先進国

Executive Summary Natgas Price Surge Boosts Hydrogen's Prospects Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the surge in EU natural gas prices it provoked will accelerate investment in clean-hydrogen technology, which uses renewable energy to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen. This already has pushed the cost of clean – or "green" – hydrogen below the cost of competing forms of the fuel on the continent. Widespread adoption of carbon pricing will further enhance the attractiveness of green hydrogen, making it more competitive in transportation and refining applications. The cost of producing clean hydrogen in China also has fallen, owing to the competition for liquified natural gas (LNG) with the EU. Relatively low US natural gas prices are keeping the cost of green hydrogen above alternatives. The US DOE is prioritizing hydrogen development, and is funding research to reduce its cost from ~ $5/kg to $1/kg over the next 10 years. Falling clean-hydrogen costs raise the risk of stranded investment in natural-gas exploration and production. Bottom Line: The EU's drive to diversify away from Russian natural gas as quickly as possible will keep competition for scarce LNG between the EU and Asian markets high, as both bid for scarce supplies. This will redound to the benefit of clean hydrogen and its supporting technology, but might limit natgas E+P. Feature The war in Ukraine will keep the price of natural gas, particularly in its liquid state (LNG), elevated, as the EU and Asia compete for scarce supplies to refill inventories and prepare for the coming winter, along with keeping their heavy industries operating (Chart 1). In the Europe-Middle East-Africa (EMEA) markets and China, higher natgas prices, including LNG, already have lifted the cost of pulling hydrogen from natgas – so-called blue and grey hydrogen – above that of green (or "clean") hydrogen, which is produced by separating the hydrogen and oxygen in water via electrolysis. With natgas prices remaining elevated this year and next, investment in clean-hydrogen technology and its supporting infrastructure can be expected to increase. Government support for hydrogen as a clean fuel – i.e., research funding and tax support – will allow this technology to reach economies of scale and lower costs over the coming decade. Chart 1Russia's Invasion Of Ukraine Will Boost Hydrogen's Prospects Related Report  Commodity & Energy StrategySurging Metals Prices And The Case For Carbon-Capture Government policy can increase the advantage of green-hydrogen and other clean-energy technologies by adopting carbon-pricing schemes on a large scale, as well. Such schemes would assess actual – and avoidable – costs of pollution to incentivize investment in non-polluting technologies. We have argued in the past that this is best done via taxes that can provide revenues to support and fund the development of renewable energy. Ideally, such schemes would include mechanisms to offset the regressive nature of such taxes. Absent a tax, Carbon Clubs that impose tariffs or duties on states not abiding by carbon-reduction policies seeking to export to states that do employ such policies, as developed by William Nordhaus, would be useful.1 Ukraine War Improves Hydrogen Economics Governments supporting low- or zero-carbon emission technologies in their push to contain the rise in the Earth's temperature are focused on hydrogen, which, when consumed in a fuel cell, emits no pollution. Apart from being a fuel source, hydrogen also can be used to store energy. It can power electric grids when there is intermittent electricity supply, making it ideal as a back-up energy source for renewable-energy technologies – solar and wind, in particular – which, as the UK and Europe discovered last summer, can be extremely variable and unreliable. Based on its method of production, hydrogen is assigned a color – grey, blue, or green (Chart 2). In a nutshell: Chart 2Types of Hydrogen By Color Grey hydrogen is produced when steam reacts with a hydrocarbon fuel (typically natural gas) to produce hydrogen via a process known as steam-methane reforming (SMR). The downside of this technology is it can result in CO2 and carbon escaping into the environment. Blue hydrogen is created by the same SMR process as grey hydrogen; however, carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology is added to the process to reduce carbon emissions from the steam and fuel reaction. Green hydrogen – aka "clean hydrogen" – is produced with electricity from renewables like wind or solar – in a process that separates water into oxygen and hydrogen via electrolysis. Electricity is the primary cost driver in the production of green hydrogen, followed by the elctrolyzers used to separate oxygen and hydrogen (Chart 3). For this reason, countries where renewable electricity is abundant will be ideal candidates for so-called clean hydrogen. Among renewables, wind and solar are the most developed, and cheapest sources of electricity (Chart 4). As a result, the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) believes countries in the Middle East, Africa, and Oceania have the highest potential to become green hydrogen exporters.2 A constant electric load is crucial for efficient and cost-effective hydrogen production. Electrolyzers will either underperform or overheat if subjected to a variable electric load, reducing their lifespan, and hence increasing overall capital costs. This is yet another reason why countries with vast quantities of wind and solar energy will be at an advantage producing clean hydrogen. Chart 3Renewables Are Primary Cost For Green Hydrogen Chart 4Cheap Wind And Solar Electricity Can Reduce Green Hydrogen Costs Until now, deficient electrolyzer investment and production have resulted in high capital costs. Low innovation in the technology is due to a dearth of consumer demand due to the high prices, leading to a vicious cycle (Diagram 1). According to IRENA, increasing the manufacturing intensity of stacks – the primary component of the electrolyzer – could reduce the share of its cost from 45% to 30% of the total.3 Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the surge in EU natural gas prices it provoked will accelerate investment in green-hydrogen technology. The war already has pushed the cost of clean hydrogen below the cost of competing grey and blue forms of the fuel on the continent. We expect this will persist over the next two years, as the EU and Asia compete for scarce natural gas and LNG supplies going into the coming winter to rebuild depleted gas inventories, and to keep base metals smelters and refineries up and running. Diagram 1The Vicious Cycle Plaguing Hydrogen The cost of grey hydrogen from natgas was ~ $6.70/kg last month vs a mid-point estimate of ~ $5.75/kg for green hydrogen in the Europe-Middle East-Africa (EMEA) markets.4 In China, green hydrogen was running at ~ $3.20/kg vs a grey cost of ~ $5.30/kg. The US is the outlier here, given its abundance of natural gas production. Grey hydrogen cost $1.20/kg, while green hydrogen was running at ~ $3.30/kg. It is difficult to determine whether green hydrogen will remain cheaper than blue in the EMEA and China markets. Under normal conditions – absent highly backwardated fuel markets – blue hydrogen is considered a bridge to the green variant, since it only builds on the incumbent grey hydrogen production process and is cheaper (Chart 5). Approximately 90% of total hydrogen produced annually is grey. If the EU is forced to ration natgas – Germany, e.g., is preparing its population for such a contingency in the event Russian supplies are shut off – reduced fuel availability will act as a hard constraint for blue-hydrogen production. This would prolong green-hydrogen's cost advantage. Chart 5Green Hydrogen Typically Most Expensive Hue That being said, green hydrogen has its own geopolitical problems. Procuring the critical minerals and metals required to build electrolyzers can prove to be challenging, given the metals’ locations are highly concentrated in states with stressed electrical infrastructures like South Africa, which produces 85% and 70% of global iridium and platinum supply respectively (Chart 6). Both metals are in commonly used electrolyzers. Metals supply disruptions in China similar to those that occurred this past winter can affect numerous metal supply chains necessary for hydrogen production. Chart 6Concentration Risks In Hydrogen Materials Displacing High-Polluting Technology According to the IRENA, hydrogen could cover up to 12% of global energy use by 2050.5 Green hydrogen has numerous potential applications: Backstopping intermittent renewable energy; Performing as a “zero-emissions” fuel for maritime shipping and aviation; An energy source for high-heat industrial processes that cannot otherwise be electrified; A feedstock in some industrial processes, like steel production.6 The adoption of hydrogen for new applications has been slow, with uptake limited to the last decade, when fuel cell electric vehicle (FCEV) deployment started gaining traction. In addition, this energy source can be used to produce commodities such as steel, cement and glass used in construction, and ammonia needed to fertilize crops.7 In terms of size, global hydrogen demand was 90 Mt in 2020, with most of it coming from refining and industrial uses. Governments have committed to greater hydrogen use, but not nearly enough to meet net-zero energy emissions by 2050 (Chart 7).8 IRENA estimates that over 30% of hydrogen could be traded across borders by 2050, a higher share than natural gas today.9 According to the Energy Networks Association, up to a fifth of natural gas consumption currently used could be replaced by hydrogen.10 Countries most able to generate cheap renewable electricity will be best placed to produce competitive green hydrogen.11 Chart 7Hydrogen Contributes To Lower Emissions Investment Implications High natgas prices – in its pipeline and liquid forms – will redound to the benefit of clean hydrogen and its supporting technology. The relative cost advantage green hydrogen has over its grey and blue competition will persist this year and most likely in 2023, as the EU and China continue to bid for scarce natgas supplies in the wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. This could persist, if markets begin pricing the availability and future reliability of clean hydrogen on par with fossil-fuel availability. However, this will require significant increases in green-hydrogen technology investment, particularly in electrolysers. Government support – e.g., the US DOE's efforts to reduce the cost of green hydrogen to $1/kg over the next 10 years from $5/kg – will be important in this regard. The development of green-hydrogen capacity and its infrastructure could limit the further development of natural gas, which will be increasingly important during the global energy transition. The conventional natgas resource base benefits from a fully developed global infrastructure, which, if augmented with funding and tax support for carbon-capture and storage technology, will provide a necessary bridge to a low-carbon energy grid.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com Paula Struk Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy paula.struk@bcaresearch.com   Commodity Round-Up Industrial bulks (iron ore and steel) and metals are becoming more expensive, increasing the cost of Europe’s effort to diversify away from Russian natural gas. European countries that relied on pipeline natgas from Russia will need to construct import facilities and regasification plants to switch to LNG from other exporters. Cross-border European pipelines also will be required to transport imported natural gas from the Iberian Peninsula and Eastern Europe to inland Europe. The US will be expanding LNG export facilities in the Gulf out to 2025, after which growth in export capacity will level off at ~ 10 Bcf/d. It has a large latent export capacity of ~ 187 million tons of LNG, however 48% of that capacity will come via projects currently under construction or awaiting permits. The build-out and expansion of LNG import and export facilities will be steel- and metals- intensive. Renewables-based energy the EU will look to as another alternative to Russian gas will compete with new LNG facilities’ metal demand, given green energy’s infrastructure requirements (Chart 8). The US and China will compete with the EU for these metals, as the world aims to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. The downside risk is the current COVID wave in China, and the stringent lockdown accompanying it, which started in end-March. Lockdowns will slow down economic activity and demand for metals. So far, however, copper - widely used in the nation’s large property sector - seems to have been untouched by activity in China. This is likely due to low inventory levels, the Ukraine crisis, and political uncertainty in the copper rich countries of Peru and Chile, which has slowed investment activity in the region. According to BCA’s China Investment Strategy, China’s zero-tolerance COVID policy will lead to frequent lockdowns and outweigh the positive effects of stimulus, given the high transmissibility of the Omicron variant now spreading there. Copper demand growth likely slows in China, but outside China demand for steel and base metals is holding up.. Chart 8 Footnotes 1     Please see Surging Metals Prices And The Case For Carbon-Capture, which we published 13 May 2021. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Nordhaus is the 2018 Nobel Laureate in Economics in 2018. Please see Carbon Market Clubs and the New Paris Regime published by the World Bank in July 2016. The intellectual and computational framework for this technology was developed by Nordhaus. 2     Please see Geopolitics of The Energy Transformation: The Hydrogen Factor, published by IRENA. 3    Please see Green Hydrogen Cost Reduction: Scaling Up Electrolyzers to Meet the 1.5°C Climate Goal, published by IRENA. 4    Please see Ukraine war | Green hydrogen 'now cheaper than grey in Europe, Middle East and China': BNEF, published by rechargenews.com on March 7, 2022.  5    https://www.irena.org/newsroom/pressreleases/2022/Jan/Hydrogen-Economy-… 6    Please see Hydrogen: Future of Clean Energy or a False Solution? published by Sierra Club 5 January 2022. 7     Please see Green hydrogen has long been hyped as a replacement for fossil fuels. Now, one of the industry’s biggest players is preparing its IPO published by Fortune on January 10, 2022. 8    Please see Global Hydrogen Review 2021 published by IEA November 2021. 9    Please see Hydrogen Economy Hints at New Global Power Dynamics published by IRENA on January 15, 2022. 10   Please see Hydrogen could replace 20% of natural gas in the grid from next year published by Institution for Mechanical Engineers 14 January 2022. 11    See footnote #9. Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Trades Closed in 2021  

Executive Summary To understand the economy and the market we must think of them as non-linear systems which experience sudden phase-shifts. The pandemic introduced phase-shifts in our lives, which led to phase-shifts in our goods demand, which led to phase-shifts in monthly core inflation. As our lives phase-shift back to normality, goods demand will phase-shift back to low growth, and monthly core inflation prints will phase-shift from ‘high phase’ to ‘low phase’. With the 12-month core US inflation rate likely to peak by June at the latest, the long bond yield is likely to peak at some point in April/May, justifying a cyclical overweight position in T-bonds. Go overweight healthcare and biotech versus resources and financials. The leadership of the equity market will once more flip from short-duration sectors to long-duration sectors. Fractal trading watchlist additions: JPY/CHF, non-life insurance versus homebuilders, US homebuilders (XHB), cotton versus platinum, healthcare versus resources, and biotech versus resources. Bottom Line: With the 12-month core US inflation rate likely to peak by June at the latest, the long bond yield is likely to peak at some point in April/May, and the leadership of the equity market will flip back to long-duration sectors such as healthcare and biotech. Feature Inflation is a non-linear system, meaning that you cannot just dial it up or down gradually like the volume on your music system. Instead of gradual changes, non-linear systems suddenly phase-shift from quiet to loud, from cold to hot, from solid to liquid, or from stability to instability (Box I-1). Box 1: A Classic Non-Linear System – A Brick On An Elastic Band To experience the sudden phase-shift in a non-linear system, attach an elastic band to a brick and try pulling it across a table. As you start to pull, the brick doesn’t move because of the friction with the table. But as you increase your pull there comes a tipping point, at which the brick does move and the friction simultaneously decreases, self-reinforcing the brick’s acceleration. Meanwhile, your pull on the elastic continues to increase as you react with a time-lag. The result is that this non-linear system suddenly phase-shifts from stability – the brick doesn’t move – to instability – the brick hits you in the face! Try as hard as you might, it is impossible to pull the brick across the table smoothly. In this non-linear system, the choice is either stability or instability. Back in 2017, in Mission Impossible: 2% Inflation – An Update, I posed a crucial question: “Given that price stability could phase-shift to instability, when should we worry about it?” I answered that “the risk remains low until the next severe downturn – when policymakers may be forced into desperate measures for a desperate situation.” The words proved prescient. Three years later, the desperate situation was a global pandemic, and the desperate measures were economic shutdowns combined with fiscal stimuluses of unprecedented scope and size.   A Phase-Shift In Our Lives Produced A Phase-Shift In Inflation Developed economy inflation has just experienced a stark non-linearity. Since 2007, the US core month-on-month inflation rate remained consistently below 3.5 percent.1 Then came the pandemic’s shutdowns combined with policymakers’ massive response, and month-on-month inflation didn’t just rise to above 3.5 percent, it phase-shifted to well over 6 percent. Developed economy inflation has just experienced a stark non-linearity. The remarkable fact is that since 2007, there have been over a hundred monthly core inflation prints below 4 percent, and nine prints above 6 percent, but just one solitary print between 4 and 6 percent! In other words, monthly core inflation shows the classic hallmark of a non-linear system. It can be cold or hot, but not warm (Chart I-1).       Chart I-1Monthly Core Inflation Shows The Classic Hallmark Of A Non-Linear System So, what caused the phase-shift in core inflation? The simple answer is a phase-shift in durable goods spending, which itself was caused by the pandemic’s shutdown of services combined with massive fiscal stimulus. Again, this is supported by a remarkable fact. Since 2007, the monthly increase in US (real) spending on durables remained consistently below 3.5 percent. Then came the pandemic’s shutdowns and stimulus checks, and the growth in durables demand didn’t just rise to above 3.5 percent, it phase-shifted to well over 8 percent.  In other words, the growth in durable goods demand also shows the classic hallmark of a non-linear system. It can be cold or hot, but not warm (Chart I-2). Chart I-2Goods Demand Shows The Classic Hallmark Of A Non-Linear System The connection between the phase-shifts in goods demand and the phase-shifts in core inflation is staring us in the face – because the three separate phase-shifts in inflation have each been associated with a preceding or contemporaneous phase-shift in goods demand, which themselves have been associated with the separate waves of the pandemic (Chart I-3). Chart I-3Phase-Shifts In Core Inflation Have Been Associated With Phase-Shifts In Goods Demand Pulling all of this together, the pandemic introduced phase-shifts in our lives – lockdown or freedom. Which led to phase-shifts in our goods demand – above 8 percent or below 3.5 percent. Which led to phase-shifts in monthly core inflation – above 6 percent or below 4 percent. The key question is, what happens next? Bond Yields Are Close To A Peak As we learn to live with the pandemic, and assuming no imminent ‘super variant’ of the virus, our lives are phase-shifting back to a semblance of normality. Which means that our spending on goods is phase-shifting back to low growth. If anything, the recent overspend on goods implies an imminent corrective underspend. At the same time, it will be difficult to compensate a phase-shift down on goods spending with a phase-shift up on services spending. This is because the consumption of services is constrained by time and biology. There is a limit to how often you can eat out, go to the theatre, or even go on vacation. The upshot is that monthly core inflation prints are likely to phase-shift from ‘high phase’ to ‘low phase’ – even if the monthly headline inflation prints are kept up longer by the commodity price spikes that result from the Ukraine crisis. Monthly core inflation prints are likely to phase-shift from ‘high phase’ to ‘low phase’. Meanwhile central banks and markets focus on the 12-month core inflation rate – which, as an arithmetic identity, is the sum of the last twelve month-on-month inflation rates.2  To establish the 12-month core inflation rate, the crucial question is: how many of the last twelve month-on-month inflation prints will be high phase versus low phase? As just discussed, the new month-on-month core inflation prints are likely to phase-shift to low phase. At the same time, the historic high phase prints will disappear from the last twelve month window. Specifically, by June 2022, the three high phase prints of April, May, and June 2021 – 10 percent, 9 percent, and 10 percent respectively – will no longer be included in the 12-month core inflation rate, with the arithmetic impact of pulling it down sharply (Chart I-4). Chart I-4The High Phase Monthly Inflation Prints Of April, May, And June 2021 Will Disappear From The 12-Month Core US Inflation Rate, Thereby Pulling It Down. Clearly, the bond market anticipates some of this ‘base effect’ on 12-month inflation. This explains why turning points in the bond yield have led by 2-3 months the turning points in the 12-month core inflation rate (Chart I-5). With the 12-month core inflation rate likely to peak by June at the latest, this suggests that – absent some new shock – the long bond yield is likely to peak at some point in April/May. Reinforcing our cyclical overweight position in T-bonds. Chart I-5The Bond Yield Turns About 2-3 Months Before Core Inflation This also carries important implications for equity investors. Rising bond yields favour short-duration equity sectors such as resources and financials versus long-duration equity sectors such as healthcare and biotech. And vice-versa. Indeed, the recent performance of resources versus healthcare and financials versus healthcare is indistinguishable from the bond yield (Chart I-6 and Chart I-7). Chart I-6The Performance of Resources Versus Healthcare Is Indistinguishable From The Bond Yield Chart I-7The Performance of Financials Versus Healthcare Is Indistinguishable From The Bond Yield With bond yields likely to peak soon, the leadership of the equity market will once more flip from short-duration sectors to long-duration sectors. Go overweight healthcare and biotech versus resources and financials. Fractal Trading Watchlist Reinforcing the fundamental analysis in the previous section, the 130-day outperformance of resources versus healthcare and biotech has reached the point of fractal fragility that has marked previous trend exhaustions, suggesting that the recent outperformance of resources is nearing an end. Also new on our watchlist is a commodity pair, cotton versus platinum, whose strong outperformance is vulnerable to reversal. And US homebuilders (XHB), whose recent underperformance is at a potential turning point. There are two new trade recommendations. First, the massive outperformance of world non-life insurance versus homebuilders is at the point of fractal fragility that has consistently marked previous turning points (Chart I-8). Hence, go short non-life insurance versus homebuilders, setting a profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 14 percent. Second, the strong underperformance of the Japanese yen is also at the point of fractal fragility that has marked several previous turning points (Chart I-9). Accordingly, go long JPY/CHF, setting a profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 4 percent. Please note that our full watchlist of 19 investments that are experiencing or approaching turning points is now available on our website: cpt.bcaresearch.com Chart I-8The Massive Outperformance Of Non-Life Insurance Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart I-9Go Long JPY/CHF The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Healthcare Is Vulnerable To Reversal The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Biotech Is Vulnerable To Reversal Cotton’s Outperformance Is Vulnerable To Reversal US Homebuilders’ Underperformance Is At A Potential Turning Point Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Annualized month-on-month inflation rate. 2 Strictly speaking, the 12-month inflation rate is the geometric product of the last 12 month-on-month inflation rates. Chart I-1The Strong Trend In The 18-Month-Out US Interest Rate Future Is Fragile Chart I-2The Strong Trend In The 3 Year T-Bond Is Fragile Chart I-3AUD/KRW Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart I-4Canada Versus Japan Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart I-5Canada's TSX-60's Outperformance Might Be Over Chart I-6US Healthcare Providers Vs. Software Approaching A Reversal Chart I-7The Euro's Underperformance Could Be Approaching a Resistance Level Chart I-8A Potential Switching Point From Tobacco Into Cannabis Chart I-9Bitcoin's 65-Day Fractal Support Is Holding For Now Chart I-10Biotech Approaching A Major Buy Chart I-11CAD/SEK Reversal Has Started Chart I-12Financials Versus Industrials Is Reversing Chart I-13Norway's Outperformance Could End Chart I-14Greece's Brief Outperformance Has Ended Chart I-15BRL/NZD At A Resistance Point Chart I-16The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Healthcare Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart I-17The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Biotech Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart I-18Cotton's Outperformance Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart I-19US Homebuilders' Underperformance Is At A Potential Turning Point   Fractal Trading System   Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Executive Summary Long Small Cap Energy Versus Large Cap President Biden has not received a boost in opinion polls from the Ukraine war. If he has not by now then it is increasingly unlikely that he will do so. Yet Biden performs worse in polls for his handling of economic policy than foreign policy, despite falling unemployment and rising real wages. The economy should help stabilize his approval rating but not in time to prevent Democrats from losing the Senate as well as the House this fall.  Biden’s decision to tap the strategic petroleum reserve exemplifies our 2022 trend of executive action. However, the oil outlook still depends on Biden’s Iran talks and OPEC’s reaction. Recommendation Inception Level Inception Date Return Long Small Vs. Large Cap Energy 0.56 26-Jan-22 14.9% Bottom Line: The return of gridlock is bad for stocks in 2022 but good in 2023. Feature Investors need answers to three questions about US policy at the moment: 1.   Will President Biden’s reaction to the Ukraine war exacerbate the hit to the global and US economy? 2.   Will Biden’s domestic agenda revive? If so, how will it impact corporate earnings expectations? 3.   Will Biden’s foreign and domestic policies cause any changes to the midterm election outlook and hence US policy in 2023-24? In recent reports we have answered these questions as follows. Related Report  US Political StrategySecond Quarter Outlook: Gridlock Looms First, Biden will continue to pursue a defensive or reactive foreign policy, meaning that he will not force Europe or other allies to adopt Russia sanctions beyond their near-term economic and political capabilities. If Europe wants to boycott Russian energy then that is fine but it is Europe’s decision. In fact, Europe is pursuing gradual rather than immediate diversification. Russia needs the funds. So Europe is unlikely to experience a sharp energy cutoff that plunges its economy into recession. Nevertheless, the risk is substantial enough that we remain long DXY and defensive US sectors on a tactical time frame. Second, Biden’s congressional agenda is getting back on track, with the war providing Democrats with a basis for redesigning and rebranding their budget reconciliation bill. Therefore we did not downgrade our 65% subjective odds that Congress will pass a bill. The bill will be close to deficit neutral and focused especially on energy policy. The Senate version of the bill is not yet available but we will examine the likeliest policy options in a forthcoming special report with our US Equity Strategy. Third – our focus for this report – current political changes do not substantially alter the midterm election odds, which suggest Republicans will retake Congress. Gridlock will return – and is the norm in US policy. In an inflationary context gridlock may well be positive for equities in 2023 since it will curb fiscal spending. However, uncertainty is negative for equities this year. We remain tactically defensive. We recommend renewable energy, cyber stocks, defense stocks, and infrastructure stocks as cyclical plays. Biden’s Approval Stabilizing At Low Level Foreign policy shocks are likely to hurt the ruling party – especially if the nature of the shock exacts a toll on the voter’s pocketbook. We showed evidence to this effect just before Russia re-invaded Ukraine. We concluded that Biden would experience a bounce in opinion polls as the nation rallied around him in the face of the Russian menace but the likely rise in gasoline prices would end up hurting the Democratic Party in the midterm elections.  Yet 40 days after Russia’s attack Biden’s general job approval is still at the lowest of his presidency, in the 41-42% range, while his disapproval is still high, in the 52-53% range. So far the war has not given him an appreciable boost, outside of his own party (where the boost has still been small). The results are even worse when it comes to his handling of the economy. Here his approval is 39% and disapproval 54%. In foreign policy, Biden’s approval stands at 40% and disapproval at 52% (Chart 1). Presidential approval has a big influence on the midterm election – as does perception of the two parties. Republicans have taken the lead in the generic congressional ballot, at 43.7% support versus 42.2% for Democrats. The war has blunted the Republican rally but nothing more. The economy is the likeliest source of good news for Biden and the Democrats over the coming six months but even here there is not a basis for optimism among Democrats, as we will see in the next section.  Chart 1No ‘War Bounce’ For Biden Jobs And Wages Not Boosting Biden Either Our Political Capital Index shows that the Biden administration now has weak or moderate political capital in every category except economic conditions and financial markets (Appendix). Yet economic conditions are still mixed. While they will likely improve before November, they do not look to improve enough to change the election outlook: Both Republicans and Democrats are viewing the economy more negatively. Republican economic sentiment declined by 16% in March, while Democrat economic sentiment declined by 6%. The partisan gap widened, which means Republicans will remain motivated to vote (Chart 2). Manufacturing activity is slowing down (though not shrinking). The reading slipped lower than its level in November 2020, when Biden took office. This drop is the first sign of the negative effect of inflation and geopolitical risk on the economy. New manufacturing orders declined while inventories increased. The new-orders-to-inventories ratio, which should be a leading indicator of economic activity, fell by 15.7% compared to its February reading. It is now the weakest since May 2020 (Chart 3). Chart 2Economic Sentiment Declines For Both Parties The budget deficit is “normalizing” and weighing on demand. The fiscal thrust – or change in the budget deficit – turned negative as the stimulus of 2020 waned. The intensity of the drag is now lessening, both on the federal and state level, but it would require a massive new crisis for the US to outdo the stimulus of 2020, so the drag will persist for the foreseeable future (Chart 4). Any last-minute reconciliation bill from congressional Democrats would reduce the drag further, but not generate positive thrust, and not in time to affect the election. To pass the bill, Democrats need to reduce the deficit impact in the face of inflation and paper-thin congressional majorities. Chart 3First Sign Of Inflation, Geopolitics Hitting Manufacturing Chart 4US Fiscal Drag In Wake Of 2020 Stimulus Most worrisome for President Biden, his approval rating has suffered despite a tight labor market and real wage growth. The headline unemployment rate declined to 3.6% in March, down 3.1 percentage points since November 2020. The ISM manufacturing employment index stands at the highest point since March of 2021, and 17% higher than in November 2020 (Chart 5). Inflation is apparently eating away the benefits of low unemployment. Real wages grew by 3.3% on an annual basis in February, up from 2.5% in January. This wage growth is higher than that of November 2020, at 2.2%. Biden’s approval rating is probably in the process of stabilizing, if we assume that unemployment stays low and real wages keep growing. But it is stabilizing at a low level and not perking up as a result of the Russian menace. The likeliest culprit for Biden’s troubles is inflation. Fortunately for the Democrats inflation is likely to fall in the coming months. However, voters are likely to respond to year-on-year rather than month-on-month inflation. And voters make up their minds early in midterm election years. Plus, if inflation does not subside, or if Biden is perceived as making a foreign policy mistake, then his approval rating will not stabilize. Bottom Line: Biden’s approval rating is not perking up despite a foreign threat. His approval on economic policy is even worse than on foreign policy, despite low unemployment and real wage growth higher than when he took office. A drop in inflation would improve his fortunes but taken together the evidence suggests that the war has not helped, and may have hurt, the Democrats’ chances this fall. Chart 5Will Jobs And Real Wages Stabilize Presidential Approval? Biden Taps Strategic Oil Reserve But Implications Depend On Iran One of our key views for 2022 (reiterated in our Q2 outlook) is the Biden administration’s transition from congressional to executive action. Biden’s decision to tap the strategic petroleum reserve (SPR) on March 31 exemplifies this trend. Gasoline prices have spiked to $4.20 per gallon, which is more than double the level in November 2020 (Chart 6). Biden’s SPR order aims to mitigate the rise in prices. Biden ordered the release of 1 million barrels per day of crude oil over the next 180 days (six months). This would constitute the largest release since the SPR came into being in 1975 (Chart 7).1 Chart 6Prices At The Pump Trigger Red Alert In White House Chart 7Biden Taps Strategic Petroleum Reserve The Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) originated in the wake of the Arab oil embargo to protect the US from supply shocks. Faced with “severe petroleum supply interruptions” the president can authorize a maximum drawdown of 396 million barrels over 90 days, which begin reaching the market roughly 13 days after the decision. The current inventory is 570 million barrels of sweet and sour crude, which could last 92 days of crude imports and 72 days of crude and petroleum product imports (Chart 8). Unlike during the 1970s, today the US is the world’s largest oil and refined products producer. It is a net exporter as well. However, it is still vulnerable to external shocks. It imports 6.3 million barrels per day and has already cut off 283 thousand barrels per day of imports from Russia (Chart 9). Global price shocks still affect the US prices at the pump, as Chart 6 above shows in the relationship between domestic gasoline prices and Brent crude. Chart 8SPR Can Be Tapped For Six-To-Nine Months Easily Chart 9US Energy Independent But Still Vulnerable To Shocks The Ukraine crisis is just the sort of geopolitical crisis that the SPR was invented to address – but the magnitude of Biden’s action is larger than normal. The SPR was tapped for 21 million barrels in 1990-91, during the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and for 30 million barrels in 2011, when Libyan production fell to zero amid the revolution. However, because of US net exporter status, Biden has much more room for maneuver. The SPR would be tapped for 180 million barrels if Biden’s current plan is fully implemented. The SPR can be released at a rate of 4.4 million barrels per day for about 90 days, though after that the drawdown rate begins to decline for technical reasons (e.g. contaminants). Biden’s 180 days would end in early October, a month before the midterm election. If the SPR has at least 282 million barrels left (90 days of US net crude imports in 2021), the president can continue to release oil from it. The minimum storage level is 282 million barrels of crude. Thus at the end of Biden’s current order, he would have 390 million barrels left and would still be able to release 1 million barrels per day for 108 days.  There are various interpretations of Biden’s decision to tap the SPR today: Currently the Russians and Europeans are in a standoff over energy flows. Russia is demanding payment in rubles and Europe is rejecting Russia’s demands while threatening to ban Russian coal imports. Since crude oil is generally interchangeable, an EU-Russia breakdown in crude trade would not prevent Russian barrels from reaching global markets eventually (Chart 10). In short Biden did not tap the SPR in anticipation of a breakdown. Biden could have tapped the SPR because of difficulties convincing the core OPEC states to increase production. Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Kuwait are rapidly increasing production already, though their 90-day spare capacity enables them to bring out as much as 3.5 million additional barrels per day. But on March 31 they ruled out any massive near-term adjustments. Their relations with the US under the Biden administration have been strained, namely as Biden is still trying to rejoin the 2015 Iranian nuclear deal. If the US and Iran rejoin the 2015 deal, the US would lift sanctions and Iran could quickly bring about 1.3 million barrels per day back to global markets. Biden’s SPR release is roughly equal to this amount, which means it could be insurance for a failure to do a deal (Chart 11). Chart 10Russian Oil Exports To Europe And World An Iran deal on top of the SPR release would add 2.3 million barrels per day in positive supply surprises, while reducing the short-term risk of a military conflict in the Persian Gulf. This would have a significant short-term negative impact on oil prices this year. Chart 11Biden Struggles For Help From OPEC What is clear is that our Geopolitical Strategy’s base case of a failure of US-Iran talks would imply a significantly higher risk of oil disruptions in the Middle East over the short and long run. In that case the OPEC states would need to change their position and increase production or else a new supply shock would be added on top of the Russian shock. Biden’s SPR release would make up for production bottled up in Iran but regional supply disruptions would intensify and Iran would threaten the Strait of Hormuz. Biden’s executive action to tap the SPR removes one option from the table. The ultimate impact of this move depends on whether Biden also uses executive action to do a deal with Iran. We cannot rule it out, because Biden has the authority to lift sanctions unilaterally, but we would not bet on it. Bottom Line: Market fundamentals suggest that Brent prices will fall from their current $105 per barrel toward their likely average of $93 per barrel this year and in 2023. Quant Model Points To Republican Senate Last week we highlighted that our Senate election model flipped from predicting the status quo to predicting a Republican victory, in line with our subjective view of the situation. The latest model findings, using data from the state coincident economic indicators released on April 5, suggests that Republicans have a 51.6% chance of gaining control of the Senate (Chart 12). Democrats only need to lose a single seat to slip from 50 to 49 seats and thus yield the majority. The model suggests they will lose two seats, in Arizona and Georgia. The result is a Republican majority of 52-48 seats. Chart 12Senate Election Model Flips To Republicans Our presidential election model still shows Democrats holding onto the White House in 2024 with 308 electoral college votes but their chances are declining. Specifically Democrats’ odds of retaining the White House have fallen from 54.9% to 54.7% now that the March data is taken into account (Chart 13). North Carolina is still considered a toss-up state, with a 45% probability that Democrats win it, but that means that a single percentage point drop puts it firmly in the Republican camp, along with Arizona and Georgia. Democrats’ odds are falling in Florida, Pennsylvania, and Nevada especially, although they are improving in Wisconsin and Minnesota. Chart 13Presidential Election Model Still Slightly Favors Democrats Florida presents an interesting difference between the two models: the Senate model gives Florida to the Republicans, while the presidential model gives it to the Democrats. This requires some explanation: The incumbent advantage plays a role. Biden did not win Florida in 2020 but that does not stop the model from ascribing Democrats a good chance of winning Florida given that they are the incumbent party. Incumbency would be punished if Democrats held the White House for eight years due to the variable that accounts for the public sentiment that it is “time for change.” The Senate model works differently. The model only helps the party that controls a state Senate seat by means of the partisan leaning of the state in recent elections. This is helpful for Republicans in the model’s 2022 prediction. Meanwhile the model only punishes an incumbent party if it has held control of the US Senate for three or more terms, which is not the case today. Our sample periods across the two election models are the same (1984-2020), but in this period, Democrats only held Senate seats for three out of nine changes. There have been nine different senators from Florida since 1989, three of which have been Democrats. The last Democratic senator was Bill Nelson but he was beaten by Republican Rick Scott in 2018. The other Senate seat has been held by a Republican since around 2004, most recently Marco Rubio, who is up for re-election in 2022. So the model will “lean” more Republican based on total outcomes and how recently recurring they were. Finally, a caveat: we should be careful about explicitly comparing the two election models. Although they are both Probit models, the variables are not all the same. Some are shared but their interaction with one another and the election outcome (dependent variable) should not be assumed to be exactly the same. There can be little doubt in the model’s outlook for the Florida Senate race. Senator Marco Rubio is a young incumbent, has strong name recognition, and is up for re-election in a favorable year for Republicans. As of February he was leading his top Democratic opponent Val Demings by 12 percentage points in opinion polls. Confirming the state’s Republican leaning, Governor Ron DeSantis was leading his Democratic opponent Charlie Crist by 21 percentage points in February polls, with over 50% favoring DeSantis. (Other than former President Trump, DeSantis is currently the favored Republican nominee for 2024.) Moreover the presidential model is catching up to the Senate model, with the odds of a Democratic win in Florida dropping from 59% to 55% over the past month alone. If the odds fall beneath 50% then the model naturally awards all of Florida’s 29 electoral votes to the Republicans. This would leave Democrats hanging by a thread at 279 votes. What is clear is that the 2024 election is a long way off. Democrats benefit from an incumbent advantage as a political party, aside from whether President Biden runs again. Yet the quantitative model suggests that the US will experience another hotly contested presidential election. Bottom Line: Republicans are now tipped to take the Senate in our quantitative model as well as our subjective judgment. Meanwhile Democrats are still favored to win the 2024 election but only slightly, and their odds are falling. These views support the market consensus but in general US investors will remain risk averse ahead of the midterm election.  Investment Takeaways Stay tactically long the US dollar and defensive stocks like in the health care sector. Russia is threatening to cut off energy exports to Europe, which is considering a ban on Russian coal. Until this dispute is resolved, risk appetite will suffer, the euro will be limited, and the dollar will stay strong. Stay long renewable energy, cyber security stocks, infrastructure stocks, defense stocks, oil and gas distribution, and small cap energy stocks (Chart 14). Chart 14Investment Takeaways Matt Gertken Senior Vice President Chief US Political Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri Associate Editor jesse.kuri@bcaresearch.com Guy Russell Senior Analyst guyr@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1     See White House, “FACT SHEET: President Biden’s Plan to Respond to Putin’s Price Hike at the Pump,” March 31, 2022, whitehouse.gov; Department of Energy, “Strategic Petroleum Reserve: Providing Energy Security For America,” March 28, 2022, energy.gov; and Heather L. Greenley, “The Strategic Petroleum Reserve: Background, Authorities, and Considerations,” Congressional Research Service, R46355, May 13, 2020, crsreports.congress.gov.   Appendix Strategic View Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months)   Table A2Political Risk Matrix Table A3US Political Capital Index Chart A1Presidential Election Model Chart A2Senate Election Model Table A4APolitical Capital: White House And Congress Table A4BPolitical Capital: Household And Business Sentiment Table A4CPolitical Capital: The Economy And Markets  

Today we upgrade the S&P Metals & Mining industry from underweight to neutral: This industry is one of the few beneficiaries of the war in Ukraine, as the military action and global sanctions take offline copious amounts of metals produced by Russia and Ukraine. It also enjoys increased demand resulting from a shift toward green energy and offers inflation protection. The West’s official sanctions affect Russian exports of certain commodities but there is also a reluctance on the part of private companies to buy or ship Russian exports. In addition, Putin has announced his decision to suspend some commodity exports at least until 2023. Assuming that in the near term a considerable share of Russia’s commodity exports will be blocked from global markets, the largest impact will be on oil, palladium, copper, nickel, fertilizer, and grains (Table 1). Russia’s standoff with the West is still in the early innings and further disruption of the international supply chains is to be expected. The last round of sanctions against Russia is a case in point.  Table 1Russia’s Global Share In Various Commodities In addition, the West’s shift toward green energy further exacerbates metal shortages as clean technologies require astronomical amounts of metals. It will take years and billions of dollars in investments for the other metals producers to fill the void left by Russia and Ukraine. As a result, a supply squeeze is a likely outcome. Rampant inflation is another tailwind for the mining names, which are quintessential real assets, and offer substantial inflation protection. All of these structural trends will enhance the profitability of the miners and metals producers and will translate into gains for the S&P 500 Metals & Mining index. Overall, we are structurally bullish on the sector and will be looking to upgrade the Mining and Metals industry to an overweight once a compelling entry point presents itself. Bottom Line: Upgrade the S&P Metals & Mining index to neutral. Look for a compelling entry point to increase exposure to an overweight.