland from consolidating power and asserting control over its maritime and land borders. Specifically, Scotland contains a small population (at 5.5 million today) and small economic base (GBP 155 billion in economic output at the end of 2022) dispersed over an inconvenient geography. The low-lying plains around the Firth of Forth that form the historic core of Scotland share a porous border with England. The highlands provide a retreat for Scottish forces during times of conflict, which makes it extremely difficult for southern forces, whether Roman or Anglo-Saxon, to conquer Scotland. But the highlands are equally hard for any standalone Scottish state to rule. Meanwhile the western isles are even more remote from the seat of Scottish power and vulnerable to foreign maritime powers. Since England could never conquer Scotland, its solution was to coopt the Scottish elite, who reciprocated, culminating in a merger of the two monarchies and then the two states in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The British empire provided Scotland with peace, prosperity, and access to the rest of the world. History and geopolitics do not imply that Scottish independence is impossible, i.e. that union with the rest of Britain is inevitable and permanent. The Anglo-Scots union is only 314 or 418 years old, whereas Scotland existed as a recognizable kingdom for roughly six centuries prior to the joining of the crowns in 1603. It is entirely possible for Scotland to secede and break up the union known as Great Britain. The principle of rule by consent and modern democratic ideology make it difficult for London and Westminster to force Scotland into subjection like in the old days. In particular, American hegemony over Europe since WWII and the rise of the European Union have created a pathway for Scottish independence. England is no longer the indispensable gateway to peace and prosperity. Scotland can exist independently under the EU’s economic umbrella and the American security umbrella.   Europe has always played a major role in Scotland’s political fate and has always held the key to independence. Independence usually failed because European powers failed to devote large and steady resources to supporting Scotland militarily and economically. France was Scotland’s greatest patron and would lend its support for Scottish rebellion. But France also consistently failed Scotland (and Ireland) at critical junctures when independence might have been obtained. This is because France’s interests lay in distracting England rather than adopting Scotland. Chart 5Scottish Energy Production In Decline Today’s unified European continent could be a much greater patron than France ever was alone. The EU could assure Scotland of investment and access to markets even in the face of British resistance. However, the EU is still not politically unified: some members fear separatism in their own borders and therefore tend to oppose Scottish accession. It is possible that the EU could overcome this difficulty but only after a series of major events (on which more below). It took an American empire to clear the way for Irish independence. But Ireland has the moat of the Irish Sea – and the United Kingdom still retained Northern Ireland. Today the United States can be expected to keep its distance from quarrels within the UK or between the UK and EU. However, it does not have an interest in Scottish secession or any other disintegration of the UK, whether from a global security point of view (the West’s conflict with Russia) or even from the point of view of US grand strategy relative to Europe (prevention of a European empire that could challenge the US). An independent Scotland would struggle economically. Its declining base of fossil fuel reserves illustrates the problem of generating sufficient revenue to maintain the Scandinavian-style social welfare state that Scotland’s nationalists imagine (Chart 5). Scottish nationalists are keen to embrace renewable energy – and the Scottish Greens are pro-independence – yet Scotland is not a manufacturing powerhouse that will produce its own solar panels and windmills. In the face of economic difficulties, Scotland would become politically divided like it was for most of its history prior to union with England. England would revert to an obstructive or sabotaging role. It is telling that the Scottish voter turnout in the 2014 independence referendum was very strong – much stronger than in other recent elections and plebiscites, including the Brexit referendum in Scotland (Table 1). The implication is that it is much harder for Scotland to strike out on its own than it appears. Opinion polling cited above suggests that neither Brexit nor the COVID-19 pandemic has moved the needle decisively in the direction of independence. If anything it is the opposite. The Scottish National Party has lost momentum since 2014 and is losing momentum in advance of today’s local election, which has been pitched as the opportunity to make a second go at independence (Chart 6). Table 1Scotland: High Turnout In 2014 Independence Referendum Implies Firm Conclusion To Stay In UK Chart 6Scottish National Party Losing Momentum Just Ahead Of Holyrood Election Bottom Line: History suggests that the geopolitical and macroeconomic barriers to a unified and independent Scottish state are higher and stronger than they may appear at any given time, including the inevitable periods of tensions with England like today. The UK’s Saving Graces A fair question is whether the UK’s decision to leave the EU since 2016 has changed Scotland’s calculus. Brexit may also have affected the international context, reducing the EU’s willingness to intervene on the UK’s behalf and discourage Scottish ambitions. However, a handful of factors supports the continuation of the union despite Scotland’s grievances. The UK proved a boon amid COVID-19: While 62% of Scots voted against Brexit, the COVID-19 pandemic and recession have supplanted Brexit as the nation’s chief cause of concern. The UK and Scotland saw a higher rate of deaths during the biggest waves of the pandemic but now the pandemic is effectively over in the UK and Scotland, in stark contrast with the European Union (Chart 7). The UK has provided a net benefit to Scotland by inventing the vaccine and distributing it effectively (Chart 8). Scottish voters would have been worse off had they left the UK in 2014. Of course, Scottish nationalism is apparent in the fact that voters give the credit to Edinburgh while blaming London over its handling of the pandemic (Chart 9). But the underlying material reality – that being part of the UK provided a net benefit – will discourage independence sentiment. The Scottish Conservative Party and Labour Party are both in favor of sustaining the union and have benefited in opinion polling since the pandemic peaked. Chart 7COVID Deaths Collapse In ##br##United Kingdom Chart 8Scotland Benefited From UK Vaccine And Rollout   Chart 9Scots Praise Edinburgh, Blame London On COVID Handling Brexit is a cautionary economic tale: If Brexit is relevant to Scottish voters, it is not the source of grievance that it could have been. Prime Minister Boris Johnson achieved an exit and trade deal at the end of 2019-20 that largely preserves economic ties with the EU. True, the deal has problems that undermine the UK economy and enhance Scottish grievances. But these also serve as a warning to Scots who would attempt to exit the UK, highlighting the economic pitfalls of raising borders and barriers against one’s chief market. The UK’s trade is far more critical to Scotland’s economy than that of the EU (Chart 10).   Chart 10Major Constraint On Scottish Independence Unlike in the case of the UK and EU, Scotland shares the same currency and central bank with the UK. Scotland’s large banking sector stands to suffer drastically if the Bank of England ceases to be a lender of last resort. This would become a major problem at least until Scotland could be assured of admission into the EU and Euro Area. Otherwise redenomination into a national currency would deal an even greater financial and economic blow. Scots  would face a far more painful economic divorce from the UK than the UK faced with the EU. The UK’s fiscal blowout helped Scotland: Since the bank run at Northern Rock in 2007, the UK and Scotland have suffered a series of crises. This instability should discourage risk appetite today when contrasted with the possibility of stimulus-fueled economic recovery. In particular, the UK government is no longer pursuing fiscal austerity – an economic policy that fanned the flames of Scottish secession back in 2012. Indeed, the UK tops the ranks of global fiscal stimulus, according to the change in government net lending and borrowing as reported by the IMF. The UK’s outlier status ensures that Scotland receives more fiscal support than it otherwise would have (Chart 11). A brief comparison with comparable countries – Ireland, Belgium, France, Norway, Portugal – reinforces the point. Chart 11Scotland Benefited From UK Fiscal Blowout The UK’s aggressive policy of monetary and fiscal reflation is not a coincidence. It stems from the past two decades’ constitutional and political struggles – it is an outgrowth of domestic instability and populism. It includes an industrial policy, a green energy policy, and other rebuilding measures to combat the erosion of the state in the wake of hyper-globalization. Essentially the UK, even under a Tory government, is now about debt monetization and nation-building. While Scotland would have trouble bargaining for its share of EU resources, it benefits from the UK’s shift to government largesse and can use the threat of independence to receive greater funds from the United Kingdom. Geopolitics discourages a fledgling Scottish nation. Scotland hosts naval and air bases of considerable value to the UK, US, and broader NATO alliance. Former US President Trump’s punitive measures against the European allies and open doubts about the US’s commitment to NATO’s collective security illustrated the dangers of western divisions in the face of autocratic regimes like Russia and China. The US and EU are now recommitting to their economic and security bonds under the Biden administration. Scottish independence would undermine this recommitment and as such the small country would pit itself against the US, EU, and NATO. While the US and NATO would ultimately admit Scotland into collective security, for fear of cultivating a neutral Scotland that could eventually be exploited by Russia, they would likely discourage independence ahead of time to prevent a historic division within the UK and NATO. Chart 12No Urgency For A Second Referendum As for the EU, the Spanish government has indicated that it would be willing to make an exception for Scottish independence if it were negotiated amicably with the United Kingdom.2 Such statements are doubtful, however, as any successful secession would lend ideological credibility to Spanish secessionism – not only in Catalonia but also in the Basque country and elsewhere. And Spain is not the only country that harbors deep hesitations over Scottish accession to the European Union. Belgium, Slovakia, and Cyprus could also oppose it. It only takes a single veto to halt the whole accession process. Ultimately the EU could accept Scotland, just as would NATO, to avoid the dangers of having a neutral state in a strategic location. But the point is that Scottish voters cannot be certain. For example, Scotland cannot secure EU accession prior to leaving the UK and yet to leave the UK and fail to achieve EU accession would render it a fledgling. This explains why Scottish voters are not eager to hold a new independence referendum (Chart 12). Bottom Line: The UK offers medical, economic, fiscal, and geopolitical advantages to Scotland that independence would revoke. The context of Great Power struggle with Russia and China means that an independent Scotland would probably ultimately be admitted into NATO and the EU – but Scottish voters cannot be certain, a factor that discourages independence at least in the short and medium run. Scottish Hurdles Table 2 highlights the historic results of Scottish elections according to political party, popular vote share, and share of seats in parliament. Early, tentative signs suggest that the Scottish National Party maxed out in 2011. The party has suffered from a leadership schism, offshoot parties, and a distraction of its key message since 2014. The implication is not only that Scottish independence is on ice for now but also that the tumultuous constitutional disagreements are subsiding and voters want to focus on economic recovery. Table 2Scottish National Party Hit High-Water Mark In 2011? If the Scottish National Party manages to form a majority coalition capable of pushing forward a second referendum, it will face several hurdles. It will need a UK Supreme Court ruling on the legality of a referendum. If a referendum is declared legal (as it very likely will be), Scotland will need to forge an agreement with Prime Minister Boris Johnson to hold a referendum. If a referendum eventually is held and passes, an exit will need to be negotiated. In a post-Brexit world, investors cannot assume that any referendum will fail or that a referendum is a domestic political ploy that the ruling party has no serious intention of following through. Nevertheless it is true that the Scottish National Party could use the threat of a referendum to agree to negotiate a greater devolution of power from Westminster. The party could hold up England’s concessions as a victory while retaining the independence threat as leverage for a later date. Devolution in the past has strengthened the independence cause, as in the creation of the Scottish parliament in 1999. After all, a referendum loss would be devastating for the nationalists, whereas the threat of a referendum could yield victories without depriving the nationalists of their reason for being. It is notable that First Minister Nicola Sturgeon promised not to hold a “wildcat” referendum, in which Scotland holds a referendum regardless of what Westminster or the UK Supreme Court say. The implication is that Scottish nationalism is looking for a stable way to exit. But if stability is the hope then there is dubious support for independence in the first place. A wildcat referendum is theoretically still an option but a formal process with popular support is much more likely to result in a successful referendum than an informal process with dubious popular support. Chart 13Scotland’s Chronic Deficits If Scottish independence succeeded in any wildcat referendum, an extreme controversy would follow as Edinburgh tried to translate this result to the formal political and constitutional sphere. If the referendum were not recognized by the UK then Scotland would be forced to secede unilaterally at greater economic cost. Otherwise a third referendum (second formal referendum) would need to be held to confirm the results. Any third referendum would be irrevocable. As with Brexit, the secessionists would have to carry one or more subsequent elections to execute the political will in the event of secession. The point for investors is that volatility would be prolonged as was the case with Brexit. A major complication in Scottish independence remains the problem of public finances. Scotland’s fiscal standing is weak. Scotland ran a 9.4% of GDP budget deficit prior to COVID-19, excluding transfers from the UK, which compensates for a gap of about 6% of GDP (Chart 13).3 The country maintains generous social spending alongside a low-tax regime. There is no sign of correction as all Scottish parties are proposing more expansive social spending in the parliamentary election. The Scottish National Party is even proposing universal basic income. Scotland’s emergency COVID deficits are larger than the UK’s as well and projections over the coming years suggest that they will stay elevated. Historically economic growth keeps closely in line with the rest of the UK and there is no reason to believe independence would boost growth. The implication is that Scotland would have to curtail spending or raise taxes to come into line with UK-sized deficits, which are not small (Chart 14).4 Of course Scotland would not embrace austerity unless financial market pressure forced it to do so. Chart 14Scottish Deficit Projected Larger Than UK Scotland would become a high-debt economy. Its public debt-to-GDP ratio would be about 97%, on a back-of-the-envelope calculation. Back in 2013 estimates ranged around 80% of GDP.5 The Scottish National Party’s Sustainable Growth Commission projected in 2018 – before the pandemic blew an even wider hole in the budget deficit – that deficits would nearly have to be cut in half (i.e. capped at 5% of GDP and falling) to achieve a 50% debt-to-GDP ratio over 10 years.6 This is not going to happen. Scotland would also have to take on a portion of the UK’s national debt if it were to have an amicable divorce from the UK and retain the pound sterling. But then much of its newfound independence would be compromised from the beginning by legacy debt and monetary policy shackles. Similar restrictions would come with EU and euro membership. Any accession process after the pandemic would require conformity to the EU’s growth and stability pact, which limits deficits and debt. Redenomination into a national currency, as noted, would dilute domestic wealth, zap the financial industry, and self-impose austerity. Bottom Line: Even if the Scottish nationalists manage to put together a pro-independence majority in Edinburgh, they face a complex process in setting up a referendum. Its passage is doubtful based on the current evidence. But obviously in the wake of Brexit investors should not assume that a referendum attempt will fail or that a successful referendum will be thwarted by parliament after a “leave” vote. The timeline for a second referendum is not imminent – and Scottish independence is highly unlikely, albeit possible at some future date given that middle-aged Scots lean in favor of independence.   Investment Takeaways We will conclude with two market takeaways: Chart 15UK Stocks Recovering From Referendum Fever Chart 16Hindsight On How To Play A Constitutional Struggle The UK’s referendum fever has compounded political uncertainty and contributed to negative factors for the UK equity market over the past decade. A segmentation of the FTSE 100 according to country shows that Scottish-based companies’ share prices rolled over in the aftermath of the 2014 referendum, while the non-Scottish segment performed better (Chart 15). The implication is not that the referendum caused stocks to fall but that the 2014 independence push was the result of national exuberance supercharged by high commodity prices. Enthusiasm for independence has been flat since that time. What is clear is that financial markets look even less favorably upon Scottish equities than other British equities – another sign of the economic problems that will ultimately discourage Scottish voters from going it alone. In advance of the Scottish election, we went tactically long the Swiss franc relative to the British pound to capitalize on jitters that we expected to hit the currency. This trade was in keeping with the long fall of GBP-CHF over the past decade (Chart 16). But the stronger forces of global stimulus, vaccination, economic normalization, and recovery will soon provide a tailwind for sterling yet again. Therefore we are booking 1% gains and shifting to a more optimistic outlook on the pound. With the Brexit saga and the COVID crisis in the rear view mirror, and the tail risk of Scottish independence unlikely, the pound can resume its upward trajectory – at least relative to the Swiss franc. International equities and cyclicals are also poised to continue rising as the world recovers. We recommend investors go long the FTSE 100 relative to developed markets excluding the United States. Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Jeremy Black, “The Legacy of the Scottish Referendum,” Foreign Policy Research Institute E-Notes, September 22, 2014, fpri.org. 2 See Akash Paun et al, "Scottish Independence: EU Membership And The Anglo-Scottish Border," Institute For Government, March 2021, instituteforgovernment.org.uk. 3 See Eve Hepburn, Michael Keating, and Nicola McEwen, "Scotland’s New Choice: Independence After Brexit," Centre on Constitutional Change, 2021, centreonconstitutionalchange.ac.uk. 4 See David Phillips, "Updated projections of Scotland’s fiscal position – and their implications," Institute for Fiscal Studies, April 29, 2021, ifs.org.uk. 5 Granting that the UK’s general government gross debt stood at GBP 1.88 trillion at the end of 2020, and assuming that Scotland takes on a share of this debt equivalent to Scotland’s share of the UK’s total population and output (roughly 8%), the Scottish debt would stand at GBP 150 billion out of a Scottish GDP at current market prices of GBP 156 billion, or 97% of GDP. For the 2013 estimate of at least 80% of GDP, see David Bell, "Scottish Independence: Debt And Assets," Centre on Constitutional Change, December 3, 2013, centreonconstitutionalchange.ac.uk.  6 Scottish National Party, "Part B: The Framework & Strategy for the Sustainable Public Finances of an Independent Scotland," Sustainable Growth Commission, May 2018, sustainablegrowthcommission.scot. The commission’s debt curbs will have to be revised in the wake of COVID-19. For discussion see Chris Giles and Murie Dickie, "Independent Scotland would face a large hole in its public finances," Financial Times, April 2, 2021, ft.com.  

Highlights Biden’s first 100 days are characterized by a liberal spend-and-tax agenda unseen since the 1960s. It is not a “bait and switch,” however. Voters do not care about deficits and debt. At least not for now. The apparent outcome of the populist surge in the US and UK in 2016 is blowout fiscal spending. Yet the US and UK also invented and distributed vaccines faster than others. US growth and equities have outperformed while the US dollar experienced a countertrend bounce. While growth will rotate to other regions, China’s stimulus is on the wane. Of Biden’s three initial geopolitical risks, two are showing signs of subsiding: Russia and Iran. US-China tensions persist, however, and Biden has been hawkish so far. Our new Australia Geopolitical Risk Indicator confirms our other indicators in signaling that China risk, writ large, remains elevated. Cyclically we are optimistic about the Aussie and Australian stocks. Mexico’s midterm elections are likely to curb the ruling party’s majority but only marginally. The macro and geopolitical backdrop is favorable for Mexico. Feature US President Joe Biden gave his first address to the US Congress on April 28. Biden’s first hundred days are significant for his extravagant spending proposals, which will rank alongside those of Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society, if not Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal, in their impact on US history, for better and worse. Chart 1Biden's First 100 Days - The Market's Appraisal The global financial market appraisal is that Biden’s proposals will turn out for the better. The market has responded to the US’s stimulus overshoot, successful vaccine rollout, and growth outperformance – notably in the pandemic-struck service sector – by bidding up US equities and the dollar (Chart 1). From a macro perspective we share the BCA House View in leaning against both of these trends, preferring international equities and commodity currencies. However, our geopolitical method has made it difficult for us to bet directly against the dollar and US equities. Geopolitics is about not only wars and trade but also the interaction of different countries’ domestic politics. America’s populist spending blowout is occurring alongside a sharp drop in China’s combined credit-and-fiscal impulse, which will eventually weigh on the global economy. This is true even though the rest of the world is beginning to catch up in vaccinations and economic normalization. As for traditional geopolitical risk – wars and alliances – Biden has not yet leaped over the three initial foreign policy hurdles that we have highlighted: China, Russia, and Iran. In this report we will update the view on all three, as there is tentative improvement on the Russian and Iranian fronts. In addition, we will introduce our newest geopolitical risk indicator – for Australia – and update our view on Mexico ahead of its June 6 midterm elections. Biden’s Fiscal Blowout From a macro point of view, Biden’s $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) was much larger than what Republicans would have passed if President Trump had won a second term. His proposed $2.3 trillion American Jobs Plan (AJP) is also larger, though both candidates were likely to pass an infrastructure package. The difference lies in the parts of these packages that relate to social spending and other programs, beyond COVID relief and roads and bridges. The Republican proposal for COVID relief was $618 billion while the Republicans’ current proposal on infrastructure is $568 billion – marking a $3 trillion difference from Biden. In reality Republicans would have proposed larger spending if Trump had remained president – but not enough to close this gap. And Biden is also proposing a $1.8 trillion American Families Plan (AFP). Biden’s praise for handling the vaccinations must be qualified by the Trump administration’s successful preparations, which have been unfairly denigrated. Similarly, Biden’s blame for the migrant surge at the southern border must be qualified by the fact that the surge began last year.1 A comparison with the UK will put Biden’s administration into perspective. The only country comparable to the US in terms of the size of fiscal stimulus over 2019-21 so far – excluding Biden’s AJP and AFP, which are not yet law – is the United Kingdom. Thus the consequence of the flare-up of populism in the Anglo-Saxon world since 2016 is a budget deficit blowout as these countries strive to suppress domestic socio-political conflict by means of government largesse, particularly in industrial and social programs. However, populist dysfunction was also overrated. Both the US and UK retain their advantages in terms of innovation and dynamism, as revealed by the vaccine and its rollout (Chart 2). Chart 2Dysfunctional Anglo-Saxon Populism? No sharp leftward turn occurred in the UK, where Prime Minister Boris Johnson and his Conservatives had the benefit of a pre-COVID election in December 2019, which they won. By contrast, in the US, President Trump and the Republicans contended an election after the pandemic and recession had virtually doomed them to failure. There a sharp leftward turn is taking place. Going forward the US will reclaim the top rank in terms of fiscal stimulus, as Biden is likely to get his infrastructure plan (AJP) passed. Our updated US budget deficit projections appear in Chart 3. Our sister US Political Strategy gives the AJP an 80% chance of passing in some form and the AFP only a 50% chance of passing, depending on how quickly the AJP is passed. This means the blue dashed line is more likely to occur than the red dashed line. The difference is slight despite the mind-boggling headline numbers of the plans because the spending is spread out over eight-to-ten years and tax hikes over 15 years will partially offset the expenditures. Much will depend on whether Congress is willing to pay for the new spending. In Chart 3 we assume that Biden will get half of the proposed corporate tax hikes in the AJP scenario (and half of the individual tax hikes in the AFP scenario). If spending is watered down, and/or tax hikes surprise to the upside, both of which are possible, then the deficit scenarios will obviously tighten, assuming the economic recovery continues robustly as expected. But in the current political environment it is safest to plan for the most expansive budget deficit scenarios, as populism is the overriding force. Chart 3Biden’s Blowout Spending Biden’s campaign plan was even more visionary, so it is not true that Biden pulled a “bait and switch” on voters. Rather, the median voter is comfortable with greater deficits and a larger government role in American life. Bottom Line: The implication of Biden’s spending blowout is reflationary for the global economy, cyclically negative for the US dollar, and positive for global equities. But on a tactical time frame the rotation to other equities and currencies will also depend on China’s fiscal-and-credit deceleration and whether geopolitical risk continues to fall. Russia: Some Improvement But Coast Not Yet Clear US-Russia tensions appeared to fizzle over the past week but the coast is not yet clear. We remain short Russian currency and risk assets as well as European emerging market equities. Tensions fell after President Putin’s State of the Nation address on April 21 in which he warned the West against crossing Russia’s “red lines.” Biden’s sanctions on Russia were underwhelming – he did not insist on halting the final stages of the Nord Stream II pipeline to Germany. Russia declared it would withdraw its roughly 100,000 troops from the Ukrainian border by May 1. Russian dissident Alexei Navalny ended his hunger strike. Putin attended Biden’s Earth Day summit and the two are working on a bilateral summit in June. Chart 4Russia's Domestic Instability Will Continue De-escalation is not certain, however. First, some US officials have cast doubt on Russia’s withdrawal of troops and it is known that arms and equipment were left in place for a rapid mobilization and re-escalation if necessary. Second, Russian-backed Ukrainian separatists will be emboldened, which could increase fighting in Ukraine that could eventually provoke Russian intervention. Third, the US has until August or September to prevent Nord Stream from completion. Diplomacy between Russia and the US (and Russia and several eastern European states) has hit a low point on the withdrawal of ambassadors. Fourth, Russian domestic politics was always the chief reason to prepare for a worse geopolitical confrontation and it remains unsettled. Putin’s approval rating still lingers in the relatively low range of 65% and government approval at 49%. The economic recovery is weak and facing an increasingly negative fiscal thrust, along with Europe and China, Russia’s single-largest export destination (Chart 4). Putin’s handouts to households, in anticipation of the September Duma election, only amount to 0.2% of GDP. More measures will probably be announced but the lead-up to the election could still see an international adventure designed to distract the public from its socioeconomic woes. Russia’s geopolitical risk indicators ticked up as anticipated (Chart 5). They may subside if the military drawdown is confirmed and Biden and Putin lower the temperature. But we would not bet on it. Chart 5Russian Geopolitical Risk: Wait For 'All Clear' Signal Bottom Line: It is possible that Biden has passed his first foreign policy test with Russia but it is too soon to sound the “all clear.” We remain short Russian ruble and short EM Europe until de-escalation is confirmed. The Russian (and German) elections in September will mark a time for reassessing this view. Iran: Diplomacy On Track (Hence Jitters Will Rise) While Russia may or may not truly de-escalate tensions in Ukraine, the spring and summer are sure to see an increase in focus on US-Iran nuclear negotiations. Geopolitical risks will remain high prior to the conclusion of a deal and will materialize in kinetic attacks of various kinds. This thesis is confirmed by the alleged Israeli sabotage of Iran’s Natanz nuclear facility this month. The US Navy also fired warning shots at Iranian vessels staging provocations. Sporadic attacks in other parts of the region also continue to flare, most recently with an Iranian tanker getting hit by a drone at a Syrian oil terminal.2 The US and Iran are making progress in the Vienna talks toward rejoining the 2015 nuclear deal from which the US withdrew in 2018. Iran pledged to enrich uranium up to 60% but also said this move was reversible – like all its tentative violations of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPA) so far (Table 1). Iran also offered a prisoner swap with the US. Saudi Arabia appears resigned to a resumption of the JCPA that it cannot prevent, with crown prince Mohammed bin Salman offering diplomatic overtures to both the US and Iran. Table 1Iran’s Nuclear Program And Compliance With JCPA 2015 Still, the closer the US and Iran get to a deal the more its opponents will need to either take action or make preparations for the aftermath. The allegation that former US Secretary of State John Kerry’s shared Israeli military plans with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif is an example of the kind of political brouhaha that will occur as different elements try to support and oppose the normalization of US-Iran ties. More importantly Israel will underscore its red line against nuclear weaponization. Previously Iran was set to reach “breakout” capability of uranium enrichment – a point at which it has enough fissile material to produce a nuclear device – as early as May. Due to sabotage at the Natanz facility the breakout period may have been pushed back to July.3 This compounds the significance of this summer as a deadline for negotiating a reduction in tensions. While the US may be prepared to fudge on Iran’s breakout capabilities, Israel will not, which means a market-relevant showdown should occur this summer before Israel backs down for fear of alienating the United States. Tit-for-tat attacks in May and June could cause negative surprises for oil supply. Then there will be a mad dash by the negotiators to agree to deal before the de facto August deadline, when Iran inaugurates a new president and it becomes much harder to resolve outstanding issues. Chart 6Iran Deal Priced Into Oil Markets? Hence our argument that geopolitics adds upside risk to oil prices in the first half of the year but downside risk in the second half. The market’s expectations seem already to account for this, based on the forward curve for Brent crude oil. The marginal impact of a reconstituted Iran nuclear deal on oil prices is slightly negative over the long run since a deal is more likely to be concluded than not and will open up Iran’s economy and oil exports to the world. However, our Commodity & Energy Strategy expects the Brent price to exceed expectations in the coming years, judging by supply and demand balances and global macro fundamentals (Chart 6). If an Iran deal becomes a fait accompli in July and August the Saudis could abandon their commitment to OPEC 2.0’s production discipline. The Russians and Saudis are not eager to return to a market share war after what happened in March 2020 but we cannot rule it out in the face of Iranian production. Thus we expect oil to be volatile. Oil producers also face the threat of green energy and US shale production which gives them more than one reason to keep up production and prevent prices from getting too lofty. Throughout the post-2015 geopolitical saga between the US and Iran, major incidents have caused an increase in the oil-to-gold ratio. The risk of oil supply disruption affected the price more than the flight to gold due to geopolitical or war risk. The trend generally corresponds with that of the copper-to-gold ratio, though copper-to-gold rose higher when growth boomed and oil outperformed when US-Iran tensions spiked in 2019. Today the copper-to-gold ratio is vastly outperforming the oil-to-gold on the back of the global recovery (Chart 7). This makes sense from the point of view of the likelihood of a US-Iran deal this year. But tensions prior to a deal will push up oil-to-gold in the near term. Chart 7Biden Passes Iran Test? Likely But Not A Done Deal Bottom Line: The US-Iran diplomacy is on track. This means geopolitical risk will escalate in May and June before a short-term or interim deal is agreed in July or August. Geopolitical risk stemming from US-Iran relations will subside thereafter, unless the deadline is missed. The forward curve has largely priced in the oil price downside except for the risk that OPEC 2.0 becomes dysfunctional again. We expect upside price surprises in the near term. Biden, China, And Our Australia GeoRisk Indicator Ostensibly the US and Russia are avoiding a war over Ukraine and the US and Iran are negotiating a return to the 2015 nuclear deal. Only US-China relations utterly lack clarity, with military maneuvering in the Taiwan Strait and South China Sea and tensions simmering over the gamut of other disputes. Chart 8Biden Still Faces China Test The latest data on global military spending show not only that the US and China continue to build up their militaries but also that all of the regional allies – including Japan! – are bulking up defense spending (Chart 8). This is a substantial confirmation of the secular growth of geopolitical risk, specifically in reaction to China’s rise and US-China competition. The first round of US-China talks under Biden went awry but since then a basis has been laid for cooperation on climate change, with President Xi Jinping attending Biden’s virtual climate change summit (albeit with no bilateral summit between the two). If John Kerry is removed as climate czar over his Iranian controversy it will not have an impact other than to undermine American negotiators’ reliability. The deeper point is that climate is a narrow basis for US-China cooperation and it cannot remotely salvage the relationship if a broader strategic de-escalation is not agreed. Carbon emissions are more likely to become a cudgel with which the US and West pressure China to reform its economy faster. The Department of Defense is not slated to finish its comprehensive review of China policy until June but most US government departments are undertaking their own reviews and some of the conclusions will trickle out in May, whether through Washington’s actions or leaks to the press. Beijing could also take actions that upend the Biden administration’s assessment, such as with the Microsoft hack exposed earlier this year. The Biden administration will soon reveal more about how it intends to handle export controls and sanctions on China. For example, by May 19 the administration is slated to release a licensing process for companies concerned about US export controls on tech trade with China due to the Commerce Department’s interim rule on info tech supply chains. The Biden administration looks to be generally hawkish on China, a view that is now consensus. Any loosening of punitive measures would be a positive surprise for Chinese stocks and financial markets in general. There are other indications that China’s relationship with the West is not about to improve substantially – namely Australia. Australia has become a bellwether of China’s relations with the world. While the US’s defense commitments might be questionable with regard to some of China’s neighbors – namely Taiwan (Province of China) but also possibly South Korea and the Philippines – there can be little doubt that Australia, like Japan, is the US’s red line in the Pacific. Australian politics have been roiled over the past several years by the revelation of Chinese influence operations, state- or military-linked investments in Australia, and propaganda campaigns. A trade war erupted last year when Australia called for an investigation into the origins of COVID-19 and China’s handling of it. Most recently, Victoria state severed ties with China’s Belt and Road Initiative. Despite the rise in Sino-Australian tensions, the economic relationship remains intact. China’s stimulus overweighed the impact of its punitive trade measures against Australia, both by bidding up commodity prices and keeping the bulk of Australia’s exports flowing (Chart 9). As much as China might wish to decouple from Australia, it cannot do so as long as it needs to maintain minimum growth rates for the sake of social stability and these growth rates require resources that Australia provides. For example, global iron ore production excluding Australia only makes up 80% of China’s total iron ore imports, which necessitates an ongoing dependency here (Chart 10). Brazil cannot make up the difference. Chart 9China-Australia Trade Amid Tensions Chart 10China Cannot Replace Australia This resource dependency does not necessarily reduce geopolitical tension, however, because it increases China’s supply insecurity and vulnerability to the US alliance. The US under Biden explicitly aims to restore its alliances and confront autocratic regimes. This puts Australia at the front lines of an open-ended global conflict. Chart 11Introducing: Australia GeoRisk Indicator (Smoothed) Our newly devised Australia GeoRisk Indicator illustrates the point well, as it has continued surging since the trade war with China first broke out last year (Chart 11). This indicator is based on the Australian dollar and its deviation from underlying macro variables that should determine its course. These variables are described in Appendix 1. If the Aussie weakens relative to these variables, then an Australian-specific risk premium is apparent. We ascribe that premium to politics and geopolitics writ large. A close examination of the risk indicator’s performance shows that it tracks well with Australia’s recent political history (Chart 12). Previous peaks in risk occurred when President Trump rose to power and Australia, like Canada, found itself beset by negative pressures from both the US and China. In particular, Trump threatened tariffs and the Australian government banned China’s Huawei from its 5G network. Today the rise in geopolitical risk stems almost exclusively from China. There is potential for it to roll over if Biden negotiates a reduction in tensions but that is a risk to our view (an upside risk for Australian and global equities). Chart 12Australian GeoRisk Indicator (Unsmoothed) What does this indicator portend for tradable Australian assets? As one would expect, Australian geopolitical risk moves inversely to the country’s equities, currency, and relative equity performance (Chart 13). Australian equities have risen on the back of global growth and the commodity boom despite the rise in geopolitical risk. But any further spike in risk could jeopardize this uptrend. Chart 13Australia Geopolitical Risk And Tradable Assets An even clearer inverse relationship emerges with the AUD-JPY exchange rate, a standard measure of risk-on / risk-off sentiment in itself. If geopolitical risk rises any further it should cause a reversal in the currency pair. Finally, Australian equities have not outperformed other developed markets excluding the US, which may be due to this elevated risk premium. Bottom Line: China is the most important of Biden’s foreign policy hurdles and unlike Russia and Iran there is no sign of a reduction in tension yet. Our Australian GeoRisk Indicator supports the point that risk remains very elevated in the near term. Moreover China’s credit deceleration is also negative for Australia. Cyclically, however, assuming that China does not overtighten policy, we take a constructive view on the Aussie and Australian equities. Biden’s Border Troubles Distract From Bullish Mexico Story The biggest criticism of Biden’s first 100 days has been his reduction in a range of enforcement measures on the southern border which has encouraged an overflow of immigrants. Customs and Border Patrol have seen a spike in “encounters” from a low point of around 17,000 in 2020 to about 170,000 today. The trend started last year but accelerated sharply after the election and had surpassed the 2019 peak of 144,000. Vice President Kamala Harris has been put in charge of managing the border crisis, both with Mexico and Central American states. She does not have much experience with foreign policy so this is her opportunity to learn on the job. She will not be able to accomplish much given that the Biden administration is unwilling to use punitive measures or deterrence and will not have large fiscal resources available for subsidizing the nations to the south. With the US economy hyper-charged, especially relative to its southern neighbors, the pace of immigration is unlikely to slacken. From a macro point of view the relevance is that the US is not substantially curtailing immigration – quite the opposite – which means that labor force growth will not deviate from its trend. What about Mexico itself? It is not likely that Harris will be able to engage on a broader range of issues with Mexico beyond immigration. As usual Mexico is beset with corruption, lawlessness, and instability. To these can be added the difficulties of the pandemic and vaccine rollout. Tourism and remittances are yet to recover. Cooperation with US federal agents against the drug cartels is deteriorating. Cartels control an estimated 40% of Mexican territory.4 Nevertheless, despite Mexico’s perennial problems, we hold a positive view on Mexican currency and risk assets. The argument rests on five points: Strong macro fundamentals: With China’s fiscal-and-credit impulse slowing sharply, and US stimulus accelerating, Mexico stands to benefit. Mexico has also run orthodox monetary and fiscal policies. It has a demographic tailwind, low wages, and low public debt. The stars are beginning to align for the country’s economy, according to our Emerging Markets Strategy. US and Canadian stimulus: The US and Canada have the second- and third-largest fiscal stimulus of all the major countries over the 2019-21 period, at 9% and 8% of GDP respectively. Mexico, with the new USMCA free trade deal in hand, will benefit. US protectionism fizzled: Even Republican senators blocked President Trump’s attempted tariffs on Mexico. Trump’s aggression resulted in the USMCA, a revised NAFTA, which both US political parties endorsed. Mexico is inured to US protectionism, at least for the short and medium term. Diversification from China: Mexico suffered the greatest opportunity cost from China’s rise as an offshore manufacturer and entrance to the World Trade Organization. Now that the US and other western countries are diversifying away from China, amid geopolitical tensions, Mexico stands to benefit. The US cannot eliminate its trade deficit due to its internal savings/investment imbalance but it can redistribute that trade deficit to countries that cannot compete with it for global hegemony. AMLO faces constraints: A risk factor stemmed from politics where a sweeping left-wing victory in 2018 threatened to introduce anti-market policies. President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (known as AMLO) and his MORENA party gained a majority in both houses of the legislature. Their coalition has a two-thirds majority in the lower house (Chart 14). However, we pointed out that AMLO’s policies have not been radical and, more importantly, that the midterm election would likely constrain his power. Chart 14Mexico’s Midterm Election Looms These are all solid points but the last item faces a test in the upcoming midterm election. AMLO’s approval rating is strong, at 63%, putting him above all of his predecessors except one (Chart 15). AMLO’s approval has if anything benefited from the COVID-19 crisis despite Mexico’s inability to handle the medical challenge. He has promised to hold a referendum on his leadership in early 2022, more than halfway through his six-year term, and he is currently in good shape for that referendum. For now his popularity is helpful for his party, although he is not on the ballot in 2021 and MORENA’s support is well beneath his own. Chart 15AMLO’s Approval Fairly Strong MORENA’s support is holding at a 44% rate of popular support and its momentum has slightly improved since the pandemic began. However, MORENA’s lead over other parties is not nearly as strong as it was back in 2018 (Chart 16, top panel). The combined support of the two dominant center-right parties, the Institutional Revolutionary Party and the National Action Party, is almost equal to that of MORENA. And the two center-left parties, the Democratic Revolution Party and Citizen’s Movement, are part of the opposition coalition (Chart 16, bottom panel). The pandemic and economic crisis will motivate the opposition. Chart 16MORENA’s Support Holding Up Despite COVID Traditionally the president’s party loses seats in the midterm election (Table 2). Circumstances are different from the US, which also exhibits this trend, because Mexico has more political parties. A loss of seats from MORENA does not necessarily favor the establishment parties. Nevertheless opinion polling shows that about 45% of voters say they would rather see MORENA’s power “checked” compared to 41% who wish to see the party go on unopposed.5 Table 2Mexican President’s Party Tends To Lose Seats In Midterm Election While the ruling coalition may lose its super-majority, it is not a foregone conclusion that MORENA will lose its majority. Voters have decades of experience of the two dominant parties, both were discredited prior to 2018, and neither has recovered its reputation so quickly. The polling does not suggest that voters regret their decision to give the left wing a try. If anything recent polls slightly push against this idea. If MORENA surprises to the upside then AMLO’s capabilities would increase substantially in the second half of his term – he would have political capital and an improving economy. While the senate is not up for grabs in the midterm, MORENA has a narrow majority and controls a substantial 60% of seats when its allies are taken into account. In this scenario AMLO could pursue his attempts to increase the state’s role in key industries, like energy and power generation, at the expense of private investors. Even then the Supreme Court would continue to act as a check on the government. The 11-seat court is currently made up of five conservatives, two independents, and three liberal or left-leaning judges. A new member, Margarita Ríos Farjat, is close to the government, leaving the conservatives with a one-seat edge over the liberals and putting the two independents in the position of swing voters. Even if AMLO maintains control of the lower house, he will not be able to override the constitutional court, as he has threatened on occasion to do, without a super-majority in the senate. Bottom Line: AMLO will likely lose some ground in the lower house and thus suffer a check on his power. This will only confirm that Mexican political risk is not likely to derail positive underlying macro fundamentals. Continue to overweight Mexican equities relative to Brazilian.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Appendix 1 The market is the greatest machine ever created for gauging the wisdom of the crowd and as such our Geopolitical Risk Indicators were not designed to predict political risk but to answer the question of whether and to what extent markets have priced that risk. Our Australian GeoRisk Indicator (see Chart 11-12 above) uses the same simple methodology used in our other indicators, which avoid the pitfall of regression-based models. We begin with a financial asset that has a daily frequency in price, in this case the AUD, and compare its movement against several fundamental factors – in this case global energy and base metal prices, global metals and mining stock prices, and the Chilean peso. Australia is a commodity-exporting country. It is the largest producer of iron ore and is among the largest producers of coal and natural gas. It is also a major trading partner for China. Due to the nature of its economy the Australian dollar moves with global metal and energy prices and the global metals and mining equity prices. Chile, another major commodity producer also moves with global metal prices, hence our inclusion of the peso in this indicator. The AUD has a high correlation with all of these assets, and if the changes in the value of the AUD lag or lead the changes in the value of these assets, the implication is that geopolitical risk unique to Australia is not priced by the market. We included the peso as Chile is not as affected as Australia by any conflict in the South China Sea or Northeast Asia, which means that a deviation of the AUD from CLP represents a unique East Asia Pacific risk. Our indicator captures the involvement of Australia in a few regional and international conflicts. The indicator climbed as Australia got involved in the East Timor emergency and declined as it exited. It continued declining even as Australia joined the US in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, which showed that investors were unperturbed by faraway wars, while showing measurable concern in the smaller but closer Timorese conflict. Risks went up again as the nation erupted in labor protests as the Howard government made changes to the labor code. We see the market pricing higher risk again during the 2008 financial crisis, although it was modest and Australia escaped the crisis unscathed due to massive Chinese stimulus. Since then, investors have been climbing a wall of worry as they priced in Northeast Asia-related geopolitical risks. These started with the South Korean Cheonan sinking and continued with the Sino-Japanese clash over the Senkaku islands. They culminated with the Chinese ADIZ declaration in late 2013. In 2016, Australia was shocked again when Donald Trump was elected, and investor fears were evident when the details of Trump-Turnbull spat were made public. The risk indicator reached another peak during the trade wars between the US and the rest of the world. Investors were not worried about COVID-19 as Australia largely contained the pandemic, but the recent Australian-Chinese trade war pushed the risk indicator up, giving investors another wall of worry. If the Biden administration forces Australia into a democratic alliance in confrontation with autocratic China then this risk will persist for some time.   Jesse Anak Kuri Associate Editor Jesse.Kuri@bcaresearch.com We Read (And Liked) ... The Narrow Corridor: States, Societies, And The Fate Of Liberty This book is a sweeping review of the conditions of liberty essential to steering the world away from the Hobbesian war of all against all. In this unofficial sequel to the 2012 hit, Why Nations Fail: The Origins Of Power, Prosperity, And Poverty, Daron Acemoglu (Professor of Economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology) and James A. Robinson (Professor of Global Conflict Studies at the University of Chicago) further explore their thesis that the existence and effectiveness of democratic institutions account for a nation’s general success or failure. The Narrow Corridor6 examines how liberty works. It is not “natural,” not widespread, “is rare in history and is rare today.” Only in peculiar circumstances have states managed to produce free societies. States have to walk a thin line to achieve liberty, passing through what the authors describe as a “narrow corridor.” To encourage freedom, states must be strong enough to enforce laws and provide public services yet also restrained in their actions and checked by a well-organized civil society. For example, from classical history, the Athenian constitutional reforms of Cleisthenes “were helpful for strengthening the political power of Athenian citizens while also battling the cage of norms.” That cage of norms is the informal body of customs replaced by state institutions. Those norms in turn “constrained what the state could do and how far state building could go,” providing a set of checks. Though somewhat fluid in its definition, liberty, as Acemoglu and Robinson show, is expressed differently under various “leviathans,” or states. For starters, the “Shackled Leviathan” is a government dedicated to upholding the rule of law, protecting the weak against the strong, and creating the conditions for broad-based economic opportunity. Meanwhile, the “Paper Leviathan” is a bureaucratic machine favoring the privileged class, serving as both a political and economic brake on development and yielding “fear, violence, and dominance for most of its citizens.” Other examples include: The “American Leviathan” which fails to deal properly with inequality and racial oppression, two enemies of liberty; and a “Despotic Leviathan,” which commands the economy and coerces political conformity – an example from modern China. Although the book indulges in too much jargon, it is provocative and its argument is convincing. The authors say that in most places and at most times, the strong have dominated the weak and human freedom has been quashed by force or by customs and norms. Either states have been too weak to protect individuals from these threats or states have been too strong for people to protect themselves from despotism. Importantly, many states believe that once liberty is achieved, it will remain the status quo. But the authors argue that to uphold liberty, state institutions have to evolve continuously as the nature of conflicts and needs of society change. Thus society's ability to keep state and rulers accountable must intensify in tandem with the capabilities of the state. This struggle between state and society becomes self-reinforcing, inducing both to develop a richer array of capacities just to keep moving forward along the corridor. Yet this struggle also underscores the fragile nature of liberty. It is built on a precarious balance between state and society; between economic, political, and social elites and common citizens; between institutions and norms. If one side of the balance gets too strong, as has often happened in history, liberty begins to wane. The authors central thesis is that the long-run success of states depends on the balance of power between state and society. If states are too strong, you end up with a “Despotic Leviathan” that is good for short-term economic growth but brittle and unstable over the long term. If society is too strong, the “Leviathan” is absent, and societies suffer under a pre-modern war of all against all. The ideal place to be is in the narrow corridor, under a shackled Leviathan that will grow state capacity and individual liberty simultaneously, thus leading to long-term economic growth. In the asset allocation process, investors should always consider the liberty of a state and its people, if a state’s institutions grossly favor the elite or the outright population, whether these institutions are weak or overbearing on society, and whether they signify a balance between interests across the population. Whether you are investing over a short or long horizon, returns can be significantly impacted in the absence of liberty or the excesses of liberty. There should be a preference among investors toward countries that exhibit a balance of power between state and society, setting up a better long-term investment environment, than if a balance of power did not exist.   Guy Russell Research Analyst GuyR@bcaresearch.com GeoRisk Indicator China Russia UK Germany France Italy Canada Spain Taiwan – Province Of China Korea Turkey Brazil Australia Footnotes 1 "President Biden’s first 100 days as president fact-checked," BBC News, April 29, 2021, bbc.com. 2 "Oil tanker off Syrian coast hit in suspected drone attack," Al Jazeera, April 24, 2021, Aljazeera.com. 3 See Yaakov Lappin, "Natanz blast ‘likely took 5,000 centrifuges offline," Jewish News Syndicate, jns.org. 4 John Daniel Davidson, "Former US Ambassador To Mexico: Cartels Control Up To 40 Percent Of Mexican Territory," The Federalist, April 28, 2021, thefederalist.com. 5 See Alejandro Moreno, "Aprobación de AMLO se encuentra en 61% previo a campañas electorales," El Financiero, April 5, 2021, elfinanciero.com. 6 Penguin Press, New York, NY, 2019, 558 pages. Section III: Geopolitical Calendar

特別レポート

BCAリサーチの グローバル・アセット・アロケーション（GAA）フォーラム は5月18日にオンラインで開催されます。私たちはCIOや資産配分担当者にとって重要な課題について議論する優れた講演者陣を揃えました。ポートフォリオ構築、ファクター投資、オルタナティブ投資、ESGに関する最新の考え方が含まれます。基調講演はKPAアドバイザリーの創設者であり、『The Future of Pension Management: Integrating Design, Governance and Investing』（2016）を含む投資運用に関する多数の著書の著者であるKeith Ambachtsheerが務めます。彼のプレゼンテーションに続き、CDPQのMaxime Aucoin、OPTrustのJames Davis、ドレクセル大学エンダウメントのCatherine UlozasらトップCIOによるパネルディスカッションが行われます。 本イベントはGAA購読者に対しては無料で、購読者はフルアジェンダを確認し、こちらから登録できます。その他の方はこちらからお申し込みください。5月18日に、刺激的で有益な一日の議論にご参加いただけることを願っています。 ハイライト ここ数年の投資家による利回り追求は、レバレッジド・ローンを魅力的な投資とみなす要因となりました。 低ボラティリティと魅力的なリスク調整後リターンを特徴とするレバレッジド・ローンは、ポートフォリオに付加価値をもたらす可能性があります。 レバレッジド・ローンは、金利上昇局面と魅力的なバリュエーションがそろった出発点では（例えばハイイールド債などの）固定金利債をアウトパフォームする傾向があります。現在は後者の基準のみが当てはまります。 しかしリスクは存在します。コベナント・ライト債の増加や企業部門のレバレッジ上昇が特に懸念されます。 今後6〜12カ月では、金利が大幅に上昇するとは予想しておらず、この資産クラスは短期的にはやや魅力に欠けるでしょう。 それでも長期的な見通しは魅力的です。今後数年でインフレが上昇すれば金利も上昇する可能性が高くなります。 特集 超金融緩和的な金融政策、低金利、そしてフィクスト・インカム系リスク資産のバリュエーションが魅力的でない現況において、投資家は従来のフィクスト・インカム手段を超えて検討し、リスク許容度を引き上げるほか選択肢がありません。 このスペシャルレポートでは、レバレッジド・ローン市場の仕組みを整理します。過去のリスク・リターン特性を分析し、レバレッジド・ローンと他の資産を比較します。また、金融市場のストレス期や金利・インフレ上昇局面でのパフォーマンスも評価します。最後に、レバレッジド・ローン保有に伴うリスクについて論じます。 レバレッジド・ローンとは何か？ レバレッジド・ローンは、サブインベストメントグレードの企業向けに行われるシンジケートローンの一種です。一般に、これらの企業は多額の負債を抱え、格付けは低い傾向があります。シンジケートローンは、1行または複数の商業銀行や投資銀行によって組成、アレンジ、管理されます。1 これらのローンの大部分はシニア担保付きのローンであり、変動金利がベースで、主にLIBORにリスクプレミアム（一般に150〜200bp以上）を上乗せして設定されます。これはリスクの大きさを反映するとともに、非銀行系の機関投資家を呼び込む目的があります。これらのローンの金利は短期金利の変化を反映して定期的に調整されるため、金利上昇を懸念する投資家にとっては利点となります。 レバレッジド・ローンを分類する定義にはばらつきがあります。ある者は借り手のリスクや格付けに基づいてグループ化します。別の者はデット・トゥ・キャピタルやデット・トゥ・EBITDAといったレバレッジ指標を重視します。さらに、発行時のスプレッドや資金調達の目的（M&Aの資金調達、レバレッジド・バイアウト（LBO）、既存債務のリファイナンス、一般的な資金調達など）で分類する場合もあります。 過去5年間で、米国で発行されたレバレッジド・ローンの約50%がリファイナンス目的でした（図表1、パネル1）。3つのカテゴリのうち、LBO資金は最もリスクが高いと見なされ、そのことはより高いスプレッドに反映されています（図表1、パネル2）。レバレッジド・ローン市場は、1980年代中盤にM&A活動が急増したことで特に人気を博しました（図表2）。 Chart 1 Uses Of Leveraged Loans レバレッジド・ローンへの投資は今が適切な時期ですか？ レバレッジド・ローンへの投資は今が適切な時期ですか？ Chart 2 The Boom In Corporate Activity In The 1980s Fueled Leveraged Loan Growth 1980年代の企業活動のブームがレバレッジド・ローンの成長を押し上げた 1980年代の企業活動のブームがレバレッジド・ローンの成長を押し上げた 一般的に二つの代表的なファイナンス形態があります：2 タームローン： 一定の返済スケジュールに基づいて借入金を返済するという契約です。これらのローンは主に非銀行主体によって提供されます。 リボルビング・ファシリティ：繰り返し借入れと返済が可能なローンの一種です。これらのローンは主に銀行が組成し保有します。 レバレッジド・ローン市場の規模に関する推計は、用いられる基準や定義によって異なります。過去十年の初めからの急速な成長を経て、レバレッジド・ローン市場の規模は2020年第2四半期時点で1.2兆ドル超と推定されています。3 とはいえ、これは企業債務全体のごく一部に過ぎません（企業債市場の規模の約15%に相当します）が、主要市場参加者間の相互関係や市場における銀行の役割が、米国財務長官Janet Yellenやデット投資家のHoward Marks、国際機関である国際決済銀行（BIS）などの注目を集めています。彼らの懸念は、特に「コベナント・ライト（cov-lite）」ローンの発行増加、ローン契約におけるEBITDAの定義の不一致、「EBITDAアドバック」の使用拡大、4およびレバレッジド・ローンの格付けの精度に集中しています。5 これらの懸念の一部は「リスク」セクションで論じます。 Table 1 Risky Loans Are Mainly Held By Non-Bank Entities… レバレッジド・ローンは今が適切な時期ですか？ レバレッジド・ローンは今が適切な時期ですか？ 過去数十年で、レバレッジド・ローン市場への資本供給における銀行の役割は縮小し、ミューチュアルファンド、ヘッジファンド、保険会社、アセットマネージャーなどの非銀行貸し手に置き換えられてきました。6 Shared National Credit（SNC）プログラムのデータは、米国において非銀行主体が非投資適格のタームローンの約83%を保有していることを示しています（表1）。7 また、イングランド銀行（BoE）の推計によれば、世界のレバレッジド・ローン残高（同行の推計で約3.4兆ドル）の約4分の1がCLOを通じて保有され、残りの約半分が非銀行機関によって保有されています。8 さらに、これらの非銀行機関がCLOのかなりの部分、特にリスクの高いトランシェを保有しています。とはいえ、銀行がレバレッジド・ローンに全くエクスポージャーがないわけではありません。銀行は主にCLOの最上位であるAAAトランシェやインベストメントグレードのローンに投資しています。10 よりリスクの高い格付けのローンはCLO、ミューチュアルファンド、ヘッジファンドなどの貸し手によって保有されています（図表3）。11 Chart 3 …Particularly Those Rated Below BB レバレッジド・ローンは今が買い時ですか？ レバレッジド・ローンは今が買い時ですか？ 過去のリスクとリターン Chart 4 Leveraged Loans' Relative Performance Moves With Interest Rates レバレッジド・ローンの相対パフォーマンスは金利と連動して変動する レバレッジド・ローンの相対パフォーマンスは金利と連動して変動する 1997年以降、レバレッジド・ローンは年率換算で4.9%のリターンを記録しており、これは米国債を25ベーシスポイント上回り、米国のインベストメントグレード債およびハイイールド債よりそれぞれ約100bpおよび200bp下回っています。同期間で米国株式には年率換算で約400bpのアンダーパフォームとなっています。過去20年間の金利低下が、レバレッジド・ローンが固定金利の同業資産に対してアンダーパフォームした主な理由と考えられます。レバレッジド・ローンの投資適格債に対する相対的パフォーマンスは、国債利回りの推移と密接に連動してきました（図表4）。ハイイールド債に対する相対パフォーマンスでも同様の傾向が見られますが、関係はやや明確ではありません。 しかし、リスク調整後のリターンでは、ボラティリティの低さによりレバレッジド・ローンは株式やハイイールド社債をアウトパフォームしました（表2）。それでも、尖度が高いことを考慮すると、ボラティリティは過小評価されている可能性が高いと考えます。大きな負の歪度と過剰な尖度は、大幅なマイナスリターンの確率が高いことを示唆している可能性があります（図表5）。   Table 2 Historical Risk-Return Characteristics レバレッジド・ローンは今が適切な時期か？ レバレッジド・ローンは今が適切な時期か？ Chart 5 Leveraged Loans' Returns Exhibit High Kurtosis And Negative Skewness レバレッジド・ローンのリターンは高い尖度と負の歪度を示す レバレッジド・ローンのリターンは高い尖度と負の歪度を示す なぜ投資家はレバレッジド・ローンを検討すべきか？ Chart 6 Rising Rates Support Higher Return From Leveraged Loans... 金利上昇はレバレッジド・ローンのより高いリターンを後押しする... 金利上昇はレバレッジド・ローンのより高いリターンを後押しする... 当社の米国債ストラテジストは、特定の条件が整うとレバレッジド・ローンが固定金利のハイイールド債をアウトパフォームする確率が高まることを示しています。特に、バリュエーションがローンに有利に傾いており、かつ国債利回りが上昇している場合です。13 現在は後者の基準のみが当てはまります。 年初来では、レバレッジド・ローンは2.2%のリターンを記録しており、これは米国債の-3.2%、インベストメントグレード債の-3.4%、ハイイールド債の1.6%、新興国国債の-3.4%より高い成績です（図表6）。同期間中、国債利回りは65ベーシスポイント上昇しました。 国債利回りが上昇する局面では、資金フローがこの資産クラスに向かう傾向があることが分かります（図表7）。さらに興味深いのは、フォワードカーブで織り込まれている以上に翌12カ月で国債利回りが上昇する場合、レバレッジド・ローンはジャンク債をアウトパフォームするという点です（図表8）。 Chart 7 ...As Well As Increased Fund Flows …およびファンドフローの増加 …およびファンドフローの増加 Chart 8 Leveraged Loans Will Benefit If Interest Rates Rise By More Than What Is Discounted In The Forward Curve レバレッジド・ローンは、金利がフォワード・カーブに織り込まれている以上に上昇すれば恩恵を受ける レバレッジド・ローンは、金利がフォワード・カーブに織り込まれている以上に上昇すれば恩恵を受ける     しかし現時点では、5年物の1年フォワードが現在の5年物国債利回りより約40ベーシスポイント高くなっており、これは今後6〜12カ月で金利が大幅に上昇する可能性は低いという当社見解と一致します。インフレは今後数カ月の一時的なスパイクを除き抑制されたままであり、少なくとも雇用が賃金に上方圧力をかける水準に戻るまでは目立った上昇は見込みにくいと考えます。これは2023年以前には起こりにくいでしょう。 金融政策の今後の軌跡や長期利回りの変化も重要な検討要素です。FRBはドットプロットを通じて2024年以前のFF金利引き上げを示唆していませんが、市場はインフレ圧力を懸念し、より早期の利上げを織り込みつつあります。当社は、労働市場が今後12カ月で「最大限の雇用」に戻らない限り、市場が期待するより早くFRBが利上げを行う可能性は低いと考えています。 レバレッジド・ローンの利回りは、データのほとんどの期間でハイイールド債の利回りより低く推移しています（2020年初のみ例外）。これは、レバレッジド・ローンが企業の資本構成において優先的地位（シニア）にあるため、利回りが低くなるのは理にかなっています。加えて、両市場のセクター構成も影響します：レバレッジド・ローンはテクノロジーや通信セクターへのエクスポージャーが高く、エネルギーセクターへの配分は過去7年の平均で1%程度と限定的です。一方、ハイイールドの固定金利債ではエネルギーの比重は平均13%でした（図表9）。これは、2014/2015年の原油暴落時に利回り差が-3%以下に縮小した際に特に顕著でした（図表10）。 Chart 9 Leveraged Loans’ Sector Weightings レバレッジド・ローンは今が適切な時期ですか？ レバレッジド・ローンは今が適切な時期ですか？ Chart 10 Loan Spreads Are Not Looking Attractive ローン・スプレッドは魅力的に見えない ローン・スプレッドは魅力的に見えない Chart 11 Recent Investor Demand Pushed Up Leveraged Loan Prices 最近の投資家需要がレバレッジド・ローンの価格を押し上げた 最近の投資家需要がレバレッジド・ローンの価格を押し上げた 利回り差はその後上昇傾向にあり、現状の価格水準では上値余地は限られるかもしれません。投資家需要の急増は新規発行のレバレッジド・ローンの利回りを押し下げ、レバレッジド・ローンの平均ビッド価格はパンデミック前の高値を上回りました（図表11）。 次節では、景気後退やその他の金融市場ストレス期におけるレバレッジド・ローンの挙動を分析します。   金融市場のストレス 危機時のパフォーマンス インデックスの歴史が短いため、取り上げられるのは過去3回の景気後退（ドットコム・バブル崩壊、世界金融危機（GFC）、COVID-19リセッション）に限られます。さらに2013年のテーパリング・タンタラムと2014/2015年の原油価格ショックも分析対象としました。 いずれの場合も、レバレッジド・ローンは下落し、他のフィクスト・インカム資産クラスとともに回復しました。テーパリング・タンタラムはレバレッジド・ローンにとって最も好条件で、10年物国債利回りは4か月で100ベーシスポイント上昇しました（図表12）。 表3は、金利上昇局面が金利低下局面よりもレバレッジド・ローンにとって良好な環境であることを示しています。さらに、FRBの引き締め・緩和サイクルの期間も検討しましたが、緩和サイクルのタイミングは景気後退と重複することが多く、レバレッジド・ローンのパフォーマンスを押し下げています。 当社はまた、インフレの影響を当社のインフレヘッジに関するスペシャルレポートのフレームワークを用いて評価しました。14 そのレポートはインフレを4つの四分位（レジーム）に分解しています：2.3%未満、2.3〜3.3%の間、3.3〜4.9%の間、4.9%以上。分析にはインフレが低下している期間も加えました。ただし、4.9%を超える期間は1回しか観測されなかった点に注意します。 Chart 12 Leveraged Loans Fared Well In Periods Of Credit- And Sector-Specific Distress レバレッジド・ローンは、クレジットおよびセクター特有のストレス期間において良好に推移した。 レバレッジド・ローンは、クレジットおよびセクター特有のストレス期間において良好に推移した。   Table 3 Leveraged Loans’ Performance During Different Rate Cycles… レバレッジド・ローンは今が適切なタイミングですか？ レバレッジド・ローンは今が適切なタイミングですか？ Table 4 …And Inflation Regimes レバレッジド・ローンは今が適切な時期ですか？ レバレッジド・ローンは今が適切な時期ですか？ インフレの第1・第2四分位における期間では、レバレッジド・ローンは絶対リターンで最も高い年率平均リターン（それぞれ8.1%と10%）を記録しました。これらのレジームでは政策金利が低く、堅調な成長を受けて債券利回りが上昇し始めるため、理にかなった結果です。ただし、これらの期間ではレバレッジド・ローンは固定金利債に対してアンダーパフォームしました。 インフレ率が3.3%を上回るのは、経済が過熱し成長が鈍化し始める環境を示します。このレジームでは、レバレッジド・ローンはハイイールド債に対して年率換算で1.5%上回りました。インフレが低下する期間でも、レバレッジド・ローンは適度にプラスの年率リターンを示しました（表4）。   リスク Chart 13 Corporate Health Has Worsened... 企業の健全性は悪化しています... 企業の健全性は悪化しています... レバレッジド・ローン市場の成長は複数のトレンドを反映していますが、最も重要なのは企業レバレッジの全般的な上昇です。これは金利低下と安価な資金の利用可能性の増大によって促進されました。非金融企業の負債対資産比率は企業レバレッジを示す指標であり、20年ぶりの高水準にあります（図表13、パネル1）。これは企業セクター全体の健全性、特に企業が負債をサービスする能力に関する懸念を高めます。利息負担能力の中央値はGFC時と同水準付近にあり、この指標は第25パーセンタイルの企業ではマイナスにさえなっており、そのバケットに属する企業は利息支払いを維持する資金が不足していることを意味します（図表13、パネル2）。 レバレッジド・ローン市場のトレンドも同様の構図を示しています。最も高いレバレッジ、すなわちデット・トゥ・EBITDA比率が6倍以上の企業による新規発行ローンのシェアは新高値に達し、2020年第3四半期には新規ローンの37%に達しました（図表14）。 Chart 14 …Even For Leveraged Lending レバレッジド・ローンに投資するのに、今は適切な時期ですか？ レバレッジド・ローンに投資するのに、今は適切な時期ですか？ Chart 15 Cov-Lite Issuances Make Up Almost 80% Of New Issuances レバレッジド・ローンへの投資は今が適切な時期ですか？ レバレッジド・ローンへの投資は今が適切な時期ですか？ 資本の供給者にも一因があります。信用基準が劣化しているにもかかわらず、資金を求める企業は大半が資金を調達できています。コベナント・ライト構造（従来のローンで見られる保護的なコベナントを欠くローン）の割合は増加を続け、現在では新規発行のほぼ80%を占めています（図表15）。 コベナント・ライト債は通常、レバレッジや利息カバレッジ比率などの特定の比率を維持することを求めるメンテナンス・コベナントを持ちません。15 代わりに、発行体が追加の負債を負うなど特定の行動を取りたい場合にのみ満たす必要があるインカレンス・コベナントを特徴とします。16 この信用条件の緩和は、特にCLO買い手やその他の非銀行系機関投資家による需要増加という低利回り環境下の需要拡大の機能であることが大半です。 一部の指摘では、レバレッジド・ローン市場の脆弱性が金融システム全体に混乱を引き起こす可能性があると警鐘を鳴らしています。特にGFCの記憶や、銀行がローンを組成するが簿外に配分する「オリジネート・トゥ・ディストリビュート」モデルに関する懸念は、クレジットのリスクある拡大につながり新たな金融危機を誘発するという見方に結び付けられています。 Chart 16 Leveraged Loans Have Higher Average Credit Ratings… レバレッジド・ローンにとって今は適切なタイミングですか？ レバレッジド・ローンにとって今は適切なタイミングですか？ 我々はこの懐疑論に全面的には同意しません。銀行のレバレッジド・ローンへのエクスポージャーは主にCLOの最上位トランシェを通じたものです。銀行の流動性要件はGFC以降増加しており、したがってローン市場で問題が発生した場合でも伝播は最小限にとどまるはずです。米国政府会計検査院（GAO）による最近の報告も、レバレッジド・レンディングが金融安定性に対して重大な脅威をもたらしているという証拠は見つからなかったとしています。17 さらに、ほとんどのレバレッジド・ローンは第1担保権（ファースト・リーン）であり、資本構成上のシニア担保位置にあります。平均格付けはハイイールド債より高く（図表16）、デフォルト率も低めです（図表17）。また、5年平均の回収率は63%とシニア無担保債の40%を上回っています（図表18）。 Chart 17 ...Lower Default Rates... ...より低いデフォルト率、... ...より低いデフォルト率、... Chart 18 ...And Higher Recovery Rates Than High-Yield Bonds ...そしてハイイールドボンドよりも高い回収率 ...そしてハイイールドボンドよりも高い回収率   結論 超低金利とリスク資産のバリュエーションが行き過ぎた状況下で、レバレッジド・ローンは投資家にとって興味深いアセットクラスとして浮上しています。 ボラティリティが低いため、レバレッジド・ローンは歴史的に固定金利のハイイールド債よりも高いリスク調整後リターンを生み出してきました。ただし、尖度が高いことからボラティリティは過小評価されている可能性があります。 歴史的には、国債利回りの上昇と魅力的なバリュエーションの出発点がレバレッジド・ローンのアウトパフォーマンスのシグナルとなっていました。現在はその二つの基準のうち一つのみが整っています。 今後6〜12カ月は金利が大幅に上昇するとは考えておらず、この資産クラスは短期的にはやや魅力に欠けます。 しかし中長期的な見通しは魅力的です。今後2〜3年でインフレとそれに伴う金利上昇が進めば、レバレッジド・ローンへの適度な配分は投資家にとって有用なヘッジとなる可能性があります。   Amr Hanafy シニアアナリスト amrh@bcaresearch.com   脚注 1 “LCD Loan Primer – Syndicated Loans: The Market and the Mechanics,” S&P Global Market Intelligence を参照してください。 2 “Leverage Lending FAQ & Fact Sheet,” SIFMA, 2019年2月を参照してください。 3 “Federal Reserve Financial Stability Report,” 2020年11月を参照してください。 4 “EBITDA add backs”は費用やコスト削減分を収益に加算するもので、借り手の返済能力を過大に見積もる可能性があります。 5 Todd Vermilyea, “Perspectives On Leveraged Lending,” The Loan Syndications and Trading Association 23rd Annual Conference, New York, 2018年10月24日を参照してください。 6 “Global Financial Stability Report: Vulnerabilities in a Maturing Credit Cycle, Chapter 1,” IMF, 2019年4月を参照してください。 7 SNCプログラムは、複数の金融機関が共有する最大かつ最も複雑な信用をレビュー・評価するための政府間プログラムです。SNCプログラムは、連邦準備制度理事会（FRB）、連邦預金保険公社（FDIC）、および通貨監督庁（OCC）という3つの連邦銀行規制機関間の政府間協定により運営されています。 8 “Financial Stability Report,” Bank of England, 2020年8月を参照してください。 9 CLOは、特別目的事業体が発行するアセットバック証券で、レバレッジド・ローンのポートフォリオを取得します。 10 “Turns Out Leveraged Loans Aren’t a Systemic Risk After All,” Bank Policy Institute, 2020年2月8日を参照してください。 11 Seung Jung Lee, Dan Li, Ralf R. Meisenzahl, and Martin J. Sicilian, “The U.S. Syndicated Term Loan Market: Who holds what and when?”, 2019年11月25日を参照してください。 12 本レポートでは、米ドル建ての機関投資家向けレバレッジド・ローンポートフォリオの時価加重パフォーマンスを追跡するS&P/LSTA Leveraged Loan Indexを使用しています。 13 US Bond Strategy Report, “The Price Of Safety,” 2015年1月27日を参照してください。 14 Global Asset Allocation Special Report, “Investors’ Guide To Inflation Hedging: How To Invest When Inflation Rises,” 2019年5月22日を参照してください。 15 Eric Goodison and Margot Wagner, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison Llp, “Covenant-Lite Loans: Overview,” 2019年8月を参照してください。 16 Scott Essexx, Alexander Ott, Partners Group, “The Current State Of The Leveraged Loan Market: Are There Echoes Of The 2008 Subprime Market?”, 2019年3月を参照してください。 17 “Financial Stability: Agencies Have Not Found Leveraged Lending To Significantly Threaten Stability But Remain Cautious Amid Pandemic,” United States Government Accountability Office, 2020年12月を参照してください。

ハイライト 継続中かつ予想される財政・金融刺激策とCOVID-19対策の進展を受けた世界成長の強まりは、主要データ提供者による今年の石油需要前提を押し上げています。 当社は本月の需給バランスで2021年の世界需要見積りを64万b/d引き上げて98.25mm b/dとし、OPEC 2.0が脆弱な回復を乱さないようにブレント価格を$60/bbl付近に保つための必要な調整を行うと想定しています。 当社の2022年および2023年のブレント予測はそれぞれ$65/bbl、$75/bblで維持します。 コモディティ市場は、米国、ロシア、中国およびそれらの関係国・同盟国を巻き込む武力衝突の高まる確率を無視しています。ロシアはウクライナ国境に軍を集結させ、米国に干渉するなと警告しました。中国はフィリピン沖に戦艦を集結させ、台湾の防空識別圏への侵入を続けており、米軍を緊張させています。意図的あるいは偶発的な交戦が発生すれば石油価格は急騰します。 価格は上下双方にリスクがあふれています。武力衝突のリスクに加え、ワクチン配布の加速は回復を前倒しし、当社予測を超える価格上昇をもたらす可能性があります。一方で、ブラジル、インド、欧州での死亡者数および入院者数の上昇が示すように、COVID-19によるロックダウン再発の下振れリスクは依然として存在します（今週のチャート）。 特集 石油需要推計—当社の推計も含め—は、主要経済におけるCOVID-19の抑制に向けた測定可能な進展と、特に米国発の潤沢な財政・金融刺激策を受けて回復しています。1 IMFのGDP上方修正を受け、本月の需給バランスで当社は2021年の世界需要見積りを64万b/d引き上げて98.25mm b/dとしました。当社のモデリングでは、脆弱な回復を損なわないようにブレント価格を$60/bbl付近に保つために、サウジアラビア王国（KSA）とロシアが主導する生産者連合であるOPEC 2.0が必要な調整を行うと想定しています。 通常とは異なり、石油需要回復の初期段階は先進国市場（DM）がけん引すると見ています。先進国の代理としてOECDの石油消費を用いています（チャート2）。その後、来年以降は新興市場（EM）経済が再び成長を主導し、2023年にかけて続きます。 今週のチャート COVID-19の死者数・入院者数が世界的回復を脅かす 原油価格の上振れリスクが高まっている 原油価格の上振れリスクが高まっている チャート2 先進国（DM）の需要が今年急増 DMの需要が今年急増 DMの需要が今年急増 OPEC 2.0の余剰生産能力の吸収 当社はサウジアラビア王国（KSA）とロシアが主導する生産者連合であるOPEC 2.0を市場で支配的な生産者としてモデリングし続けています。今年予想する成長はOPEC 2.0の余剰生産能力のかなりの部分を吸収する見込みであり、その大半—約8mm b/dのうち約6mm b/d—がKSAにあります（チャート3）。 主要生産国の余剰生産能力は、米国のシェール生産者がリグと人員を動員して新規生産を集積ラインや主要パイプラインに導入するよりも速く、回復する需要に対応することを可能にします。 当社は米国のシェール生産者を市場価格を受け入れるコホート（価格受容群）としてモデル化しており、市場が許す限り生産すると想定しています。2020年に9.22mm b/dまで落ち込んだ米国生産は、今年9.56mm b/d、2022年に10.65mm b/d、2023年に11.18mm b/dまで回復すると見ています（チャート4）。米国内コンチネンタル産（Lower 48）の生産成長はシェールが主導し、各年とも米国総生産の約80%を占める見込みです。 チャート3 コアOPEC 2.0の余剰生産能力がまず需要増に反応する OPEC 2.0のコア予備生産能力は需要の増加に最初に反応する OPEC 2.0のコア予備生産能力は需要の増加に最初に反応する チャート4 シェールは価格受容群における限界供給源 シェールは価格受容群における限界バレルである シェールは価格受容群における限界バレルである 供給面でのOPEC 2.0の支配的地位は、余剰生産能力が枯渇するまでは非連合生産者に経済的地代を奪われることを許さず、非連合生産者にとっては抑制要因となります。その後、価格受容群は資本を呼び込む能力が限られているため、内部留保から多くの探査・生産（E+P）活動を賄う可能性が高いと考えられます。株主は配当の維持・成長、あるいは株式買戻しによる資本還元を要求し続けるでしょう。これが収益性のある企業に生産成長を限定する要因になります。 当社はOPEC 2.0連合の生産規律が供給を需要のわずか下にとどめ、在庫が減少し続けるようにするだろうと見ています。これはCOVID-19パンデミックで需要が破壊されたにもかかわらず実際に起きたことです（チャート5）。これらのモデリング前提から、当社は供給と需要が2023年にかけて均衡へ向かって動き続けると予想しています（表1）。 チャート5 2021年の需給バランス 2021年の需給バランス 2021年の需給バランス 表1 BCA 世界原油 需給バランス（MMb/d、ベースケース） 原油価格の上方リスクが高まっている 原油価格の上方リスクが高まっている 当社はこの需給均衡化が恒常的な物理的不足を誘発し、在庫は2023年にかけて減少し続けると予想しています（チャート6）。在庫が取り崩されるにつれて、OPEC 2.0の支配的な生産者地位はブレントおよびWTIのフォワードカーブをバックワーデーションに保つことを可能にします（チャート7）。2 当社は2022年および2023年のブレント予測をそれぞれ$65/bbl、$75/bblで維持しています（チャート8）。 チャート6 OPEC 2.0の政策は供給を需要の下に置き続ける... OPEC 2.0政策は供給を需要より下回る水準に保ち続けている… OPEC 2.0政策は供給を需要より下回る水準に保ち続けている… チャート7 OECD在庫は2023年までに減少 OECD Inventories Fall to 2023 OECD Inventories Fall to 2023 チャート8 世界経済回復に伴いブレント予測は上昇 世界経済の回復に伴い、ブレントは上昇が予想される 世界経済の回復に伴い、ブレントは上昇が予想される 価格の両方向リスクが充満 当社見解には上振れおよび下振れのリスクが数多くあります。 上振れの例として、英国と米国のワクチン配布の立ち上げ方が示唆に富みます。 両国とも当初はつまづきました。特に米国は1月時点でも戦略が整っていないように見えました。米国が調達と配布を本格化させると接種率は急上昇し、現在では米国内で「通常の」独立記念日（Fourth of July）を迎える見通しにあるようです。英国は今週再開を開始しました。両国は2021年第3四半期に集団免疫を達成すると予想されています。3 調達と配布を誤ったEUは、英国と米国の教訓から利益を得て2021年第4四半期に集団免疫を達成するとマッキンゼーの調査は示しています。このスケジュールの前倒しは、より強い成長と当社予測を上回る石油価格につながるでしょう。 次の大きな課題は、パンデミックが加速し変異株の発生・拡散に理想的な環境を提供している新興経済地域（特にそのような地域）にワクチンを供給することです。ブラジル、インド、欧州での死亡者数・入院者数の上昇が示すように、大規模なCOVID-19によるロックダウンの再発リスクは依然として残ります。 戦の狼煙（Cry Havoc） 当社が見るもう一つの大きな上振れリスクは、米国、ロシア、中国およびそれらの関係国・同盟国を巻き込む武力衝突です。 現時点でコモディティ市場はこれらのリスクを無視しています。戦争のレベルには達していないにせよ、機動的な交戦―航空機が撃墜されたり南シナ海で艦船が交戦するような事態―の確率は日々高まっています。 これは驚くべきことではなく、当社の同僚であるBCAリサーチの地政学ストラテジー（Geopolitical Strategy）が最近指摘した通りです。4 実際、マット・ガートケン（Matt Gertken）が率いる当該サービスは、バイデン政権が就任直後からロシアと中国によってこの種の試練にさらされるだろうと警告していました。 ロシアはウクライナ国境に軍を集結させ、米国に干渉するなと警告しています。中国はフィリピン沿岸に軍艦を集結させ、台湾の防空識別圏への侵入を続けており、米軍を緊張させています。米露、米中間の政治対話はますます激しくなっており、近い将来に和らぐ兆しは見えません。意図的であれ偶発的であれ交戦が発生すれば戦争の遁走を許し、石油価格は一時的に急騰する可能性があります。 最後に、当社が想定するようにイランが核合意（すなわち共同包括的行動計画：JCPOA）を西側諸国と再締結できれば、イランは「正式な」石油輸出国としての復帰を余儀なくされ、OPEC 2.0はこれを受け入れざるを得なくなります。JCPOAは2018年に当時のトランプ大統領によって破棄されました。 これは困難を伴う可能性があります。当社は2014–16年の石油価格崩壊が、サウジが市場シェア戦争を仕掛けて価格を暴落させ、2010年末から2014年半ばにかけて続いた1バレル当たり$100超の価格をイランに許さないための行動だったと考えています。OPEC 2.0、特にKSAは米国–イラン交渉に公には関与していません。しかし2014年に開始された壊滅的な市場シェア戦争の後、KSAおよびOPEC 2.0はJCPOA後にイランの市場復帰を受け入れたことを想起する価値があります。   ロバート・P・ライアン チーフ コモディティ＆エネルギー・ストラテジスト rryan@bcaresearch.com アシュウィン・シャイアム 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 ブレントとWTI価格は、EIAの週間石油在庫報告が2021年4月9週終わりで米国の原油・製品在庫が910万バレル減少したことを示した後に急騰しました。これは商業用原油と蒸留油在庫の大幅な取り崩し（それぞれ590万バレル、210万バレル）が主導しました。これらの取り崩しは過去一週間に主要データ機関（EIA、IEA、OPEC）による世界需要の概ね強気な上方修正を背景としています。これらの評価は、精製製品需要、すなわち「product supplied」が4月9週終わりで日量110万b/d跳ね上がったというEIAデータに裏付けられています。ジョンソン＆ジョンソンの接種問題という挫折があったにもかかわらずワクチン配布が勢いを増しており、在庫の取り崩しと需要改善が上昇の触媒となったようです。米ドルの弱含みや米国の実質金利低下も追い風になりました。 ベースメタル： 強気 今週初めニッケル価格は下落しました。中国の国営新華社通信が中国の李克強首相が上昇するコモディティ価格の中で原材料市場の規制強化の必要性を強調したと報じ、企業の業績に圧力がかかっているとのことでした（チャート9）。この発言は中国のトップ経済顧問である劉鶴が先週コモディティ価格の追跡を当局に求めた後に出たものです。ニッケル価格はこの報を受けて今週初めにトン当たり約$500下落し、ロンドン金属取引所の取引で火曜日終値時点で$16,114.5/MTで取引されていました。他のベースメタルはこのニュースの影響を受けませんでした。 貴金属： 強気 今週初めに発表された3月の米国インフレデータを受けて米ドルと10年物米国債利回りは低下しました。米国の消費者物価は約9年ぶりの大幅上昇を記録しました。インフレヘッジ需要と米ドル・債利回りの低下が金の購入における機会費用を下げたことが金価格を押し上げました（チャート10）。この不確実性と米国の財政刺激策によるインフレ圧力の高まりが金需要を増加させます。スポットのCOMEX金は火曜日終値で$1,746.20/ozで取引されていました。 穀物・ソフトコモディティ： 中立 USDAの報告によると、米国のトウモロコシ期末在庫は13.5億ブッシェルで、市場予想の13.9億ブッシェルや先月の省の1.50億ブッシェル推定を下回っています（agriculture.comの集計）。世界のトウモロコシ在庫は2.839億トンで、市場予想の2.845億トンおよび省の推定2.876億トンを下回りました。 チャート9 ベースメタルは強気に動く ベースメタルは強気になっている ベースメタルは強気になっている チャート10 金価格の上昇 金価格が上昇へ 金価格が上昇へ   脚注 1     当社が2021年4月8日に発表したUS-Russia Pipeline Standoff Could Push LNG Prices Higherをご覧ください。簡単に言えば、IMFは今年および来年の成長率見通しをそれぞれ6%と4.4%に引き上げ、2021年1月の更新時点と比べてほぼ1ポイントの上方修正を行いました。 2     バックワーデーションのフォワードカーブ—先物の期近価格が期先価格を上回る状態—は需給タイトさを示す市場のシグナルです。精製業者が将来よりも今の原油の入手を高く評価していることを意味します。これはちょうど投資家が明日引き渡される1ドル札に対して1ドルを支払うことを好み、1年後に引き渡される同じ1ドル札には今日98セントしか払わないかもしれないのと同じダイナミクスです。 3    マッキンゼー・アンド・カンパニーが2021年3月26日に発表したWhen will the COVID-19 pandemic end?をご参照ください。 4    BCAの地政学ストラテジーが2021年4月2日に発表した先見的な分析The Arsenal Of Democracyをご覧ください。同レポートは、バイデン政権は中国/台湾、ロシア、イラン、さらには北朝鮮に関する初期のストレス・テストに直面していると指摘しています。ゲーム理論は金融市場が台湾海峡での危機の60%の確率を無視できない理由を説明するのに役立ちます。全面戦争の確率は依然低いものの、台湾は世界で最も重要な地政学的リスクであり続けます。   投資見解とテーマ 推奨事項 戦略的推奨 タクティカルトレード コモディティ価格とプレイ参考表 2021年にクローズしたトレード クローズしたトレードの概要 より高いインフレが到来 より高いインフレが到来