地政学
Highlights Political and corporate climate activism will increase the cost of developing the resources required to produce and deliver energy going forward – e.g., oil and gas wells; pipelines; copper mines, and refineries. Over the short run, the fastest way for investor-owned companies (IOCs) to address accelerated reductions in CO2 emissions imposed by courts and boards is to walk away from the assets producing them, which could be disruptive over the medium term. Longer term, state-owned companies (SOCs) not facing the constraints of IOCs likely will be required to provide an increasing share of the resources needed to produce and distribute energy. The real difficulty will come in the medium term. Capex for critical metals like copper languishes, just as the call on these metals steadily increases over the next 30 years (Chart of the Week). The evolution to a low-carbon future has not been thought through at the global policy level. A real strategy must address underinvestment in base metals and incentivize the development of technology via a carbon tax – not emissions trading schemes – so firms can innovate to avoid it. We remain long energy and metals exposures.1 Feature And you may ask yourself, "Well … how did I get here?" David Byrne, Once In A Lifetime Energy markets – broadly defined – are radically transforming from week to week. The latest iteration of these markets' evolution is catalyzed by climate activists, who are finding increasing success in court and on corporate boards – sometimes backed by major institutional investors – and forcing oil and gas producers to accelerate CO2 emission-reduction programs.2 Climate activists' arguments are finding increasing purchase because they have merit: Years of stiff-arming investors seeking clarity on the oil and gas producers' decarbonization agendas, coupled with a pronounced failure to provide returns in excess of their cost of capital, have given activists all of the ammo needed to argue their points. Chart of the WeekCall On Metals For Energy Will Increase This activism is not limited to the courts or boardrooms. Voters in democratic societies with contested elections also are seeking redress for failures of their governments to effectively channel mineral wealth back into society on an equitable basis, and to protect their environments and the habitats of indigenous populations. This voter activism is especially apparent in Chile and Peru, where elections and constitutional conventions likely will result in higher taxes and royalties on metals IOCs operating in these states, which will increase production costs and ultimately be passed on to consumers.3 These states account for ~ 40% of world copper output. IOCs Walk Away Earlier this week, Exxon walked away from an early-stage offshore oil development project in Ghana.4 This followed the unfavorable court rulings and boardroom setbacks experienced by Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron and Exxon recently (referenced in fn. 2). While the company had no comment on its abrupt departure, its action shows how IOCs can exercise their option to put a project back to its host government, thus illustrating one of the most readily available alternatives for energy IOCs to meet court- or board-mandated CO2 emissions targets. If these investments qualify as write-offs, the burden will be borne by taxpayers. As climate activism increases, state-owned companies (SOCs) not facing the constraints of IOCs likely will be required to provide an increasing share of the resources – particularly oil and gas – needed to produce and distribute energy going forward. This is not an unalloyed benefit, as the SOCs still face stranded-asset risks, if they invest in longer-lived assets that are obviated by a successful renewables + grid buildout globally. That is a cost that will have to be compensated, when the SOCs work up their capex allocations. Still, if legal and investor activism significantly accelerates IOCs' capex reductions in oil and gas projects, the SOCs – particularly those in OPEC 2.0 – will be able to expand their position as the dominant supplier in the global oil market, and could perhaps increase their influence on price levels and forward-curve dynamics (Chart 2).5 Chart 2OPEC 2.0s Could Expand If Investor Activism Increases Higher Call On Metals At present, there is a lot of talk about the need to invest in renewable electricity generation and the grid structure supporting it, but very little in the way of planning for this transition. Other than repeated assertions of its necessity, little is being said regarding how exactly this strategy will be executed given the magnitude of the supply increase in metals required. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the refined copper market, which has been in a physical deficit – i.e., production minus consumption is negative – for the last 6 years (Chart 3). Physical copper markets in China, which consumes more than 50% of refined output, remain extremely tight, as can be seen in the ongoing weakness of treating charges and refining charges (TC/RC) for the past year (Chart 4). These charges are inversely correlated to prices – when TC/RCs are low, it means there is surplus refining capacity for copper – unrefined metal is scarce, which drives down demand for these services. Chart 3Coppers Physical Deficit Likely Persist Chart 4Chinas Refined Copper Supply Remains TightTheoretically, high prices will incentivize higher levels of production. However, after the last decade’s ill-timed investment in new mine discoveries and expansions, mining companies have become more wary with their investments, and are using earnings to pay dividends and reduce debt. This leads us to believe that mining companies will not invest in new mine discoveries but will use capital expenditure to expand brownfield projects to meet rising demand. In the last decade, as copper demand rose, capex for copper rose from 2010-2012, and fell from 2013-2016 (Chart 5). During this time, the copper ore grade was on a declining trend. This implies that the new copper brought online was being mined from lower-grade ore, due to the expansion of existing projects(Chart 6). Chart 5Copper Capex Growth Remains Weak Chart 6Copper Ore-Quality Declines Persist Through Capex Cycle Capex directed at keeping ore production above consumption will not be sufficient to avoid major depletions of ore supplies beginning in 2024, according to Wood Mackenzie. The consultancy foresees a cumulative deficit of ~ 16mm MT by 2040. Plugging this gap will require $325-$500 billion of investment in the copper mining sector.6 The Case For A Carbon Tax The low-carbon future remains something of a will-o'-the-wisp – seen off in the future but not really developed in the present. Most striking in discussions of the low-carbon transition is the assumption of resource availability – particularly bases metals –in, e.g., the IEA's Net Zero by 2050, A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector, published last month. In the IEA's document, further investment in hydrocarbons is not required beyond 2025. The copper, aluminum, steel, etc., required to build the generation and supporting grid infrastructure will be available and callable as needed to build all the renewable generation the world requires. The document is agnostic between carbon trading and carbon taxes as a way to price carbon and incentivize the technology that would allow firms and households to avoid a direct cost on carbon. A real strategy must address the fact that most of the world will continue to rely on fossil fuels for decades, as development goals are pursued. Underinvestment in base metals and its implications for the buildout of generation and grids has to be a priority if these assets are to be built. Given the 5-10-year lead times base metals mines require to come online, it is obvious that beyond the middle of this decade, the physical reality of demand exceeding supply will assert itself. A good start would be a global effort to impose and collect carbon taxes uniformly across states.7 This would need to be augmented with a carbon club, which restricts admission and trading privileges to those states adopting such a scheme. Harmonizing the multiple emissions trading schemes worldwide will be a decades-long effort that is unlikely to succeed. Such schemes also can be gamed by larger players, producing pricing distortions. A hard and fast tax that is enforced in all of the members of such a carbon club would immediately focus attention on the technology required to avoid paying it – mobilizing capital, innovation and entrepreneurial drive to make it a reality. This would support carbon-capture, use and storage technologies as well, thus extending the life of existing energy resources as the next generation of metals-based resources is built out. In addition, a carbon tax raises revenue for governments, which can be used for a variety of public policies, including reducing other taxes to reduce the overall burden of taxation. Lastly, a tax eliminates the potential for short-term price volatility in the pricing of carbon – as long as households and firms know what confronts them they can plan around it. Tax revenues also can be used to reduce the regressive nature of such levies. Investment Implications The lack of a coherent policy framework that addresses the very real constraints on the transition to a low-carbon economy makes the likelihood of a volatile, years-long evolution foreordained. We believe this will create numerous investment opportunities as underinvestment in hydrocarbons and base metals production predisposes oil, natural gas and base metals prices to move higher in the face of strong and rising demand. We remain long commodity index exposure – the S&P GSCI and GSCI Commodity Dynamic Roll Strategy ETF (COMT), which is optimized to take advantage of the most backwardated commodity forward curves in the index. These positions were up 5.3% and 7.2% since inception on December 7, 2017 and March 12, 2021, respectively, at Tuesday's close. We also remain long the MSCI Global Metals & Mining Producers ETF (PICK), which is up 33.9% since it was put on December 10, 2020. Expecting continued volatility in metals – copper in particular – we will look for opportunities to re-establish positions in COMEX/CME Copper after being stopped out with gains. A trailing stop was elected on our long Dec21 copper position established September 10, 2020, which was closed out with a 48.2% gain on May 21, 2021. Our long calendar 2022 vs short calendar 2023 COMEX copper backwardation trade established April 22, 2021, was closed out on May 20, 2021, leaving us with a return of 305%. Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish OPEC 2.0 offered no surprises to markets this week, as it remained committed to returning just over 2mm b/d of production to the market over the May-July period, 70% of which comes from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), according to Platts. While Iran's return to the market is not a given in OPEC 2.0's geometry, we have given better than even odds it will return to the market beginning in 3Q21 and restore most of the 1.4mm b/d not being produced at present to the market over the course of the following year. OPEC itself expects demand to increase 6mm b/d this year, somewhat above our expectation of 5.3mm b/d. Stronger demand could raise Brent prices above our average $63/bbl forecast for this year (Chart 7). Brent was trading above $71/bbl as we went to press. Base Metals: Bullish BHP declared operations at its Escondida and Spence mines were running at normal rates despite a strike by some 200 operations specialists. BHP is employing so-called substitute workers to conduct operation, according to reuters.com, which also reported separate unions at both mines are considering strike actions in the near future. Precious Metals: Bullish The Fed’s reluctance to increase nominal interest rates despite indications of higher inflation will reduce real rates, which will support higher gold prices (Chart 8). We agree with our colleagues at BCA Research's US Bond Strategy that the Fed is waiting for the US labor market to reach levels consistent with its assessment of maximum employment before it makes its initial rate hike in this interest-rate cycle. Subsequent rate changes, however, will be based on realized inflation and inflation expectations. In our opinion, the Fed is following this ultra-accommodative monetary policy approach to break the US liquidity trap, brought about by a rise in precautionary savings due to the pandemic. In addition, we continue to expect USD weakness, which also will support gold and precious metals prices. We remain long gold, expecting prices to clear $2,000/oz this year. Ags/Softs: Neutral Corn prices fell more than 2% Wednesday, following the release of USDA estimates showing 95% of the corn crop was planted by 31 May 2021, well over the 87% five-year average. This was in line with expectations. However, the Department's assessment that 76% of the crop was in good-to-excellent condition exceeded market expectations. Chart 7 Chart 8 Footnotes 1 Please see Trade Tables below. 2 Please see OPEC, Russia seen gaining more power with Shell Dutch ruling and EXCLUSIVE BlackRock backs 3 dissidents to shake up Exxon board -sources published by reuters.com June 1, 2021 and May 25, 2021. 3 Please see Chile's govt in shock loss as voters pick independents to draft constitution published by reuters.com May 17, 2021, and Peru’s elite in panic at prospect of hard-left victory in presidential election published by ft.com June 1, 2021. Peru has seen significant capital flight on the back of these fears. See also Results from Chile’s May 2021 elections published by IHS Markit May 21, 2021 re a higher likelihood of tax increases for the mining sector. The risk of nationalization is de minimis, according to IHS. 4 Please see Exxon walks away from stake in deepwater Ghana block published by worldoil.com June 1, 2021. 5 Please see OPEC 2.0's Production Strategy In Focus, which we published on May 20, 2021, for a recap our how we model OPEC 2.0's strategy. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see Will a lack of supply growth come back to bite the copper industry?, published by Wood Mackenzie on March 23, 2021. 7 Please see The Challenges and Prospects for Carbon Pricing in Europe published by the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies last month for a discussion of carbon taxes vs. emissions trading schemes. Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2021 Summary of Closed Trades
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
Highlights China's high-profile jawboning draws attention to tightness in metals markets, and raises the odds the State Reserve Board (SRB) will release some of its massive copper and aluminum stockpiles in the near future. Over the medium- to long-term, the lack of major new greenfield capex raises red flags for the IEA's ambitious low-carbon pathway released last week, which foresees the need for a dramatic increase in renewable energy output and a halt in future oil and gas investment to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. Copper demand is expected to exceed mined supply by 2028, according to an analysis by S&P, which, in line with our view, also sees refined-copper consumption exceeding production this year (Chart of the Week). A constitution re-write in Chile and elections in Peru threaten to usher in higher taxes and royalties on mining in these metals producers, placing future capex at risk. Chile's state-owned Codelco, the largest copper producer in the world, fears a bill to limit mining near glaciers could put as much as 40% of its copper production at risk. We remain bullish copper and look to get long on politically induced sell-offs as the USD weakens. Feature Politicians are inserting themselves in the metals markets' supply-demand evolutions to a greater degree than in the past, which is complicating the short- and medium-term analysis of prices. This adds to an already-difficult process of assessing markets, given the opacity of metals fundamentals – particularly inventories, which are notoriously difficult to assess. Chinese Communist Party (CCP) jawboning of market participants in iron ore, steel, copper and aluminum markets over the past two weeks has weakened prices, but, with the exception of steel rebar futures in Shanghai – down ~ 17% from recent highs, and now trading at ~ 4911 RMB/MT – the other markets remain close to records. Benchmark 62% Fe iron ore at the port of Tianjin was trading ~ 4% lower at $211/MT, while copper and aluminum were trading ~ 5.5% and 6.5% off their recent records at $4.535/lb and $2,350/MT, respectively. In addition to copper, aluminum markets are particularly tight (Chart 2). Jawboning aside, if fundamentals continue to keep prices elevated – or if we see a new leg up – China's high-profile jawboning could presage a release by the State Reserve Board (SRB) of some of its massive copper and aluminum stockpiles in the near term. In the case of copper, market guesses on the size of this stockpile are ~ 2mm to 2.7mm MT. On the aluminum side, Bloomberg reported CCP officials were considering the release of 500k MT to quell the market's demand for the metal. Chart of the WeekContinue Tightening In Copper Expected Chart 2Aluminum Remains Tight Brownfield Development Not Sufficient Our balances assessments continue to indicate key base metals markets are tight and will remain so over the short term (2-3 years). Economies ex-China are entering their post-COVID-19 recovery phase. This will be followed by higher demand from renewable generation and grid build-outs that will put them in direct competition with China for scarce metals supplies for decades to come. Markets will continue to tighten. In the bellwether copper market, we expect this tightness to remain a persistent feature of the market over the medium term – 3 to 5 years out – given the dearth of new supply coming to market. Copper prices are highly correlated with the other base metals (Chart 3) – the coefficient of correlation with the other base metals making up the LME's metals index is ~ 0.86 post-GFC – and provide a useful indicator of systematic trends in these markets. Chart 3Copper Correlation With LME Index Ex-Copper Copper ore quality has been falling for years, as miners focused on brownfield development to extend the life of mines (Chart 4). In Chart 5, we show the ratio of capex (in billion USD) to ore quality increases when capex growth is expanding faster than ore quality, and decreases when capex weakens and/or ore quality degradation is increasing. Chart 4Copper Capex, Ore Quality Declines Chart 5Capex-to-Ore-Quality Decline Set Market Up For Higher Prices Falling prices over the 2012-19 interval coincide with copper ore quality remaining on a downward trend, likely the result of previous higher prices that set off the capex boom pre-GFC. The lower prices favored brownfield over greenfield development. Goehring and Rozencwajg found in their analysis of 24 mines, about 80% of gross new reserves booked between 2001-2014 were due not to new mine discoveries but to companies reclassifying what was once considered to be waste-rock into minable reserves, lowering the cut-off grade for development.1 This is consistent with the most recent datapoints in Chart 5, due to falling ore grade values, as companies inject less capex into their operations and use it to expand on brownfield projects. Higher prices will be needed to incentivize more greenfield projects. A new report from S&P Global Market Intelligence shows copper reserves in the ground are falling along with new discoveries.2 According to the S&P analysts, copper demand is expected to exceed mined supply by 2028, which, in line with our view, sees refined-copper consumption exceeding production this year. Renewables Push At Risk Just last week, the IEA produced an ambitious and narrow path for governments to collectively reach a net-zero emissions (NZE) goal by 2050.3 Among its many recommendations, the IEA singled out the overhaul of the global electric grid, which will be required to accommodate the massive renewable-generation buildout the agency forecasts will be needed to achieve its NZE goals. The IEA forecasts annual investment in transmission and distribution grids will need to increase from $260 billion to $820 billion p.a. by 2030. This is easier said than done. Consider the build-out of China's grid, which is the largest grid in the world. To become carbon neutral by 2060, per its stated goals, investment in China’s grid and associated infrastructure is expected to approach ~ $900 billion, maybe more, over the next 5 years.4 The world’s largest fossil-fuel importer is looking to pivot away from coal and plans to more than double solar and wind power capacity to 1200 GW by 2030. Weening China off coal and rebuilding its grid to achieve these goals will be a herculean lift. It comes as no surprise that IEA member states have pushed back on the agency's NZE-by-2050 plan. This primarily is because of its requirement to completely halt fossil-fuel exploration and spending on new projects. Japan and Australia have pushed back against this plan, citing energy security concerns. Officials from both countries have stated that they will continue developing fossil fuel projects, as a back-up to renewables. Japan has been falling behind on renewable electricity generation (Chart 6). Expensive renewables and the unpopularity of nuclear fuel could make it harder for the world’s fifth largest fossil fuels consumer to move away from fossil fuels. Around the same time the IEA released its report, Australia committed $464 million to build a new gas-fired power station as a backup to renewables. Chart 6Japan Will Continue Building Fossil-Fuel Back-Up Generation Just days after the IEA report was published, the G7 nations agreed to stop overseas coal financing. This could have devastating effects for emerging and developing nations‘ electricity grids which are highly dependent on coal. In 2020 70% and 60% of India and China’s electricity respectively were produced by coal (Chart 7).5 Chart 7EM Economies Remain Reliant On Coal-Fired Generation Near-Term Copper Supply Risks Rise Even though inventories appear to be rebuilding, mounting political risks keep us bullish copper (Chart 8). Lawmakers in Chile and Peru are in the process of re-writing their constitutions to, among other things, raise royalties and taxes on mining activities in their respective countries. This could usher in higher taxes and royalties on mining for these metals producers, placing future capex at risk. In addition, Chile's state-owned Codelco, the largest copper producer in the world, fears a bill to limit mining near glaciers could put as much as 40% of its copper production at risk.6 None of these events is certain to occur. Peruvian elections, for one thing, are too close to call at this point, and Chile has a history of pro-business government. However, these are non-trivial odds – i.e., greater than Russian roulette odds of 1:6 – and if any or all of these outcomes are realized, higher costs in copper and lithium prices would result, and miners would have to pass those costs on to buyers. Bottom Line: We remain bullish base metals, especially copper. Another leg up in copper would pull base metals higher with it. We would look to get long on politically induced sell-offs, particularly with the USD weakening, as expected Chart 8Global Copper Inventories Rebuilding But Still Down Y/Y Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish Next Tuesday's OPEC 2.0 meeting appears to be a fairly staid affair, with little of the drama attending previous gatherings. Russian minister Novak observed the coalition would be jointly "calculating the balances" when it meets, taking into account the likely official return of Iran as an exporter, according to reuters.com. We expect a mid-year deal on allowing Iran to return to resume exports under the nuclear deal abrogated by the Trump administration in 2019, and reckon Iran has ~ 1.5mm b/d of production it can bring back on line, which likely would return its crude oil production to something above 3.8mm b/d by year-end. We are maintaining our forecast for Brent to average $64.45/bbl in 2H21; $75 and $78/bbl, in 2022 and 2023, respectively. By end 2023, prices trade to $80/bbl. Our forecast is premised on a wider global recovery going into 2H21, and continued production discipline from OPEC 2.0 (Chart 9). Base Metals: Bullish Our stop-losses was elected on our long Dec21 copper position on May 21, which means we closed the position with 48.2% return. The stop loss on our long 2022 vs short 2023 COMEX copper futures backwardation recommendation also was elected on May 20, leaving us with a return of 305%. We will be looking for an opportunity to re-establish these positions. Precious Metals: Bullish We expect the collapse in bitcoin prices, the US Fed’s decision to not raise interest rates, and a weakening US dollar to keep gold prices well bid (Chart 10). China’s ban on cryptocurrency services and Musk’s acknowledgment of the energy intensity of Bitcoin mining sent Bitcoin prices crashing. The Fed’s decision to keep interest rates constant, despite rising inflation and inflation expectations will reduce the opportunity cost of holding gold. According to our colleagues at USBS, the Fed will make its first interest rate hike only after the US economy has reached "maximum employment". The Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey reported that job openings rose nearly 8% in March to 8.1 million jobs, however, overall hiring was little changed, rising by less than 4% to 6 million. As prices in the US rise and the dollar depreciates, gold will be favored as a store of value. On the back of these factors, we expect gold to hit $2,000/oz. Ags/Softs: Neutral Corn futures were trading close to 20% below recent highs earlier in the week at ~ $6.27/bu, on the back of much faster-than-expected plantings. Chart 9 Chart 10 Footnotes 1 Please refer to Goehring & Rozencwajg’s Q1 2021 market commentary. 2 Please see Copper cupboard remains bare as discoveries dwindle — S&P study published by mining.com 20 May 2021. 3 Please see Net Zero by 2050 – A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector, published by the IEA. 4 Please see China’s climate goal: Overhauling its electricity grid, published by Aljazeera. 5 We discuss this in detail in Surging Metals Prices And The Case For Carbon-Capture published 13 May 2021, and Renewables ESG Risks Grow With Demand, which was published 29 April 2021. Both are available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see A game of chicken is clouding tax debate in top copper nation, Fujimori looks to speed up projects to tap copper riches in Peru and Codelco says 40% of its copper output at risk if glacier bill passes published by mining.com 24, 23 and 20 May 2021, respectively. Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2021 Summary of Closed Trades
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
BCA Research’s US Political Strategy service argues that while Republicans are favored to win a majority in the House of Representatives, there is a non-negligible risk that Democrats will retain the House. First, the economy will be strong in 2022.…
The United Kingdom will remain united – at least for now. The Scottish parliamentary election occurred on May 6 and the result does not herald a second Scottish independence referendum anytime soon. The Scottish National Party (SNP) won its fourth…
BCA Research’s US Political Strategy service believes that President Biden’s political capital is high enough for him to accomplish a major legislative achievement. President Biden’s popularity is “fair to middling” as his honeymoon comes to an end.…
Biden’s first 100 days can be summed up as the return of Big Government, i.e. “the Leviathan.” But markets are not afraid of one-off corporate tax hikes that only partially reverse the previous administration’s tax cuts amid a brand new stimulus-charged economic cycle. Biden’s approval rating after his first 100 days is comparable to that of Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, suggesting that he can accomplish a major legislative achievement. The $2.3 trillion American Jobs Plan will be watered down in Congress but not to a great extent. Green energy investments and funding for research and development will survive. Thus Biden’s plan will sow the seeds of a productivity mini-boom, if not a structural boom, in the 2020s. Republicans are favored to win the midterm elections in 2022 but investors should not make any decisions based on that expectation. The risk of Democrats keeping the House of Representatives – and therefore having a new chance to surprise with taxes in the second half of Biden’s term – is much greater than the historical pattern suggests. Stick with our long materials versus tech trade. Stick with short health care trades. Go long renewable energy stocks. Feature President Biden passed the 100 day mark at the end of April. The most striking characteristic of his administration is the giant deficit spending. Biden marks the symbolic return of the “leviathan,” i.e. the state, to American political economy. Normally the budget deficit tracks closely with the unemployment rate because rising unemployment causes tax revenue to fall and government spending to rise. The divergence between the deficit and unemployment became pronounced in 2016 and revealed the structural forces – e.g. slow growth, disinflation, high debt, inequality, populism – driving US policymakers to abandon fiscal discipline. But the 2016-20 political cycle combined with the pandemic broke the dam and the divergence is now gigantic (Chart 1). Chart 1Biden's First 100 Days: An Historic Divergence All else equal, the implication is inflationary, though inflation will respond to a range of factors on different time frames. Signs of inflation today may well be under control, as Federal Reserve Chairman Jay Powell and Secretary of Treasury Janet Yellen believe, but over the long run we take the inflation risk seriously as the policy elite has fundamentally shifted to be vigilant about deflation, not inflation. Biden’s Approval Is “Just Enough” Biden’s popularity is “fair to middling” as his honeymoon comes to an end. His approval rating clocks in right between that of Presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump (Chart 2A). He is not as popular and charismatic as Obama and not as unpopular and controversial as Trump. His approval among Democratic voters is higher than that of Obama, similar to Trump among Republicans, due to the fact that the US has hit historic levels of political polarization (Chart 2A, second panel). His embrace of left-wing policy is keeping him in good standing among Democratic voters but may become a liability during the 2022 midterm election (more on that below). Chart 2ABiden’s Approval Rating: Fair-To-Middling Chart 2BBiden Close To Clinton, Bush At 100 Days American presidential approval ratings have fallen continuously for decades and they typically fall after inauguration. This is true of Biden but he looks more like Presidents Bill Clinton or George W. Bush than Trump. His approval is likely to stay over 50% for the foreseeable future due to a supercharged economic recovery (Chart 2B). Trump stands out conspicuously in this chart for his negative net approval, which implies that on a relative basis Biden will be more capable in conducting policy. And yet Trump got his signature piece of legislation – the Tax Cut and Jobs Act – through Congress, which has some bearing on Biden’s proposals. Our political capital index (Appendix) shows that Biden will benefit from consumer confidence and wage growth shooting up, business sentiment strengthening, and polarization slightly abating due to a slight rise in Republican approval. While Biden’s Democratic Party has only the narrowest of majorities in the Senate, Biden’s signature legislative proposal – the American Jobs Plan – still has an 80% chance of passing in some form. Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky declared this week that Biden will not get any Republican votes for this package of infrastructure and corporate tax hikes but budget reconciliation is a ready way for the bill to pass on a partisan basis. Biden’s fiscal blowout should be seen as the culmination of a popular shift against fiscal discipline (or “austerity”) that took root in the middle of the last decade and was also expressed by Republican support for the big-spending President Trump. But it is more extravagant than what the Republicans proposed or would have been able to get had Trump been elected. Chart 3 highlights the difference between the Democratic and Republican spending proposals for the early 2021 COVID-19 relief bill and infrastructure plan. Chart 4 highlights the corporate tax increases Biden has proposed in excess of the Trump rate. Chart 3Biden’s Spending In Excess Of Republican Plans Chart 4Biden’s Taxes In Excess Of Republican Plans From an investment point of view, now is the perfect time to raise corporate taxes as the early cyclical surge in economic activity will prevent the one-off hit to earnings, which should be around 5%-8% according to our Global Investment Strategy, from hindering the stock market for long. The output gap, apparent from still relatively low industrial capacity utilization, will rapidly be plugged regardless of the tax hikes, as is evident from the surge in retail sales and core capital goods new orders and the decline in fuel inventories (Chart 5). The hyper-stimulated economy has been a key reason for our argument that Biden will mostly get what he wants, in terms of corporate taxes, since growth will be fine. The public is positively crying out for taxing corporations, as we showed in our April 7 missive and other reports. Chart 5The Output Gap Will Close Quickly Given that Biden’s political capital is only “just enough,” and that it is falling over time, many investors believe that Biden’s major legislative proposals will be watered down beyond recognition. They will be watered down but the reconciliation process ensures that Democrats will pass at least one bill and that it will largely gratify the party’s preferences. And any watering down will affect tax hikes more so than spending, since tax hikes are the most controversial parts of the bill for moderate Senate Democrats. As Table 1 reveals, an infrastructure package with half the revenue increase is a $1.3 trillion addition to the budget deficit over the eight-to-15 year life-cycle of the bill, as opposed to a fictitious $341 billion in the event that all tax hikes pass Congress. Hence the paring back of Biden’s ambitions does not imply fiscal restraint and is not bullish for US Treasuries. Table 1Watering Down Biden’s Proposals Not Good For Deficit A Productivity Boomlet How can we benchmark the magnitude of the structural transformation taking place in the US as a result of Biden’s Leviathanic spending proposals? From the perspective of government spending as a contributor to economic output, the Leviathan shrank in the decades after President Lyndon B. Johnson’s “Great Society” and Vietnam debacle. But from the perspective of government accounts, Big Government never actually went away (Chart 6), as Reagan used spending to win the Cold War and Clinton only enjoyed the briefest hiatus from deficits in the 1990s. From these charts we can conclude that Biden’s administration will create unprecedented spending and deficits that, taken with an extremely accommodative Fed, will increase the risk of substantially higher inflation over the 2020s. Chart 6Johnson’s ‘Great Society’ Versus Biden’s ‘Green Society’ Chart 7US Adds To Expansive Social Safety Net Biden is not fighting an economic depression and world war, like Franklin D. Roosevelt, although the US has experienced a Great Recession and is entering a new cold war with China. So the shift should be seen as a generational change in the role of government and not as an ephemeral, four-year trend. This is true notwithstanding the fact that the US already spends a lot on health and education (Chart 7) and not as an ephemeral, four-year trend. The element of international competition is critical to the unique components of Biden’s spending package. Biden jettisoned the health care debates of the Obama era – to our surprise – and instead inaugurated the American foray into the global green energy race. Looking at the OECD’s measure of the “greenness” of global fiscal stimulus – and supplementing it with Biden’s proposed jobs plan – the US compares favorably with the EU and China (Chart 8). Chart 8US Enters The Green Energy Race True, climate policy is more controversial in the US, which means it may well be frozen after Biden’s major bill. The EU and China will spend more on renewable energy and environmental protection because they are net energy importers and manufacturing powers. But the US is highly unlikely to exit the green race in the future, as younger generations care about it more than their elders and it is connected to the US strategic imperative of technological leadership. Biden will have opened up a new field of national policy, regardless of where on the field the players will fight over the ball at any given time. Biden is also pumping federal money into research and development, another area of geopolitical competition (Chart 9). The takeaway is that Biden’s first year in office – which may be his most consequential year in terms of legislation, particularly if he is a one-term president – is sowing the seeds for a productivity boom, or at least a mini-boom, in the coming years (Chart 10). The pace of productivity growth in the coming years is a matter of speculation and the long term trend is down. But the expected cyclical increase should be supplemented with the knowledge that the US is now aggressively monetizing debt, aggressively pursuing industrial policy and technological advancement, and aggressively competing with geopolitical rivals like China (and even allies like the EU). The likelihood of productivity breakthroughs may go up in such an extraordinary context. We cannot know but we cannot discount the possibility. Chart 9US Doubles Down On Tech Race Chart 10Productivity Will Rise Cyclically But What About Structurally? Vaccines And Immigration Elsewhere Biden’s first 100 days are less specific to his administration. The US is performing very well on the pandemic, both in innovating vaccines and distributing them, but an objective analysis will force Biden to share the credit with the Trump administration (Chart 11). On immigration, by comprehensively weakening enforcement and raising refugee allowances, all in the midst of a surging American economy, Biden will be vulnerable to Republican accusations of encouraging a humanitarian crisis on the border, vitiating rule of law, and making a cynical ploy to expand the Democratic voter base. The number of southwest border encounters by the Customs and Border Protection agency began to skyrocket over the past year – and as such it reflects structural factors that would have troubled a second Trump administration as well. But the election seems to have had an impact based on the inflection point in the data at the end of 2020 (Chart 12). Chart 11COVID-19 Vaccination Campaign On Track Chart 12Immigration: Biden's Fatal Flaw? Regardless, Biden has made the decision to cater to the pro-immigration side of his party and will now own this trend. It will be a unifying force for Republicans, although they remain deeply split over a range of issues and are not any closer to healing their wounds. The market impact is limited in the short run. In the medium run, if unchecked immigration feeds the nativist and populist elements of the Republican Party, then Biden’s decision could have a substantial impact on future US policy by generating a backlash. Our best guess at the moment is that Biden’s actions will reinforce the Republican Party’s embrace of Trump’s policy platform. Since Biden is not making major bipartisan legislative efforts to reform immigration comprehensively, the great immigration debate will return in 2024 or thereafter. Public opinion suggests Republican nativism is out of fashion but a large influx of immigrants could opinion over time as today’s issues fade. Thus Biden’s successes on economic recovery today are sowing the seeds of his party’s biggest vulnerability in domestic policy in future. But admittedly it is too soon to say whether this weakness will be effectively exploited by the opposition. In the meantime investors and corporations will cheer the prospect of cheap and abundant labor. An Overlooked Market Risk From The Midterm Elections This overview of Biden’s honeymoon period naturally refers to the 2022 midterm elections in several places. The Republicans will not be able to repeal Biden’s laws if they take the House of Representatives – or less likely the Senate – in the 2022 vote. But they will be able to grind proposals to a halt. The fate of Biden’s third major legislative proposal, the $1.8 trillion American Families Plan, will hang in the balance, as will green energy subsidies, the child tax credit, and various social initiatives. Much has been made about the 2020 US census and the reapportionment of seats in the House of Representatives according to the population. States that have a single party in control of the governor’s mansion and the legislature can gerrymander or redraw congressional districts as they please to favor their party. Table 2 shows that this partisan process could easily yield two Republican seats on a net basis. This is less than expected but Republicans only need a net of five seats to reclaim the House. Table 2US Census And Reapportionment Favors Republicans Slightly Redistricting is an important theme because it perpetuates political polarization. But it is not important in determining who will win the House in 2022. The House has changed hands numerous times despite gerrymandered districts. Midterms almost always work against the president’s party. Only in 1934, during the Great Depression, and 2002, immediately after the Twin Towers were attacked, did voters strengthen a first-term president’s hold on Congress. Judging by Biden’s approval rating, Democrats would be lined up for a loss of far more than five seats on a net basis in 2022. They could lose 20 or more (Chart 13). As noted in the previous section, Republicans may find a rallying point on immigration. Chart 13Midterm Elections Dominated By Opposition Party – And Need For Checks And Balances Having said that, investors should not make any decisions based on the midterm election. While Republicans have a 95% chance of winning the House according to the modern historical pattern, they have a lower 73% chance according to the online political betting hub Predictit.org, and we would side with the latter or even lower, at this early stage in the political cycle. The pandemic and social unrest of 2020, combined with the slow-growth 2010s and trade war, create a context of upheaval that is not entirely dissimilar to the exceptional midterm elections of 1932 and 2002. Biden’s rescue packages and the economic recovery will be a huge boon for the Democratic Party in 2024 and it is possible that they will reap some benefits even in 2022. This is especially the case because Trump and his allies will challenge establishment and elitist Republicans in the primary elections, which could result in Republicans losing five-to-nine seats. If they put up Trumpists in competitive, purple, or suburban districts, voters will swing toward moderate Democrats over populist Republicans in order to preserve the “bread and butter” gains of Biden’s agenda. The bottom line is that Republicans are favored to take the House in 2022 but the 75% odds are much more realistic than the 95% historical probability and possibly even too high. Gridlock would freeze Biden’s spend-and-tax agenda in place but the absence of gridlock would come as a surprise to investors who counted on a Republican victory. Tax hikes on wealthy individuals and capital gains – as projected in the American Families Plan – could still be on the table after the midterm. These tax hikes would still be unlikely to overturn the equity bull market but they could cause investors to reassess the overall policy setting for the worse. The implication would be that the 2020 political change marked a more lasting leftward shift in US policy. For example, taxes could go up beyond what Biden currently projects. Midterm risks should not trouble investors in the near term but they should be on the radar, particularly as the Republican primaries get underway next year and as investors get a better read on inflation in the wake of Biden’s mammoth spending. Investment Takeaways We would draw a few main investment takeaways from Biden’s first 100 days. In the short run, we would call attention to the “buy the rumor, sell the news” behavior exhibited by financial markets during President Trump’s first year in office with full party control of Congress. US equities stood to benefit from tax cuts, especially relative to the rest of the world, which would not receive tax cuts but could face trade tariffs. This expectation played out after Trump’s election but the market sold upon the news of his inauguration. It played out again after Republicans failed to repeal Obamacare, suggesting they might fail to cut taxes. The market correctly bid up US equities on the rumor that the GOP would then turn its full attention to cutting taxes. US equities outperformed until the end of the year when the tax cuts became a fait accompli, at which point the news was sold (Chart 14, top panel). The implication today is that US stocks, especially cyclical stocks and infrastructure-related plays, will continue generally to rally ahead of Biden signing the American Jobs Plan into law, likely around November. Obviously a correction could occur at any time but upon the signing of the law one should not be surprised to see some serious profit-taking. An analogy can also be drawn to renewable energy plays after the Democrats’ “Blue Sweep” in 2020. Markets have largely discounted the surge in renewable energy plays that occurred upon the recession in 2020 and the rising likelihood that Trump would lose reelection (Chart 14, bottom panel). This creates a buying opportunity for a long-term theme. Republicans will not be able to repeal Biden’s green projects and there is some risk that Democrats retain legislative control. And younger generations, even Republicans, are favorable toward the greening of society. Therefore we recommend going long US renewable energy stocks. It also follows that cyclical and value stocks have not yet exhausted their run against defensives and growth stocks. We will therefore hang onto our long materials / short Big Tech trade until we see more substantial signs that near-term disinflationary risks will derail this trade (Chart 15). We will also stick with our short managed health care trade – and our preference for health care equipment and facilities within the health care sector – despite the Democrats’ tentative decision to sideline the health care policies that would have hit the health insurers and Big Pharma. Chart 14Investment Takeaways: Buy The Green Hype (For Now) Chart 15Housekeeping: Stick With Materials Over Tech In the long run, we would point out that the shift away from Reaganism toward Johnsonianism – the return of Leviathan – is a lasting trend that will bring significant change to the US policy setting. These are mostly but not all inflationary. Larger immigration and a productivity boost are not inflationary. But large deficits, tax hikes, and wage pressures are inflationary. Therefore the risk of inflation has gone up in a historic way even though the magnitude of the risk can be overstated in the short term – when there is still slack in the economy – and there are still disinflationary factors that could work against the risk as events unfold. We remain cyclically bullish. Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Appendix Table A1USPS Trade Table Table A2Political Risk Matrix Table A3Political Capital Index Table A4APolitical Capital: White House And Congress Chart A4BPolitical Capital: Household And Business Sentiment Table A4CPolitical Capital: The Economy And Markets