強気市場/弱気市場

特別レポート

Highlights The selloff in crypto-currencies on May 19 may be overblown but the risk of government intervention is a rising headwind for this asset class. While environmental concerns are a threat to Bitcoin, the entire crypto-currency complex faces a looming confrontation over governance. Digital currencies are a natural evolution of money following coinage and paper. Moreover a sizable body of consumers is skeptical of governments and traditional banking. Loose monetary conditions are fueling a speculative mania. However, governments fought for centuries to gain a monopoly over money. As crypto-currencies become more popular, governments will step in to regulate and restrict them. Central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) threaten to remove the speed and transactional advantage of crypto-currencies, leaving privacy/anonymity as their main use-case. Feature The prefix “crypto” derives from the Greek kruptos or “hidden.” This etymology highlights one of the biggest problems confronting the crypto-currency craze in financial markets today. Speed and anonymity are the greatest assets of the digital tokens. But the former advantage is being eroded by competitors while the latter is becoming a political liability. In the 2020s, governments are growing stronger and more interventionist, not weaker and more laissez faire. Chart 1Loose Money Fuels Crypto Mania Bitcoin and rival crypto-currency Ethereum fell by 29.5% and 43.2% in intra-day trading on May 19, only to finish the day down by 13.8% and 27.2%, respectively. The market panicked on news that China’s central bank had banned firms from handling transactions in crypto-currencies. What really happened was that China’s National Internet Finance Association, China Banking Association, and Payment and Clearing Association issued a statement merely reiterating a 2013 and 2017 policy that already banned firms from handling transactions in crypto-currencies. These three institutions also warned about financial speculation regarding crypto-currencies.1 The crypto market suffered a spike in volatility because it is in the midst of a speculative mania. In the last five years, total market capitalization of crypto-currencies has risen from around $7 billion to $2.3 trillion,2 recording a 34,000% gain. Some crypto-currencies have even recorded returns in excess of that number over a shorter horizon. Price gains have been driven by retail buyers who may or may not know much about this new asset class (Chart 1). Prior to the May 19 selloff, prices had grown overextended and recent concerns over the environment, sustainability, and governance (ESG) had shaken confidence in Bitcoin and its peers. Chinese authorities have already banned financial firms from providing crypto services in a bid to deter ownership of crypto-currencies. And China is not alone. The latest market jitters are a warning sign that government interference in the crypto-currency market is a real threat. Regulation and sovereign-issued digital currencies are starting to enter the fray. While ultra-dovish central bank policies are not changing soon, and therefore crypto-currency price bubbles can continue to grow, crypto-currencies will remain subject to extreme volatility and precipitous crashes. In this report we argue that the fundamental problem with crypto-currencies is that they threaten the economic sovereignty of nation-states. Environmental degradation, financial instability, and black market crime, and other concerns about cryptos have varying degrees of merit. But they provide governments with ample motivation to pursue a much deeper interest in regulating a technological innovation that has the power to undermine state influence over the economy and society. Government scrutiny is a legitimate reason for crypto buyers to turn sellers. Does The World Need Crypto-Currencies? Broadly speaking, there are two primary justifications for crypto-currencies, centered on a transactional basis: speed and privacy/anonymity. The crux of crypto-currency creation rests on these two use cases.3 The speed of crypto-currencies comes from their ability to increase efficiency in local and global payment systems by facilitating financial transactions without the need of a third party (e.g. a financial institution). Cross-border settlement of traditional (fiat) currency transactions processed through the standard SWIFT communications system takes up to two business days. Most transactions involving crypto-currencies over a blockchain network are realized in less than an hour, cross-border or not.4 The fees involved with third-party payments are often more expensive than transacting with crypto-currencies. Simply put, excluding the “middleman” can save money. This is a selling point in a global market that expects to see retail cross-border transactions reach $3.5 trillion by the end of 2021, of which up to 5% are associated with transaction-based fees.5 But this breakthrough in payment system technology can be overstated and is not the main reason for using crypto-currency. Speculation drives current use, especially given that there is speculative behavior even among those who believe that cryptos are safe-haven assets or promising long-term investments (Chart 2). Chart 2Crypto-Currency Use Driven By Speculation Chart 3Consumers Growing Skeptical Of Banking Regulation If a person wants to buy an item from a company in a distant country, that person could use a crypto-currency just as he or she could use a credit card. Both parties would have a secure medium of exchange but, unlike with a credit card, both would avoid using fiat currencies. Neither party could conduct the same transaction using gold or silver. The crucial premise is the existence of an online community of individuals and firms who for one reason or another want to avoid fiat currencies. From a descriptive point of view, the crypto-currency phenomenon implies a lack of trust in modern governments, or at least their monetary systems, and an assertion of individual property rights. The list of crypto-currencies continues to grow. To date, there are approximately 9,800 of them. Some are trying to prove their economic value or use, while others have been created with no intended purpose or problem to solve. Even so, there has yet to be a crypto-currency that overwhelms the use of slower fiat money. In a recent Special Report, BCA Research’s Foreign Exchange Strategist Chester Ntonifor showed that crypto-currencies still have a long way to go to have a chance at replacing fiat monies. While crypto-currencies are showing signs of significant improvement as mediums of exchange, they still fall short as stores of value and units of account. The other primary case for crypto-currencies is privacy or anonymity. The bypassing of intermediaries implies a greater control of funds by the two parties of a transaction. Crypto-currencies are said to be more “private” compared to fiat money. Fiat money is controlled by governments and banks while crypto-currencies have only “owners.” Crypto-currencies are anonymous because they are stored in digital wallets with alphanumeric sequences – there is a limited personal data trail that follows crypto-currency compared to those of electronic fiat currency transactions. In a post-9/11, post-GFC, post-COVID world where a sizable body of consumers is growing more skeptical of government surveillance and regulation and banking industry practices (Chart 3), crypto-currencies give users more than just a means to transact with. However, privacy is not the same as security. Hacking and fraud can affect cryptos as well as other forms of money and attacks will increase with the value of the currencies. Bitcoin At The Helm Of Crypto-Currency Market Chart 4Bitcoin Slows Bitcoin has cemented its status as the number one currency in the crypto-verse.6 It is considered to be the first crypto-currency created, it is the most widely accepted, it is touted as a store of value or “digital gold,” and it is the most featured in quoting alternative crypto-currency pairs across crypto exchanges. As it stands, Bitcoin accounts for around 42% of total crypto-currency market capitalization.7 This share has declined from around 65% at the start of 2021 on the back of the frenzied rise of several alternative coins.8 But rising risks to Bitcoin’s standing will cause the entire crypto-market to retreat. In a Special Report penned in February, BCA Research’s Chief Global Strategist Peter Berezin argued that Bitcoin is more of a trend than a solution and that its usefulness is diminishing. Bitcoin’s transaction speed is slowing and its transaction cost is rising (Chart 4). Slowing speed and rising cost on the Bitcoin network are linked to a scalability problem. The crypto-currency’s network has a limited rate at which it can process transactions related to the fact that records (or “blocks”) in the Bitcoin blockchain are limited in size and frequency. This means that one of its fundamental justifications, transactional speed, will become less attractive over time, should the network not address these issues. Bitcoin also consumes a significant amount of energy, a controversy that is gaining traction in the crypto-currency market after Elon Musk, the “techno-king” of Tesla, cited environmental concerns in reversing his decision to accept Bitcoin payment for his company’s electric vehicles. Energy consumption rises as more coins are mined, since mining each new Bitcoin becomes more computer-power intensive. The need for computing power and energy will continue to increase until all 21 million Bitcoins (total supply) are mined, which is currently estimated to occur by the year 2140. Strikingly, the energy needed to mine Bitcoin over a year are comparable to a small country’s annual power consumption, such as Sweden or Argentina (Chart 5). Chart 5Bitcoin Consumes More Energy Than A Small Country … Bitcoin also generates significant quantities of electronic waste (Chart 6). Chart 6… And Generates A Lot Of Electronic Waste Bitcoin mining is heavily domiciled in China, which accounts for 65% of global mining activity (Figure 1). China’s energy mix is dominated by coal power, which makes up approximately 65% of the country’s total energy mix even after a decade of aggressive state-led efforts to reduce coal reliance. Of this, coal powered energy makes up approximately 60% of Bitcoin’s energy mix in China.9 With several countries aiming to minimize carbon emissions, and with approximately 60% of Bitcoin mining powered by coal-fired energy globally,10 Bitcoin imposes a major negative environmental impact. Figure 1Bitcoin Mining Well Anchored In Asia Bitcoin does not shape up well when compared to gold’s energy intensity either. Bitcoin mining now consumes more energy than gold mining over a single year. While the energy difference is not large, the economic value is. Gold’s energy consumption to economic value trade-off is lower than that of Bitcoin. The production value of gold in 2020 was close to $200 billion, while Bitcoin was measured at less than $25 billion (Chart 7A). On a one-to-one basis, gold even has a lower carbon footprint than Bitcoin (Chart 7B). Chart 7AGold Outshines Bitcoin On Production Value And Carbon Footprint Chart 7BGold Outshines Bitcoin On Production Value And Carbon Footprint Crypto-currency energy consumption and carbon footprint will attract the attention of government regulators. Of course, not all crypto-currencies are heavy polluters. But if the supply of cryptos is constrained by mining difficulties then they will require a lot of energy. If the supply is not constrained then the price will be low. Government Regulation Is Coming Environmental concerns point to the single greatest threat to crypto-currencies – the Leviathan, i.e. the state. In this sense the crypto market’s wild fluctuations on May 19, at the mere whiff of tougher Chinese regulation, are a sign of what is to come. Governments around the world have so far left crypto-currencies largely unregulated but this laissez-faire attitude is already changing. Environmental regulation has already been mentioned. Governments will also be eager to expand their regulatory powers to “protect” consumers, businesses, and banks from extreme volatility in crypto markets. But investors will underrate the regulatory threat if they focus on these issues. At the most basic level, governments around the world will not sit idly by and lose what could become significant control of their monetary systems. The ability to establish and control legal tender is a critical part of economic sovereignty. Governments won control of the printing press over centuries and will not cede that control lightly. If crypto-currencies are adopted widely, then finance ministries and central banks will lose their ability to manipulate the money supply and the general level of prices effectively. Politicians will lose the ability to stimulate the economy or keep inflation in check. Most importantly, while one may view such threats as overblown, it is governments, not other organizations, that will make the critical judgment on whether crypto-currencies threaten their sovereignty. Throughout the world, most crypto-currency exchanges are regulated to prevent money laundering. Crypto-currencies are not legal tender and, aside from Bitcoin, their use is mostly banned in China (Table 1). However, more specialized regulation that targets energy and economic use has yet to be brought into law across the world. Table 1World Governments Will Not Relinquish Hard-Fought Monopolies Over Money Supply In China, initial coin offerings (ICOs – the equivalent of an initial public offering on the stock market) and trading platforms are banned from engaging in exchanges between the yuan and crypto-currencies or tokens. In fact, China recognizes crypto-currencies only as virtual commodities or virtual property. India is another country where exchanges and ICOs are banned. While crypto-currencies are not banned, they are not legal tender. Indian policymakers have recently proposed banning crypto-currencies, however. The proposed legislation is one of the world’s strictest policies against crypto-currencies. It would criminalize possession, issuance, mining, trading, and transferring crypto-assets. If the ban becomes law, India would be the first major economy to make holding crypto-currency illegal. Even China, which has banned mining and trading, does not penalize possession. In the US, Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen has already expressed concerns regarding the illicit use of cryptos for supposed criminal gain.11 She is in alignment with European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde. Because of the anonymity of crypto-currencies, identifying users behind illicit transactions is difficult. This means regulators face headwinds in identifying transactions that are made for criminal gain, as compared to fiat transactions. Governments have long dealt with the anonymity of cash but they have ways of monitoring bank accounts and paper bills. Crypto-currencies are beyond their immediate sight of control and therefore will attract growing scrutiny and legislative action in this regard. The Colonial Pipeline ransomware attack on May 7, which temporarily shuttered about 45% of the fuel supply line for the eastern United States, illustrates the point. The DarkSide group of hackers who orchestrated the attack demanded a ransom payment of $4.4 million worth of Bitcoin, which Colonial Pipeline paid them on May 7. Shortly thereafter, unspecified “law enforcement agencies” clawed back the $4.4 million from the hackers’ account (transferring it to an unknown address) and DarkSide lost access to its payment server, DOS servers, and blog. This episode should not be underrated. It was a successful, large-scale cyber-attack on critical infrastructure in the world’s most powerful country. It highlighted the illicit uses to which crypto-currencies can be put. True, criminals demand ransoms in fiat money as well – and many crypto-currency operators will distance themselves from the criminal underworld. Nevertheless governments will give little slack to an emerging technology that presents big new law enforcement challenges and is not widely used by the general public. Ultimately governments will pursue their sovereign interests in controlling money, the economy, and trade, listening to their banking lobby, expanding their remit to “protect” consumers, and cracking down on illicit activity. Governments are not capable of abolishing crypto-currencies altogether, or the underlying technology of blockchain. But they will play a large and growing role in regulating them. Central Banks Advancing On Digital Currencies Central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) will leave crypto-currencies in the realm of speculative assets. CBDCs are a form of digital money denominated in a country’s national unit of account and represent a liability on a central bank’s balance sheet. This is different from current e-money that represents a claim on a private financial institution’s balance sheet. It is also different from crypto-currencies, because there is a central authority behind a CBDC, unlike with crypto-currencies due to their decentralized nature. In China, the People’s Bank of China (PBoC) has suggested its rollout of a digital yuan is “ready” despite no release to date. Beta testing is ongoing in several provinces. The PBoC’s justification for a digital yuan comes from China’s growing cashless economy. The transition away from cash is largely thanks to mobile payment platforms like Alibaba’s Alipay and Tencent’s WeChat Pay, which, between the two of them, control almost the entire mobile payments market of some 850 million users. There is a significant amount of systemic risk in this system – one reason why Chinese authorities have recently subjected these companies to new scrutiny and regulation. Should Alibaba or Tencent go bankrupt, the local payment system will crash. The PBoC’s efforts will increase competition in the local payments space and reduce this systemic risk. Policymakers are also concerned that as Chinese citizens choose to hold their money in digital wallets provided by Alibaba and Tencent instead of bank accounts, liquidity is being drained from the traditional banking system, putting deposit levels at banks under strain, and posing risks to liability matching. The digital yuan will still involve a third party, unlike crypto-currencies which do not. Doing away with commercial banks is not a reality – indeed the Chinese Communist Party seeks to buttress the state-owned commercial banks in order to maintain control of the economy. What the digital yuan does, and other CBDCs will do too, is utilize blockchain technology, which is faster and more secure than traditional payment networks. In the US, the Fed has been studying the viability of a CBDC US dollar. The Fed has stated that it is carefully exploring whether a CBDC will lead to “safer, less expensive, faster, or otherwise more efficient payments.” While the Fed has yet to find a single standout case for a CBDC US Dollar, Fed Chair Jerome Powell said last year that the US has a “competitive payments market” with “fast and cheap services, particularly in comparison to other nations exploring a CBDC.” To date, the Fed’s observation is that many of the challenges that CBDCs hope to address do not apply to the US, including disuse of physical cash, narrow reach or high concentration of banking, and weak infrastructure for payment systems. Rather, the Fed is more focused on developing the FedNow real-time payment system for private banks. This is much the same as in Europe, where physical cash still plays a major role in day-to-day economic activity and where local payment systems are fast and secure. But central banks around the world continue to engage in work centered around CBDCs (Charts 8A and 8B) – and China’s progress will encourage others to move faster. Advanced economies are mostly interested in creating a safer and more efficient payment system, while emerging and developed economies have interest across several areas such as financial stability, monetary policy setting, and inclusiveness of banking, as well as efficiency and safety (Chart 9). CBDCs are especially attractive to emerging market policy makers at targeting those who lack access to traditional banking. Chart 8ACentral Banks Advancing On CBDC Work Chart 8BCentral Banks Advancing On CBDC Work Chart 9Central Banks CBDC Interest Areas In remote areas, access to banking is scarce and expensive. CBDCs can help solve this problem. Individuals would have CBDC accounts directly on a central bank ledger. They could then access their money and transact through a digital wallet application that is linked to the CBDC account. Giving people access to digital currency would allow them to transact quickly, in remote settings, without the need of hard currency. Monetary policy transmission is also better in advanced economies. In emerging markets, there are bottlenecks in local financial markets. Looser central monetary policy does not always translate into cheaper financing across the economy. In remote and poverty stricken areas, monetary policy transmission is sticky, meaning high costs of borrowing can persist even through accommodative policy cycles. This is a smaller issue in advanced economies. Payment systems in advanced economies are due an overhaul in security and efficiency, and CBDCs and blockchain technology will provide this. CBDCs will prove to be just as efficient to transact with as any crypto-currencies available today. CBDCs will also be legal tender and accepted by all vendors. The anonymity factor will be lost but this will not be a problem for most users (whereas legal issues will become a problem for crypto-currencies). The probability of central banks issuing CBDCs in both the short and medium term, both in the retail and wholesale space, is rising. If advanced economies like those of the G7 issue CBDCs soon, policy makers will undoubtedly ensure the use of it over the currently circulating and partially accepted crypto-currencies. The endgame will leave crypto-currencies in the highly speculative asset class, perhaps even in the black market where anonymity is valued for transactions that wish not to be tracked. Investment Takeaways Prices of crypto-currencies may continue to rise given sky-high fiat money creation amid the COVID pandemic and ultra-low interest rates. Digitalization is the natural next step in the evolution of money from precious metals to paper banknotes to electronic coin. But the market leader, Bitcoin, is encountering more headwinds. The primary case for the use of Bitcoin is challenged due to slowing transaction speeds and rising transaction costs. The virtual currency is primarily mined using coal-powered energy, resulting in growing scrutiny from governments and consumers. Government regulation is entering the ring and policymakers will take an increasingly heavy-handed role in trying to ensure that cryptos do not undermine economic sovereignty, financial stability, and law and order. When central banks begin to rollout digital currencies, especially those domiciled in advanced economies, crypto-currencies as medium of exchange will lose much of their allure. Crypto-currencies will remain as anti-fiat currencies and speculative assets. Risks To The View Given the controversy surrounding crypto-currencies, it is only fair to state outright the risks to our view. We would also recommend clients read our colleague Dhaval Joshi’s latest bullish take on Bitcoin. First, scaling up Bitcoin’s network and processing transactions in batches instead of single transactions will resolve transaction time and cost risks, restoring efficiency. This is a clear solution to efficiency concerns. However, scaling and batching transactions are not on the immediate horizon of Bitcoin developers. Bitcoin’s network will still need to undergo another “halving” in order for this risk to subside and for the network to scale. A halving of the network will only occur again in 2024.12 Second, on the environment: Bitcoin mining is not solely dependent on fossil fuel energy that gives it a “dirty” footprint. Renewables already make up some 25% of Bitcoin mining. Increasing the use of renewables in Bitcoin’s energy mix will help lower its environmental impact. However, this is easier said than done. Global renewable energy has yet to scale up to a point where it can consistently out-supply existing fossil-fuel energy. Mining hardware also has its associated carbon footprint that would need to be addressed. And location matters too. Crypto-currency mining farms are large-scale projects. Simply uprooting operations to a country that could lower the carbon footprint of a mining farm or two is not viable due to the costs involved. Hence crypto-currency mining will probably continue to be a “dirty” operation but a rapid shift to renewables would challenge our thesis. Bitcoin’s network is also based off a “proof of work” protocol. Miners must prove that a certain amount of computational effort has been expended for confirming blocks on the network, allowing transactions to be processed. Proof of work is energy intensive. Other crypto-currencies, like Ethereum, will adopt a “proof of stake” protocol. Simply put, transactions are confirmed by users and their stake in the associated crypto-currency. Proof of stake is less energy intensive compared to proof of work. Third, as to government regulation, the longer policymakers take to enact legislation targeting crypto-currencies, the larger their market will grow. Regulation in China and India may set a benchmark for major economies but not all will follow in the Asian giants’ footsteps. Some governments have been slow to study crypto-currencies, meaning legislation aimed at governing or regulating them may still be long in coming. Innovation is a good thing and free economies will not wish to restrain crypto-currencies or blockchain technology unduly, for fear of missing out. Fourth, on CBDCs, some central banks may only adopt them based on their respective economic needs. However, rising crypto-currency populism drives associated economic risks which can force the hands of central banks to adopt CBDCs in lieu of said needs. Each country faces unique challenges. Some central banks may not want to be left behind even if they believe their policy framework is facilitating economic activity efficiently. While the Fed has stated that it will not adopt a CBDC for the primary reason of ensuring payment security since it believes it already has a safe system in place, this view will change. The Fed could justify a move to a CBDC US dollar on the single basis of transitioning to a more sophisticated technology for the future. The Fed will not want to be caught behind the curve considering the PBoC is priming its digital yuan for release soon. Technological leadership is a strategic imperative of the United States and that imperative applies to financial technology as well as other areas.   Guy Russell Research Analyst GuyR@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Muyao Shen, “China Reiterates Crypto Bans From 2013 and 2017”, coindesk, May 18, 2021, coindesk.com. 2 As of May 11, 2021. 3 There are several other reasons or “problems” that crypto-currencies are created for or to solve, but speed and privacy form the basis of crypto-currencies first coming into existence. 4 Not all crypto-currencies transact in less than an hour. But there are many that transact in several minutes and in some cases, mere seconds. As the leading crypto-currency, Bitcoin takes approximately one hour for a transaction to be fully verified over its network. 5 “McKinsey’s Global Banking Annual Review”, McKinsey, Dec. 9, 2020, mckinsey.com. 6 We use Bitcoin as an example to understand the risk and impact of forthcoming government regulation and competition. Because of Bitcoin’s status, any significant risks that threaten the crypto-currency’s standing as the number one currency will threaten the entire market. 7 As of May 20, 2021. Figure varies daily. See www.coinmarketcap.com for more information. 8 Alternative currencies such as Ethereum, Ripple, Binance Coin, Dogecoin, and Cardano have chipped away at Bitcoin’s crypto-market dominance through 2021. 9 According to The Center For Alternative Finance, The University Of Cambridge. 10 According to The Center For Alternative Finance, The University Of Cambridge. 11 Data on the use of crypto-currencies for illicit activitiessays otherwise. Of all crypto-currency transactions, it is estimated that only 2.1% are used for illicit activities. See “2021 Crypto Crime Report”, Chainalysis, chainalysis.com. 12 A Bitcoin halving is when the reward for mining Bitcoin transactions is cut in half. This event also cuts Bitcoin's inflation rate and the rate at which new Bitcoins enter circulation, in half. Bitcoin last halved on May 11, 2020.

Highlights Global oil markets will remain balanced this year with OPEC 2.0's production-management strategy geared toward maintaining the level of supply just below demand.  This will keep inventories on a downward trajectory, despite short-term upticks due to COVID-19-induced demand hits in EM economies and marginal supply additions from Iran and Libya over the near term. Our 2021 oil demand growth is lower – ~ 5.3mm b/d y/y, down ~ 800k from last month's estimate – given persistent weakness in realized consumption.  We have lifted our demand expectation for 2022 and 2023, however, expecting wider global vaccine distribution and increased travel toward year-end. The next few months are critical for OPEC 2.0: The trajectory for EM demand recovery will remain uncertain until vaccines are more widely distributed, and supply from Iran and Libya likely will increase this year.  This will lead to a slight bump in inventories this year, incentivizing KSA and Russia to maintain the status quo on the supply side. We are raising our 2021 Brent forecast back to $63/bbl from $60/bbl, and lifting our 2022 and 2023 forecasts to $75 and $78/bbl, respectively, given our expectation for a wider global recovery (Chart of the Week). Feature A number of evolving fundamental factors on both sides of the oil market – i.e., lingering uncertainty over the return of Iranian and Libyan exports and the strength of the global demand recovery – will test what we believe to be OPEC 2.0's production-management strategy in the next few months. Briefly, our maintained hypothesis views OPEC 2.0 as the dominant supplier in the global oil market. This is due to the low-cost production of its core members (i.e., those states able to attract capital and grow production), and its overwhelming advantage in spare capacity, which we reckon will average in excess of 7mm b/d this year, owing to the massive production cuts undertaken to drain inventories during the COVID-19 pandemic. Formidable storage assets globally – positioned in or near refining centers – and well-developed transportation infrastructures also support this position. We estimate core OPEC 2.0 production will average 26.58mm b/d this year and 29.43mm b/d in 2022 (Chart 2). Chart of the WeekBrent Prices Likely Correct Then Move Higher in 2022-23 Chart 2OPEC 2.0 Will Maintain Status Quo The putative leaders of the OPEC 2.0 coalition – the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia – have distinctly different goals. KSA's preference is for higher prices – ~ $70-$75/bbl (basis Brent) to the end of 2022. Higher prices are needed to fund the Kingdom's diversification away from oil. Russia's goal is to keep prices closer to the marginal cost of the US shale-oil producers, who we characterize as the exemplar of the price-taking cohort outside OPEC 2.0, which produces whatever the market allows. This range is ~ $50-$55/bbl. The sweet spot that accommodates these divergent goals is on either side of $65/bbl for this year. OPEC 2.0 June 1 Meeting Will Maintain Status Quo With Brent trading close to $70/bbl, discussions in the run-up to OPEC 2.0's June 1 meeting likely are focused on the necessity to increase the 2.1mm b/d being returned to the market over the May-July period. At present, we do not believe this will be necessary: Iran likely will be returning to the market beginning in 3Q21, and will top up its production from ~ 2.4mm b/d in April to ~ 3.85mm b/d by year-end, in our estimation. Any volumes returned to the market by core OPEC 2.0 in excess of what's already been agreed going into the June 1 meeting likely will come out of storage on an as-needed basis. Libya will likely lift its current production of ~ 1.3mm b/d close to 1.5mm b/d by year end as well. We are expecting the price-taking cohort ex-OPEC 2.0 to increase production from 53.78mm b/d in April to 53.86mm b/d in December, led by a 860k b/d increase in US output, which will take average Lower 48 output in the US (ex-GOM) to 9.15mm b/d by the end of this year (Chart 3). When we model shale output, our expectation is driven by the level of prompt WTI prices and the shape of the forward curve. The backwardation in the WTI forward curve will limit hedged revenues at the margin, which will limit the volume growth of the marginal producer. We expect global production to slowly increase next year, and the year after that, with supply averaging 101.07mm b/d in 2022 and 103mm b/d in 2023.  Chart 3US Crude Output Recovers, Then Tapers in 2023 Demand Should Lift, But Uncertainties Persist We expect the slowdown in realized DM demand to reverse in 2H21, and for oil demand to continue to recover in 2H21 as the US and EU re-open and travel picks up. This can be seen in our expectation for DM demand, which we proxy with OECD oil consumption (Chart 4). EM demand – proxied by non-OECD oil consumption – is expected to revive over 2022-23 as vaccine distribution globally picks up. As a result, demand growth shifts to EM, while DM levels off. China's refinery throughput in April came within 100k b/d of the record 14.2mm b/d posted in November 2020 (Chart 5). The marginal draw in April stockpiles could also signify that as crude prices have risen higher, the world’s largest oil importer may have hit the brakes on bringing oil in. In the chart, oil stored or drawn is calculated as the difference between what is imported and produced with what is processed in refineries. With refinery maintenance in high gear until the end of this month, we expect product-stock draws to remain strong on the back of domestic and export demand. This will draw inventories while maintenance continues. Chart 4EM Demand Will Recovery Accelerates in 2022-23 Chart 8China Refinery Runs Remain Strong COVID-19-induced demand destruction remains a persistent risk, particularly in India, Brazil and Japan. This is visible in the continued shortfall in realized demand vs our expectation so far this year. We lowered our 2021 oil demand growth estimate to ~ 5.3mm b/d y/y, which is down ~ 800k from last month's estimate, given persistent weakness in realized consumption. Our demand forecast for 2022 and 2023 is higher, however, based on our expectation for stronger GDP growth in EM economies, following the DM's outperformance this year, on the back of wider global vaccine distribution year-end (Table 1). Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) Our supply-demand estimates continue to point to a balanced market this year and into 2022-23 (Chart 6). Given our expectation OPEC 2.0's production-management strategy will remain effective, we expect inventories to continue to draw (Chart 7). Chart 6Markets Remained Balanced Chart 7Inventories Continue To Draw CAPEX Cuts Bite In 2023 In 2023, we are expecting Brent to end the year closer to $80/bbl than not, which will put prices outside the current range we believe OPEC 2.0 is managing its production around (Chart 8). We have noted in the past continued weakness in capex over the 2015-2022 period threatens to leave the global market exposed to higher prices (Chart 9). Over time, a reluctance to invest in oil and gas exploration and production prices in 2024 and beyond could begin to take off as demand – which does not have to grow more than 1% p.a. – continues to expand and supply remains flat or declines. Chart 8By 2023 Brent Trades to /bbl Chart 9Low Capex Likely Results In Higher Prices After 2023 Bottom Line: We are raising our 2021 forecast back to an average of $63/bbl, and our forecasts for 2022 and 2023 to $75 and $78/bbl. We expect DM demand to lead the recovery this year, and for EM to take over next year, and resume its role as the growth engine for oil demand. Longer term, parsimonious capex allocations likely result in tighter supply meeting slowly growing demand. At present, markets appear to be placing a large bet on the buildout of renewable electricity generation and electric vehicles (EVs). If this does not occur along the trajectory of rapid expansion apparently being priced by markets – i.e., the demand for oil continues to expand, however slowly – oil prices likely would push through $80/bbl in 2024 and beyond.   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 The Colonial Pipeline outage pushed average retail gasoline prices in the US to $3.03/gal earlier this week, according to the EIA. This was the highest level for regular-grade gasoline in the US since 27 October 2014. According to reuters.com, the cyberattack that shut down the 5,500-mile pipeline was the most disruptive on record, shutting down thousands of retail service stations in the US southeast. Millions of barrels of refined products – gasoline, diesel and jet fuel – were unable to flow between the US Gulf and the NY Harbor because of the attack, which was launched 7 May 2021 (Chart 10). While most of the system is up and running, problems with the pipeline's scheduling system earlier this week prevented a return to full operation. Base Metals: Bullish Spot copper prices remained on either side of $4.55/lb (~ $10,000/MT) by mid-week following a dip from the $4.80/lb level (Chart 11). We remain bullish copper, particularly as political risk in Chile rises going into a constitutional convention. According to press reports, the country's constitution will be re-written, a process that likely will pave the way for higher taxes and royalties on copper producers.1 In addition, unions in BHP mines rejected a proposed labor agreement, with close to 100% of members voting to strike. In Peru, a socialist presidential candidate is campaigning on a platform to raise taxes and royalties. Precious Metals: Bullish According to the World Platinum Investment Council, platinum is expected to run a deficit for the third consecutive year in 2021, which will amount to 158k oz, on the back of strong demand. Refined production is projected to increase this year, with South Africa driving this growth as mines return to full operational capacity after COVID-19 related shutdowns. Automotive demand is leading the charge in higher metal consumption, as car makers switch out more expensive palladium for platinum to make autocatalysts in internal-combustion vehicles. Ags/Softs: Neutral Corn prices continued to be better-offered following last week's WASDE report, which contained the department's first look at the 2021-22 crop year. Corn production is expected to be up close to 6% over the 2020-21 crop year, at just under 15 billion bushels. On the week, corn prices are down ~ 15.3%. Chart 10 Chart 11     Footnotes 1     Please see Copper price rises as Chile fuels long-term supply concerns published 18 May 2021 by mining.com. 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 IEAの最新予測によれば、2021–22年の期間における世界の発電設備増加のうち、再生可能エネルギーの設備容量が90％を占める見込みです。これは、昨年追加された再生可能エネルギーの発電設備容量が前年同期比で45％増加したこと（COVID-19パンデミック下でも発生した）を受けたものです（今週のチャート）。 再生可能エネルギーと電気自動車（EV）への継続的な投資、および世界経済の回復により、銀行や商社の銅価格予測は1トンあたり約13,000～20,000ドルのレンジに引き上げられつつあり、現在の約10,600ドル/トン（約4.80ドル/ポンド）と比べて高い水準となっています。 これらのより強い金属価格見通しが的中すれば、カーボン回収やサーキュラー利用技術を通じて化石燃料の低炭素利用を延長する投資の魅力が高まるでしょう。 これらの技術への投資は、投資を評価するための明確な世界的参照価格が存在しないため限定的でした。カーボン市場や炭素税がそのような基準を提供すれば投資は加速します。これはカーボン・マーケット・クラブを通じて監視でき、税を公表し徴収する加盟国に取引を限定します。1 特集 IEAの最新の再生可能エネルギーに関するアップデートによれば、昨年の再生可能エネルギーの設備容量増加はほぼ280GWで、前年同期比45％増と1999年以来の最大の伸びでした。2 今年および来年については、再生可能エネルギーが設備容量増加の90％を占めると見込まれており、特に太陽光PVへの投資は約50％増の162GWに達すると予想されています。風力は昨年90％増の114GWにまで成長し、2022年末までに約50％増加する見込みです。 再生可能エネルギーの発電量の増加と電気自動車（EV）への投資の拡大に伴い、バルク（鉄鋼および鉄鉱石）や、銅を先頭とするベースメタルの需要が価格を押し上げるでしょう。これは、2020年末までの4年間で供給の伸びが停滞し物理的な不足が続いた背景のもとで起きています（チャート2）。IEAによれば、2020年9月から2021年3月の期間で鉄鋼および銅価格が40％上昇したことが、太陽光PVモジュール価格上昇の一因となりました。 今週のチャート 再生可能エネルギー設備容量の急増 金属価格の急騰とカーボンキャプチャーの必要性 金属価格の急騰とカーボンキャプチャーの必要性 我々の評価では、銅市場の供給側は今年と来年も不足が続く見込みであり、Wood Mackenzieが想定するように、今後20年間で需要が年率約2％で成長し、鉱山事業者が需要に見合う設備投資（capex）に踏み切らない場合、この傾向は継続する可能性があります。3 チャート2 物理的な赤字が銅の在庫を引き下げる... 現物不足が銅在庫を取り崩す… 現物不足が銅在庫を取り崩す… 銅や、再生可能エネルギーの構築やインフラに必要な他の金属に関するESGリスクは、価格上昇に伴って高まり、コストを押し上げます。4 こうしたコスト上昇とESGリスクの増大は、我々の見解ではカーボン回収やサーキュラーエコノミー技術への投資魅力を高めます。これにより、もし技術が世界をネットゼロの方向へ近づけられるなら、低炭素の化石燃料の利用期間を延長することが可能になります。しかし、政府の政策がこの投資を誘発しない限り—例えば世界的なカーボン取引価格や炭素税を通じて—、これら技術への投資は低迷し続ける可能性が高いでしょう。 カーボン回収技術の果たせなかった約束 カーボン回収・利用・貯留（CCUS）の歴史は、高い期待と達成されない期待の繰り返しでした。気候変動緩和の手段として一般に認識されているものの、その導入は期待ほど速く進んでいません。 低炭素技術は化石燃料に基づく技術に比べてより多くの重要金属を必要とします（チャート3）。コストの問題に加え、再生可能エネルギー移行のために金属採掘が増えれば、採掘に伴うESGリスクも増大します。これについては当社の過去のリサーチで議論しました。5 Wood Mackenzieによれば、低炭素世界への移行を支えるのに必要な金属供給のために、鉱業会社は今後15年でほぼ1.7兆ドルの投資を行う必要があると推計しています。6 チャート3 低炭素技術は金属集約的である 金属価格の急騰とカーボン・キャプチャーの意義 金属価格の急騰とカーボン・キャプチャーの意義 こうした金属に関する差し迫った物理的需要を考えると、市場が現在織り込んでいるよりも長い期間、化石燃料が橋渡しとして使われるか、あるいは炭素をハイドロカーボンから除去する技術の成功度合いに応じて将来の一部として使われ続ける可能性が高いと言えます。そうであるならば、移行期において化石燃料を使い続けつつその環境影響を軽減するには、CO2やその他の温室効果ガス（GHG）排出を低減するための高度に焦点を絞った技術が必要になります。 そこでCCUS技術です：この技術は、化石燃料やバイオマスを用いて現代社会に必要なエネルギーを生産する過程で発生するCO2を捕捉します。現在の形態では、CO2は圧縮されて輸送されるか、地質構造や海洋貯留層に貯留されます。これを増進回収（EOR）に利用して、炭化水素を含む貯留層にCO2を注入することで採取が困難な油を抽出することも可能です。7 CCUS投資の余地 CCUSへの投資支出は増加しており、この技術を利用または実証する予定の施設数も増えています。IEAの『Energy Technology Perspectives 2020』の2020年版では、2017年以降に30件の新しい統合型CCUS施設が発表され、主に米国や欧州など先進国で進められているが、一部の新興国でも計画があると指摘しています。2020年時点で計画が高度な段階にあるプロジェクトは合計で270億ドルに相当し、2017年時点の計画投資の2倍以上となっています（チャート4）。 パリ協定の多くの目的の一つは、21世紀後半に人工的な排出と温室効果ガス（GHG）吸収（シンク）による除去との間でバランスを取ることです。実務的には、多くの国、特に新興国はこの期間中に開発のために化石燃料を使用し続ける必要があるでしょう（チャート5）。8 チャート4 ここまでのカーボン回収プロジェクト 急騰する金属価格とカーボンキャプチャーの必要性 急騰する金属価格とカーボンキャプチャーの必要性 チャート5 新興国の開発には化石燃料エネルギーが必要になる 高騰する金属価格とカーボン・キャプチャー導入の必要性 高騰する金属価格とカーボン・キャプチャー導入の必要性 エネルギー分野におけるCCUS 石炭に比べてGHG排出が少ない燃料、すなわち石炭のCO2の半分程度しか排出しない天然ガスは、グリーン発電への橋渡し（ブリッジ）として有効に使うことができます（チャート6）。 チャート6 天然ガスはブリッジ燃料として引き続き魅力的である 金属価格の急騰とカーボン・キャプチャ導入の必要性 金属価格の急騰とカーボン・キャプチャ導入の必要性 天然ガス中のCO2は、パイプライン品質のガスやLNGとして販売される前に除去する必要があります。通常、このCO2は大気中に放出されますが、CCUS技術を用いることで地質貯留層へ再注入し、増進回収（EOR）に利用することができます。このため、世界最大のLNG輸出国である米国のLNG企業は、より環境に配慮した事業運営を目指してCCUS技術への投資を検討しています。9 CCUSはまた、天然ガスや石炭を用いて低コストの水素（いわゆるブルー水素）を生産するためにも利用できます。これは再生可能エネルギー由来の電力を用いる電気分解による「グリーン水素」よりもコストが低く、ブルー水素の低コスト化は新興国にクリーンな水素を普及させ、脱炭素化に向けた新たな利用経路を開く可能性があります。 その他産業におけるCCUSの価値 CCUS技術は既存の発電所や産業プラントに後付けで導入することが可能であり、IEAによれば、そうでなければ2050年に約80億トンのCO2を排出し続ける可能性があるとされ、これは2020年のエネルギー部門の年間排出量のおよそ4分の1に相当します。 化石燃料を燃焼する発電所のうち、石炭火力発電は最大のCO2課題を抱えています。排出の大部分は中国やその他のアジア新興国から生じており、平均設備年齢は20年未満です。米国規制委員会協会によれば石炭火力発電所の平均寿命は40年であるため、これらの発電所は残存稼働年数が長く、2050年まで稼働し続ける可能性があります。既存の発電所や産業プラントを廃止したり用途変更したりする代替手段として、CCUSは唯一の選択肢となり得ます。 IEAは、ネットゼロ炭素排出を達成するにはCCUSが不可欠であると考えています。同機関のSustainable Development Scenarioでは、エネルギー部門からの世界のCO2排出が2070年までにネットゼロに減少するシナリオにおいて、CCUSは累積排出削減の15％を占めます。もし世界が2050年までにネットゼロを達成する必要がある場合、ほぼ50％多いCCUSの導入が必要となります。10 適切に実装・拡大されれば、CCUSは産業が石油、ガス、石炭を使い続けつつネットゼロ目標を達成することを可能にし、中期的には化石燃料需要を後押しする可能性があります。これは特に新興国の開発にとって重要です。 なぜCCUSはもっと進んでいないのか？何ができるか？ CCUSが広く使われていない主な理由はコストです。 現在、CO2を捕捉するコストはCO2濃度に基づいて変動し、直接空気回収（Direct Air Capture）が最も高価です（チャート7）。こうした高コストのために、CCUSは商業的に成立していません。 ただし、同じ議論は再生可能エネルギー導入に対してもかつては成り立ちました。かつて再生可能エネルギーの平準化発電コストは高価でしたが、政府補助金による拡大とスケールアップにより、ムーアの法則的なコスト低下曲線に沿ってコストは下がりました。Lazard Ltd.が報告する技術横断比較が可能な太陽光発電の平準化発電コストでは、2009年から2019年にかけて発電コストが89％低下し、359ドル/MWhから40ドル/MWhになりました（チャート8）。この学習曲線は、太陽光技術の導入を促進した政府補助金によって可能になりました。 チャート7 CCUSは高コストになり得る 金属価格の急騰とカーボンキャプチャーの必要性 金属価格の急騰とカーボンキャプチャーの必要性 チャート8 太陽光と同様に補助金がCCUSを支援し得る 補助金は、太陽光発電で行われたのと同様にCCUSを支援できる 補助金は、太陽光発電で行われたのと同様にCCUSを支援できる CCUS技術のコストは低下しています。例えば、2019年にGlobal CCS Instituteは、カナダのBoundary Damで2014年に稼働したCCSユニットでの捕捉コストが1トン当たり100ドルであったと報告しました。3年後に建設された米国のPetra Novaで、改良技術を用いた捕捉コストは1トン当たり65ドルでした。いずれも石炭火力発電所です。報告書はまた、Boundary DamやPetra Novaと同様のCCS技術を用いて2024–28年に稼働開始予定の石炭火力発電所では、学習曲線の進展、研究、規模の経済による資本コスト低下、デジタル化などにより1トン当たり約43ドルになると見込まれていると指摘しました。これらのコスト削減の共通点の一つは、企業がCCUSにより多く投資し、この技術に慣れ親しむ必要があるという点です。 再生可能エネルギーの事例と同様に、政府補助金はCCUSの運用コストの参入障壁を下げ、この技術の改良への参加を促します。初期の先駆的なCCUSは高価ですが、資本支援や税額控除といった補助によりCCUSの実装と研究は増加します。Boundary DamとPetra Novaは政府補助金の恩恵を受けた例であり、CCSユニット建設時にそれぞれカナダ政府および米国の機関から1億7,000万ドルと2億ドルの支援を受けました。 米国はまた45Q税額控除制度を導入しており、貯留されたCO2に対しては1トン当たり50ドル、増進回収のような用途で使用されたCO2に対しては1トン当たり35ドルを施設に支払います。Global CCS Instituteによれば、2019年末時点で米国に追加された8件の新しいCCUSプロジェクトのうち4件は、45Qの存在を主要な推進要因として挙げていました。 カーボン市場と炭素税の活用 2005年に導入されたEUの排出権取引制度（ETS）は、企業に市場の力を使って排出削減を促す革新的な政策の一例です。これらの市場で計測される炭素価格は、これまで記録されてこなかった負の外部性に具体的な価値を与えます。ETSの欠点は、長期の需給分析や計画を複雑にする政策変更に左右されるEUの環境政策実施に依存している点です。例えば、最近の目標引き上げでは2030年までに温室効果ガス排出を少なくとも55％削減することが掲げられました。 排出権の政策主導トレードに代わる手段としては、政府が課し徴収する排出量当たりの炭素税があります。これにより、鉱業で使用されるような化石燃料を用いる技術のコストが上昇し、再生可能エネルギー移行に必要なバルクやベースメタルの供給を増やすための技術を供給・使用する企業にCCUSなどでCO2を削減するインセンティブが与えられます。 ETS市場と政府によるCO2課税は、ウィリアム・ノードハウス（2018年ノーベル経済学賞受賞者）が提唱した技術であるカーボン・マーケット・クラブを形成することができます。これにより、加盟国がパリ協定で求められる実際の削減を取引や税制で示し参加していることを実証できる国に取引を限定できます。11 グリーンエネルギー移行が勢いを増し、各国がネットゼロ政策を実施するにつれて、炭素の価格は上昇するでしょう。炭素価格が上がると、企業の排出に関連するコスト負担が増加します。市場参加者が炭素価格が記録的水準に達した後も上昇を続けると見込む中で、EUで事業を行う企業にとってCCUS技術を採用するインセンティブは強まり、炭素税に直面する企業にとっても同様に導入の動機が高まります。12 要点： 緑の金属価格の急騰、設備投資の不足、そして低炭素未来のために採掘される金属に伴うESGリスクを踏まえると、我々は市場の織り込み以上に化石燃料が低炭素社会への移行で大きな役割を果たすと予想します。各国が気候目標を達成しつつ化石燃料を利用できるようにするためには、CCUS技術の利用が重要です。CCUSの普及を高めるためには、再生可能エネルギーの事例にならい、需要が確立するまで政府がこの技術を補助する必要があります。また、ETSや炭素税の導入促進も行動を触発するために必要です。   Robert P. Ryan チーフ・コモディティ＆エネルギー・ストラテジスト rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam リサーチ・アソシエイト コモディティ＆エネルギー戦略 ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com     コモディティ概況 エネルギー： 強気 記事作成時点で、ブレント原油価格は70ドル/バレルの水準に迫っていました。これはIEAが2021年後半の強い需要回復を評価したことを受けた動きです（チャート9）。IEAは2021年前半の需要増加見通しを27万b/d引き下げましたが、インドやOECDアメリカ、欧州でのCOVID-19による需要減少が主因であり、後半の見積りは維持しており、今年の総需要増は540万b/dとしています。EIAも今年の需要増を540万b/d、来年は370万b/dと見込んでいます。OPECは2021年通年の需要増を600万b/dのまま維持しました。OPEC 2.0は6月1日に再び会合し、我々の見立てでは市場により多くのサイドライン生産を戻すことを検討するでしょう。来週のレポートで需給バランスと価格見通しを更新する予定です。 ベースメタル： 強気 記事作成時点で、CME/COMEXのスポット銅価格はおおむね4.80ドル/ポンド付近で推移していました。チリでの増税の脅威（そのような税を求める法案が議会を通過しつつあること）、鉱山労働者のストライキの可能性、そして採鉱で使用される硫酸の不足（パンデミックによる製油所の稼働減少が原因で世界的に硫黄供給が減少したことによる）などが、ブルームバーグによれば銅を強く買われた状態にしています。当社の12月限COMEX銅の目標は5ドル/ポンド（LMEで約11,000ドル/トン）です。物理的な供給不足が在庫取り崩しを強い続け、金利構造をバックワーディテートさせると予想しているため、当社は2022年カレンダー物のCOMEX銅をロング、2023年をショートのポジションを継続しています。 貴金属： 強気 水曜日の米国のCPIデータは、4月の総合インフレ率が前年同月比で4.2％上昇したことを示しました。これは2008年以来の高水準ですが、この上昇はベース効果（昨年の同時期にパンデミックで物価が下落していたため）による部分もあると考えられます。物価上昇は金をインフレヘッジとしての需要を高めますが、もしこのデータを受けてFRBが金利を引き上げれば米ドル高となり、金価格にはマイナスに働きます（チャート10）。ただし我々はFRBがこの報告で指針を急激に転換するとは予想しておらず、中銀がこの一時的な上振れと扱うと見ています。昨日の終値時点でCOMEXの金は1,835.9ドル/オンスで取引されていました。 農産物／ソフト商品： 中立 記事作成時点で、シカゴ大豆市場は水曜日に発表予定のWorld Agriculture Supply and Demand Estimates（WASDE）レポートを前に上昇していました。先物の期近は約16.70ドル/ブッシェルで、日中で2％上昇していました。今月のWASDEには、2021/22作付年に対するUSDAの初の需要見積りが含まれ、需要の強まりにより供給が引き締まるとの見通しが市場で予想されています。 チャート9 ブレント価格が上昇中 ブレント価格が上昇中 チャート10 新型コロナの不確実性が金の需要を押し上げる可能性がある 新型コロナの不確実性が金の需要を押し上げる可能性がある   脚注 1     詳細はWorld Bankが2016年7月に公表したカーボン・マーケット・クラブと新パリ体制を参照してください。こうした技術の知的および計算の枠組みは、2018年ノーベル経済学賞受賞者のウィリアム・ノードハウスによって開発されました。 2     今週IEAが公表した再生可能エネルギー市場アップデート、2021年および2022年の見通し.pdfを参照してください。 3    WoodMacは「追加の大規模な投資がない限り、2024年以降生産は減少する。需要の伸びと相まって、この生産減少は理論的には2040年までに約16Mtの不足をもたらすだろう」と指摘しています。コンサルタントは、この期間の銅需要を満たすためにさらに3,250億～5,000億ドル以上の投資が必要になると見積もっています。詳細は供給成長の欠如は銅業界にしっぺ返しをもたらすか？（woodmac.com、2021年3月23日）をご覧ください。 4    当社が2021年4月29日に公表した需要拡大に伴う再生可能エネルギーのESGリスクの増大を参照してください。ces.bcaresearch.comで入手可能です。 5    脚注4を参照してください。 6    Reutersが公表した低炭素世界には1.7兆ドルの鉱業投資が必要をご覧ください。 7     この方法は石油生産を増加させるために用いられます。炭化水素の特性を変え、貯留層圧力を回復し、貯留層内での油の置換を促進します。EORを用いることで、石油会社は貯留層中の原油原始埋蔵量の30％から60％を回収することができます。詳細は米国エネルギー省が公表する増進回収をご覧ください。 8    ReutersのコラムCO2排出制限と経済開発を参照してください。 9    World Oilの記事米国のLNG業者はグリーンなイメージ向上のためにカーボン回収を唱えるをご覧ください。 10   IEAのカーボン回収・利用・貯留に関する特別報告（Energy Technology Perspectives 2020の一部）をご覧ください。 11    上の脚注1を参照してください。 12    Financial Timesの記事EUで汚染のコストが急騰、炭素価格が記録的な€50に達するを参照してください。 投資見解とテーマ 戦略的推奨事項 タクティカル・トレード コモディティ価格および取引参考表 2021年にクローズした取引 クローズした取引の要約 より高いインフレが到来 より高いインフレが到来

Highlights Rising CO2 emissions on the back of stronger global energy growth this year will keep energy markets focused on expanding ESG risks in the buildout of renewable generation via metals mining (Chart of the Week).   EM energy demand is expected to grow 3.4% this year vs. 2019 levels and will account for ~ 70% of global energy demand growth.  Demand in DM economies will fall 3% this year vs 2019 levels.  Overall, global demand is expected to recover all the ground lost to the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the IEA.  Rising energy demand will be met by higher fossil-fuel use, with coal demand increasing by more than total renewables generation this year and accounting for more than half of global energy demand growth. Demand for renewable power will increase by 8,300 TWh (8%) this year, the largest y/y increase recorded by the IEA.  As renewables generation is built out, demand for bulks (iron ore and steel) and base metals will increase.1  Building that new energy supply will contribute to rising CO2, particularly in the renewables' supply chains. Feature Energy demand will recover much of the ground lost to the COVID-19 pandemic last year, according to the IEA.2 Most of this is down to successful rollouts of vaccination programs in systemically important economies – e.g., China, the US and the UK – and the massive fiscal and monetary stimulus deployed to carry the global economy through the pandemic. The risk of further lockdowns and uncontrolled spread of variants of the virus remains high, but, at present, progress continues to be made and wider vaccine distribution can be expected. The IEA expects a global recovery in energy demand of 4.6% this year, which will put total demand at ~ 0.5% above 2019 levels. The global rebound will be led by EM economies, where demand is expected to grow 3.4% this year vs. 2019 levels and will account for ~ 70% of global energy demand growth. Energy demand in DM economies will fall 3% this year vs 2019 levels. Overall, global demand is expected to recover all the ground lost to the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the IEA. Chart of the WeekGlobal CO2 Emissions Will Rebound Post-COVID-19 Coal demand will lead the rebound in fossil-fuel use, which is expected to account for more than total renewables demand globally this year, covering more than half of global energy demand growth. This will push CO2 emissions up by 5% this year. Asia coal demand – led by China's and India's world-leading coal-plant buildout over the past 20 years – will account for 80% of world demand (Chart 2). Chart 2China, India Lead Coal-Fired Generation Buildout Demand for renewable power will post its biggest year-on-year gain on record, increasing by 8,300 TWh (8%) this year. This increase comes at the back of roughly a decade of an increasing share of electricity from renewables globally (Chart 3). As renewables generation is built out, demand for bulks (iron ore and steel) and base metals will increase.3 Building that new energy supply will contribute to rising CO2, particularly in the renewables' supply chains. Chart 3Share of Electricity From Renewables Has Been Increasing ESG Risks Increase With Renewables Buildout Governments have pledged to invest vast sums of money into the green energy transition, to reduce fossil fuels consumption and deforestation, thus curbing temperature increases. In addition, banks have pledged trillions will be made available to support the buildout of renewable technologies over the coming years. The World Bank, under the most ambitious scenarios considered (IEA ETP B2DS and IRENA REmap), projects that renewables, will make up approximately 90% of the installed electricity generation capacity up to 2050. This analysis excludes oil, biomass and tidal energy. (Chart 4). Building these renewable energy sources will be extremely mineral intensive (Chart 5). Chart 4Renewables Potential Is Huge … While we have highlighted issues such as a lack of mining capex and decreasing ore grades in past research – both of which can be addressed by higher metals and minerals prices – the environmental, social and governance (ESG) risks posed by mining are equally important factors for investors, policymakers and mining companies to consider.4 The mining industry generally uses three principal sources of energy for its operations – diesel fuel (mostly in moving mined ore down the supply chain for processing), grid electricity and explosives. Of these three, diesel and electricity consumption contributes substantially to mining’s GHG emissions. In the mining stage, land clearing, drilling, blasting, crushing and hauling require a considerable amount of energy, and hence emit the highest amounts of greenhouse gases (GHGs). Chart 5… As Are Its Mineral Requirements The Environmental Impact Of Mining Under the scenarios depicted in Chart 5, copper suppliers could be called on to produce approximately 21mm MT of the red metal annually between now and 2050, which is equivalent to a 7% annual increase of supplies vs. the 2017 reference year shown in the chart. Mining sufficient amounts of copper, a metal which is critical to the renewable energy buildout, both in terms of quantity and versatility, will test miners' and governments' ability to extract sufficient amounts of ore for further processing without massively damaging the environment or indigenous populations' habitats (Chart 6). Chart 6Copper Spans All Renewables Technologies A recent risk analysis of 308 undeveloped copper orebodies found that for 180 of the orebodies – roughly equivalent to 570mm MT of copper – ore-grade risk was characterized as moderate-to-high risk.5 High risk implies a lower concentration of metal in the ore deposits. Mining in ore bodies with lower copper grades will be more energy intensive, and thus will emit more greenhouse gases. Table 1 is a risk matrix of the 40 mines that have the most amount of copper tonnage in this analysis: 27 of these mines displayed in the matrix have a medium-to-high grade risk. Table 1Mining Risk Matrix Another analysis established a negative relationship between the ore-grade quality and energy consumption across mines for different metals and minerals.6 This paper found that, as ore grade depletes, the energy needed to extract it and send it along the supply chain for further processing is exponentially higher (Chart 7). Lastly, a recent examination found that in 2018, primary metals and mining accounted for approximately 10% of the total greenhouse gases. Using a case study of Chile, the world’s largest producer of the red metal, the researchers found that fuel consumption increased by 130% and electricity consumption per unit of mined copper increased by 32% from 2001 to 2017. This increase was primarily due to decreasing ore grades.7 As ore grades continue to fall, these exponential relationships likely will persist or become more significant. Chart 7Energy Use Rises As Ore Quality Falls Bottom Line: While technology can improve extraction, it cannot reduce the minimum energy required for the mining process. This increased energy use will contribute to the total amount of CO2 and other GHGs emitted in the process of extracting the ores required to realize a low-carbon future. Trade-Off Between CO2 Emissions And Economic Development A recent Reuters analysis highlights the gap between EM and DM from the perspective of their renewable energy transition priorities.8 Of the 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), “Taking action to combat climate change” takes precedence over the rest for DM economies. This is largely because they have already dealt with other energy and income intensive SDGs such as improvements in healthcare and poverty reduction. The large scale of unmet energy demand in developing countries poses a huge challenge to controlling CO2 emissions. The populations of these countries are growing fast and are projected to continue increasing over the next three decades. Rising populations, make the issue of a "green-energy transition" extremely dynamic – i.e., not only do EM economies need to replace existing fossil fuels, but they also need to add enough extra zero-emission fuel sources to meet the growth in energy demand. Bottom Line: Coupled with the increased amount of energy required to mine the same amount of metal (due to lower ore grades), rising energy demand resulting from a burgeoning population in EM economies - which use fossil fuels to meet their primary needs - will require more metals to be mined for the renewable energy transition. This will further increase the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions from mine activity, and increase the risk to indigenous populations living close-by to the sources of this new metals supply. ESG risks will increase as a result, presenting greater challenges to attracting funding to these efforts.   Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com   Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish OPEC 2.0 was expected to stick with its decision to return ~ 2mm b/d of supply to the market at its ministerial meeting Wednesday. Markets remain wary of demand slowing as COVID-19-induced lockdowns persist and case counts increase globally. The production being returned to market includes 1mm b/d of voluntary cuts by Saudi Arabia, which could, if needs be, keep barrels off the market if demand weakens. Base Metals: Bullish Front-month COMEX copper is holding above $4.50/lb, after breaching its 11-year high earlier this week. The proximate cause of the initial lift above that level was news of a strike by Chilean port workers on Monday protesting restrictions on early pension-fund drawdowns, according to mining.com. After a slight breather, prices returned to trading north of $4.50/lb by mid-week. Last week, we raised our Dec21 COMEX copper price forecast to $5.00/lb from $4.50/lb. Separately, high-grade iron ore (65% Fe) hit record highs, while the benchmark grade (62% Fe) traded above $190/MT earlier in the week on the back of lower-than-expected production by major suppliers and USD weakness. Steel futures on the Shanghai Futures Exchange hit another record as well, as strong demand and threats of mandated reductions in Chinese steel output to reduce pollution loom (Chart 8). Precious Metals: Bullish Rising COVID cases, especially in India, Brazil and Japan are increasing gold’s safe-haven appeal (Chart 9). The US CFTC, in its Commitment of Traders (COT) report for the week ending April 20, stated that speculators raised their COMEX gold bullish positions. At the end of the two-day FOMC meeting, the Fed decided against lifting interest rates and withdrawing support for the US economy. However, officials sounded more optimistic about the economy than they did in March. The decision did not give any sign interest rates would be lifted, or asset purchases would be tapered against the backdrop of a steadily improving economy.  Net, this could increase demand for gold, as inflationary pressures rise. As of Tuesday’s close, COMEX gold was trading at $1778/oz. Ags/Softs: Neutral Corn and bean futures settled down by mid-week after a sharp rally earlier. After rising to a new eight-year high just below $7/bushel due to cold weather in the US, and fears a lower harvest in Brazil will reduce global grain supplies, corn settled down to ~ $6.85/bu at mid-week trading. Beans traded above $15.50/bu earlier in the week, their highest since June 2014, and settled down to ~ $15.36/bu by mid-week. Attention remains focused on global supplies. The uptrend in grains and beans remains intact. Chart 8 Chart 9   Footnotes 1     Please see Renewables, China's FYP Underpin Metals Demand, published 26 November 2020, for further discussion.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2     Please see Global Energy Review 2021, the IEA's Flagship report for April 2021. 3    Please see Renewables, China's FYP Underpin Metals Demand, published 26 November 2020, for further discussion.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4    We discussed these capex issues in last week's research, Copper Headed Higher On Surge In Steel Prices, which is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 5    Please see Valenta et al.’s ‘Re-thinking complex orebodies: Consequences for the future world supply of copper’ published in 2019 for this analysis. 6    Please see Calvo et. al.’s ‘Decreasing Ore Grades in Global Metallic Mining: A Theoretical Issue or a Global Reality?’ published in 2016 for this analysis. 7     Please see Azadi et. al.’s ‘Transparency on greenhouse gas emissions from mining to enable climate change mitigation’ published in 2020 for this analysis. 8    Please see John Kemp's Column: CO2 emission limits and economic development published 19 April 2021 by reuters.com.   Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2021 Summary of Closed Trades

Highlights Developed economies continue to transition towards a post-pandemic state. Europe has further to go, but it is lagging the US at a constant rate and is thus merely delayed – not on a different path. This ongoing transition is also reflected in the global macro data, which continues to surprise to the upside. Widespread optimism about the outlook for economic activity and earnings over the coming year has led some investors to ask whether an imminent peak in the rate of growth could be a potentially negative inflection point for richly valued risky asset prices. Using our global leading economic indicator as a guide, we find that a peak in growth momentum in and of itself is not likely to be enough of a catalyst for meaningful risky asset underperformance versus government bonds. A sizeable shock to sentiment would likely be required, causing either a very serious growth slowdown, outright fears of recession, or some other event that negatively impacts earnings growth or raises the equity risk premium (“ERP”). We can identify several candidates for such a shock, including the emergence of new, vaccine-resistant variants of COVID-19, the impact of higher taxes on earnings, overtightening in China, and a potentially hawkish shift in monetary policy in the developed world. But none of these risks individually appears to be likely enough to warrant reducing cyclical portfolio exposure. We continue to expect positive absolute single-digit returns from stocks over the coming 6-12 months, and would recommend that investors remain overweight stocks versus bonds in a multi-asset portfolio. We remain overweight global ex-US equities vs. the US, but expect that euro area stocks will have to do the heavy lifting, driven either by the underperformance of global technology stocks or the outperformance of euro area financials. Within a fixed-income portfolio, we recommend a modestly short duration stance, but do so primarily on a risk-adjusted basis. Feature Chart I-1Europe Is Behind The US, But On The Same Path Over the past month, developed economies have continued to transition towards a post-pandemic state. While the number of new confirmed COVID-19 cases remains relatively high on a per capita basis in the US and Europe, there continues to be significant progress on the vaccination front in all Western advanced economies. Europe continues to lag the US and the UK in terms of the share of the population that has received at least one dose of vaccine, but Chart I-1 highlights that the gap has remained constant at approximately six weeks (to the US). Panel 2 of Chart I-1 highlights that the US and UK both experienced either falling or a stable number of new cases once the number of first doses reached current European levels; Israel required significant further gains in the breadth of vaccinations before it altered COVID-19’s transmission dynamics in that country, but this appears to have occurred because of a much higher pace of spread earlier this year. The negative impact on advanced economies from reduced services activity is strongly linked to pandemic control measures (such as stay-at-home orders, curfews, forced business closures, etc). We have argued that, outside of the US, the implementation and removal of these measures is being driven by the impact of the pandemic on the medical system, rather than the sheer number of new cases and deaths. Chart I-2 highlights that, based on this framework, Europe still has further to go – current per capita hospitalizations remain much higher in France and Italy than in the US, UK, or Canada. But the nature of the disease means that hospitalizations begin to fall even if case counts remain relatively stable, and fall rapidly once new cases trend lower. Given the steady gains that European countries are making in providing first vaccine doses to their populations, it seems likely that hospitalizations there will peak sometime in the coming four to six weeks. This underscores that Europe is not on a different path than that of the US, it is simply further behind in the process (and will ultimately catch up). The transition towards a post-pandemic state is also reflected in the global macro data, which continues to positively surprise in all three major economies (Chart I-3). In Europe, the April services PMI rose back above the 50 mark, April consumer confidence surprised to the upside, and February retail sales came in better than expected (Table I-1). In the US, the March services PMI was also very strong, the labor market continued to meaningfully improve, and several measures of inflation surprised to the upside. Chart I-2Euro Area Hospitalizations Remain High, But Will Soon Decline Chart I-3The Macro Data Continues To Positively Surprise   Table I-1Services PMIs And The Labor Market Continue To Meaningfully Improve Chart I-4China's Current Contribution To Global Demand Is Strong In China, the recent tick higher in the surprise index likely reflects the recognition of some data series whose release was delayed due to the Chinese New Year, as well as significant base effects (compared with Q1 2020) in many data series recorded in year-over-year terms. On a quarter-over-quarter basis, Chinese economic activity decelerated last quarter to 0.6% from the upwardly revised 3.2% in Q4 2020 – which was below the anticipated 1.4% q/q. Still, Chinese RMB-denominated import growth closely matches (lagging) data on global exports to China (in US$ terms), with the former suggesting that China’s current contribution to global external demand remains strong (Chart I-4). This is also consistent with rising producer prices, which had fallen back into deflationary territory last year (panel 2). Peaking Growth Momentum: Should Investors Be Worried? The continued increase in the number of vaccine doses administered, positive data surprises, and bullish global growth forecasts for this year have understandably led to extremely optimistic investor sentiment. It has also naturally raised the question of “what could go wrong?”, with some investors pointing to an imminent peak in the rate of growth as a potentially negative inflection point for richly valued risky asset prices. Chart I-5 addresses this question by examining 12 episodes of waning growth momentum since 1990, defined as an identifiable peak in our global leading economic indicator. Panel 2 shows the 12-month rate of change in the relative performance of global equities versus a US$-hedged 7-10 year global Treasury index. Chart I-5Is Peaking Growth Momentum A Risk For Stocks? At first blush, the chart does support the notion that a peak in growth momentum is generally negative for risky asset prices. The subsequent 12-month relative return from stocks versus bonds following a peak in the LEI has been negative in 8 out of the 12 episodes, suggesting that the risks of an equity correction are currently quite elevated. However, there is more to the story than this simple calculation implies (Table I-2). First, two of the twelve episodes saw the global LEI peak in the context of an eventual US recession, so it is not surprising that stocks underperformed bonds in those episodes. Second, out of the six non-recessionary episodes, only two of them involved significant underperformance, in 2002 and in 2015. Table I-2Peak Growth Momentum Is An Insufficient Catalyst For Equity Underperformance US equities underperformed in the former case because of the persistently damaging impact of corporate excesses that built up during the dot-com bubble, and predominantly global ex-US equities underperformed bonds in the latter case because of a combination of the significant impact on global CAPEX from the 2014 dollar and oil price shock, as well as a major decline in global bond yields. In the four other non-recessionary examples of equity underperformance, stocks only modestly underperformed bonds, and often this occurred in the context of significant events: surprising Fed hawkishness in 1994, the Asian financial crisis in 1997, a major slowdown in China in 2013, and the combination of a domestically-driven Chinese economic slowdown coupled with the Sino/US trade war in 2017/2018. The key point for investors is that a peak in growth momentum is in and of itself not enough of a catalyst for meaningful risky asset underperformance versus government bonds. A sizeable shock to sentiment would likely be required, causing either a very serious growth slowdown, outright fears of recession, or some other event that negatively impacts earnings growth or raises the equity risk premium (“ERP”). What Else Could Go Wrong? There are four other plausible risks that we can identify to a bullish stance towards risky assets over the coming 6-12 months. We discuss each of these risks below. New COVID-19 Variants Chart I-6 highlights that bottom up analysts expect global earnings per share to be 12% higher than their pre-pandemic level in 12-months’ time. This expectation is driven by extraordinarily easy fiscal and monetary policy, but also the view that vaccination against COVID-19 will allow social distancing policies to end and services activity to fully recover. However, as India is clearly – and tragically – demonstrating at present, the emerging world is lagging in terms of vaccinating its population. India’s per capita case count has soared (Chart I-7), which is surprising given that the country’s COVID-19 infection rate has been significantly below that of more advanced economies over the past year. It is therefore likely that India’s case count explosion is due to new variants of the disease, and periodic outbreaks in less developed countries – as well as vaccine hesitancy in more developed economies – risks the emergence of even newer variants that may be partially or substantially vaccine-resistant. Chart I-6Earnings Expectations Already Price In A Normalization In Services Activity Chart I-7India's COVID-19 Situation Is Tragic, And Concerning   New variants of COVID-19 may prove to be less deadly, but the economic impact of the pandemic has come mainly from its potential to collapse the medical system via high rates of serious illness requiring hospitalization, not strictly from its lethality. As such, potentially new vaccine-resistant variants of the disease resulting in similar or higher rates of hospitalization pose a risk to a bullish economic outlook. Taxation Both corporate and individual tax rates are set to rise in the US over the coming 12-18 months which, at first blush, could certainly qualify as a non-recessionary event that negatively impacts earnings or raises the ERP. Corporate taxes are set to rise first as part of the American Jobs Plan, which our political strategists have argued will probably take the Biden administration most of this year to pass. The plan involves a proposed increase in the domestic corporate income tax rate to 28% from 21%, a higher minimum tax on foreign profits, and a 15% minimum tax on “book income”. In addition, as part of the American Families Plan, Biden is proposing to increase the top marginal income tax rate for households earning $400,000 or more to 39.6% (from 37%), and to substantially increase the capital gains tax rate for those earning $1 million or more from a base rate of 20% to 39.6%. The 3.8% tax on investment income that funds Obamacare would be kept in place, which would bring the total capital gain tax rate to 43.4% for that income group. Peter Berezin, BCA’s Chief Global Strategist, made two points about higher corporate taxes in a recent report.1 First, he noted that the changes would likely result in an 8% decline in forward earnings if passed as currently proposed, but that various tax credits as well as opposition to a 28% corporate tax rate from Democratic Senator Joe Manchin would likely cap the impact at 5%. Second, he argued that the behavior of 12-month forward earnings and the performance of stocks that benefitted the most from President Trump’s corporate tax cuts suggest that very little impact from these changes has been priced in. Peter argued in his report that the effect of strong economic growth will likely offset the negative impact of higher taxes on earnings, and we are inclined to agree. Chart I-8 highlights that a 5% reduction in 12-month forward earnings would reduce the equity risk premium by roughly 20-25 basis points, which would not be disastrous on its own. Still, the fact that these changes have not been priced in means that corporate tax hikes could be a more meaningful driver of lower stock prices if the impact is ultimately larger than we currently expect or if the growth outlook suddenly shifts in a negative direction. In terms of changes to individual taxes, our sense is that the proposed increase in the capital gains tax rate is more significant than the modest proposed change to the top marginal income tax rate for higher-income households. For individuals earning $1 million or more, Chart I-9 highlights that the proposed change to the capital gains rate would bring it to the highest level seen since the late 1970s. Given the rich valuation of equities, it seems inconceivable that such a change would not trigger some short-term selling of equities to lock in long-term gains at lower tax rates. Chart I-8Higher Corporate Taxes Will Only Modestly Reduce the Equity Risk Premium Chart I-9Biden's Capital Gains Tax Proposal Would Lead To Some Selling Of Stocks...   But like upcoming changes to corporate taxes, we see the potential for higher taxes on wealthy individuals as a risk to the equity market and not as a likely driver of stock prices over a cyclical time horizon. First, our political strategists see 50/50 odds that the American Families Plan will be passed this year, meaning that short-term tax avoidance selling may be postponed until 2022. In addition, Chart I-10 highlights that over the longer term, the relationship between the maximum capital gains tax rate and the ERP is weak or nonexistent. The chart highlights that the perception of a positive relationship rests entirely on the second half of the 1970s, when the maximum capital gains tax rate was between 30-40%. However, it seems clear from the chart that the stagflationary environment of that period was responsible for a high ERP, as the capital gains rate fell from 1977 to 1982 without any significant decline in risk premia. It took until the end of the 1982 recession and the beginning of the structural disinflationary period for the equity risk premium to decline, suggesting that there is effectively no relationship between the two (and therefore no reason to believe that higher capital gains taxes will lead to sustained declines in stock market multiples). Chart I-10…But The Effect Would Not Likely Last Overtightening In China Chart I-11Leading Indicators Of China's Economy Are Pointing Down, Not Up Even though Chart I-4 highlighted that Chinese import demand is currently strong, we expect China’s growth impulse to weaken in the second half of the year. Chart I-11 highlights that our leading indicator for China’s Li Keqiang index has done a good job of predicting Chinese import growth, and the indicator is now in a clear downtrend. Panel 2 presents the components of the indicator, and shows that all three are trending lower. Monetary conditions are potentially rebounding from extremely weak levels (due to past deflation and a rise in the RMB versus the US dollar and other Asian currencies), but money supply and credit measures are deteriorating. Leading indicators for China’s economy are deteriorating because Chinese policymakers have already tightened liquidity conditions in response to the country’s rebound from the pandemic and following a surge in the credit impulse. The 3-month repo rate returned to pre-pandemic levels in the second half of last year (Chart I-12), and consequently the private sector credit impulse (particularly that of corporate bond issuance) fell despite robust medium-to-long term loan growth. Chart I-12Chinese Interest Rates Have Already Returned To Pre-COVID Levels We noted in our January report that China’s credit impulse has consistently followed a 3½-year cycle since 2010, and this year has been no different. This cycle is not exogenous or mystical; it has been caused by the repeated “oversteering” of activity by Chinese policymakers who frequently oscillate between the need to fight deflation and the strong desire to curb additional private sector leveraging. Our base case view is that policymakers will not accidentally overtighten the economy, and that the credit impulse will settle somewhere between late 2019 levels and the peak rate reached in the latter half of last year. But the risk of significant oversteering cannot be ruled out, and will likely remain a downcycle risk for investors for several years to come. A Hawkish Shift In Monetary Policy In Developed Markets Last week the Bank of Canada announced that it would taper its pace of government debt purchases from 4 billion to 3 billion CAD per week. The announcement was noteworthy for many investors, as it suggested that asset purchase reductions could also be announced by the Fed and other major central banks by the end of the second or third quarter. Many investors are sensitive to the tapering question because of what transpired during the “Taper Tantrum” episode of 2013. During an appearance before Congress in late May of that year, then Chair Ben Bernanke stated that the Fed could “step down” the pace of its asset purchases in the next few FOMC meetings if economic conditions continued to improve. The result was that 10-year Treasurys fell roughly 10% in total return terms over the subsequent three-month period. While stocks rallied in response to the growth-positive implications of the move, this occurred from a much higher ERP starting point than exists today. The risk, in the minds of some investors, is that tapering today could thus lead to a correction in stock prices. There are two counterpoints to this view. First, bonds have already sold off meaningfully over the past several months in response to a significant improvement in the economic outlook, and investors already expect the Fed to raise interest rates earlier than it is publicly forecasting. It is thus difficult to see how an announcement of tapering from the Fed would significantly alter the outlook for monetary policy over the coming 6-18 months. Chart I-13Another Taper Tantrum-Like Selloff Would Necessitate Higher Expectations For R-star Second, it is notable that the “Taper Tantrum” began at yield levels at the front end of the curve that are roughly similar to what prevails today. 5-year/5-year forward bond yields stood at roughly 3% at the beginning of the “Tantrum”, compared with 2.3% today. Chart I-13 highlights how high forward bond yields would need to rise in order to generate another selloff of similar magnitude from 10-year Treasury yields (roughly 3.65%). In our view, a rise to this level over the coming year is essentially impossible without a major shift in investor expectations about the natural rate of interest. We highlighted the risk of such a shift in last month’s report,2 but for now it would likely necessitate hard evidence of little-to-no permanent damage to the labor market from the pandemic. This is not our base case view, but it will be an important possibility to monitor as the decisive end to social distancing and other pandemic control measures draws nearer. Investment Conclusions As noted above, there are several identifiable risks to a bullish outlook for risky assets, but none of these risks individually appear to be likely. Given this, we continue to expect positive absolute single-digit returns from stocks over the coming 6-12 months, and would recommend that investors remain overweight stocks versus bonds in a multi-asset portfolio. We favor value versus growth stocks, cyclical versus defensive sectors, and small versus large cap stocks, although there is more return potential over the coming year in value versus growth than the latter two positions. We also remain short the US dollar over a cyclical time horizon. Within a global equity portfolio, we remain overweight global ex-US equities vs the US, but this position has moved against us over the past two months. Chart I-14 highlights that global ex-US equities have given back all of their October – January gains versus US equities, most of which has occurred since late-February. The chart also highlights that all of this underperformance has been driven by emerging market stocks, as euro area equity performance has been mostly stable year-to-date. Chart I-15 highlights that EM underperformance has occurred both in the broadly-defined tech sector as well as when measured in ex-tech terms. To us, this suggests that EM stocks are responding to the deterioration in leading indicators for the Chinese economy that we noted above, which implies that they are not likely to lead global ex-US equity performance higher over the course of the year barring an imminent shift in Chinese policy. We continue to expect that euro area stocks will have to do the heavy lifting, driven either by the underperformance of global technology stocks or the outperformance of euro area financials – which are extremely cheap relative to US banks and have much further scope for earnings to normalize as the pandemic draws to a close. Chart I-14Emerging Markets Have Caused Global Ex-US Stocks To Underperform Chart I-15EM's Underperformance Has Been Broad-Based   As a final point, investors should note that we are recommending a modestly short duration stance within a fixed-income portfolio, but that we make this recommendation primarily on a risk-adjusted basis. Chart I-16 highlights that Treasury market excess returns (relative to cash) have historically been driven by whether the Fed funds rate increases by more or less than what is currently priced into the market. Over the past 12 months, the Treasury index has very substantially underperformed cash without a hawkish surprise, and the rate path that is currently implied by the OIS curve is already more hawkish than the Fed is (for now) projecting. On this basis, a neutral duration stance could be justified, but we would still prefer a modestly short duration stance due to the risk of a potential increase in investor expectations for the neutral rate of interest late this year or in early 2022. Chart I-16Policy Rate Surprises Tend To Drive The Duration Call Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst April 29, 2021 Next Report: May 27, 2021   II. In COVID’s Wake: Government Debt And The Path Of Interest Rates The US fiscal outlook has deteriorated substantially over the past two decades, as a consequence of the fiscal response to both the global financial crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic. US government debt-to-GDP is now nearly as high as it was at the end of the Second World War, and is projected by the US Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to explode higher over the coming 30 years. Some investors argue that extreme levels of government debt now virtually guarantee that interest rates will remain structurally low, and we test this claim alongside a scenario that limits the projected rise in the primary deficit. We find that US fiscal reform, when it eventually occurs, will likely be negative for health care stocks. We also note that even in a scenario where the US limits the size of its future primary budget deficit, net interest outlays will likely rise to elevated levels compared to history. A comparison with the Canadian experience in the 1990s suggests a structurally negative outlook for the US dollar, from an overvalued starting point. Finally, we note that the US fiscal outlook does not necessarily prevent an increase in interest rates over the coming few years in a scenario where investors raise their expectations for the neutral rate of interest, a possibility that we discussed in last month’s report. This scenario is not our base case view, but it is plausible and should actively be monitored by investors over the coming one to two years. For now, we do not expect that rising interest rates pose a risk to stocks over the coming 6-12 months. Investors should remain cyclically overweight equities within a multi-asset portfolio, and should maintain a below-benchmark level of duration on a risk-adjusted basis. In 2001, US government debt held by the public as a share of GDP stood at 31.5%, after having fallen roughly 16 percentage points from early 1993 levels. Today, as a result of both the global financial crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic, the debt to GDP ratio has risen to a whopping 100%, and is projected to rise meaningfully higher over the coming decades. In this report we review the long-term US fiscal outlook in the wake of the pandemic, with a focus on the implications for interest rates. Some investors argue that extreme levels of government debt now virtually guarantee that interest rates will remain structurally low, and we test this claim alongside a scenario that limits the projected rise in the primary deficit. We find that US fiscal reform, when it eventually occurs, will likely be negative for health care stocks, whose fundamental performance has outstripped that of the broad equity market since the mid-1990s (reflecting pricing power that stands to be curtailed through regulation). We also note that even in a scenario where the US limits the size of its future primary budget deficit, net interest outlays will likely rise to elevated levels compared to history. A comparison with the Canadian experience in the 1990s suggests a structurally negative outlook for the US dollar, from an overvalued starting point. Finally, we note that the US fiscal outlook does not necessarily prevent an increase in interest rates over the coming few years in the hypothetical scenario that we described in last month’s report,3 i.e., an environment where the narrative of secular stagnation is challenged and investor expectations for the neutral rate rise closer to trend rates of economic growth. This scenario is not our base case view, but it is plausible and should actively be monitored by investors over the coming one to two years. For now, investors should remain cyclically overweight equities within a multi-asset portfolio, and should maintain a below-benchmark level of duration on a risk-adjusted basis. Debt Sustainability, And The CBO’s Baseline Projection When analyzing the US fiscal outlook, the Congressional Budget Office’s Long-Term Budget Outlook report is typically the reference point for investors. The report provides annual projections for the budget deficit and the debt-to-GDP ratio for the next three decades, as well as a breakdown of the projected deficit into its primary (i.e., non-interest) and net interest components. Charts II-1 and II-2 present the most recent baseline projections from the CBO, which clearly present a dire long-term outlook. The deficit and debt-to-GDP ratio are projected to be relatively stable over the next decade, but explode higher over the subsequent 20 years. In 2051, the CBO’s baseline projects that the budget deficit will be roughly 13% of GDP, with net interest costs accounting for approximately two-thirds of the deficit. Chart II-1The CBO’s Fiscal Outlook Is Extremely Negative Chart II-2In 2051, The CBO Projects A 13% Annual Budget Deficit In order to understand what is driving the CBO’s dire long-term budget and debt forecast, it is important to review the government debt sustainability equation shown below. The equation highlights that the change in a government’s debt-to-GDP ratio is approximately equal to 1) the primary deficit plus 2) net interest costs as a share of GDP, the latter being defined as the product of last year’s debt-to-GDP ratio and the difference between the average interest rate on the debt and the rate of GDP growth. Δ Debt-To-GDP Ratio ≈ Primary Deficit As A % Of GDP4 + (r-g)*(Prior Period Debt-To-GDP Ratio) Where: r = Average interest rate on government debt and g = Nominal GDP growth The equation highlights that expectations of a persistently rising debt-to-GDP ratio must occur either because of expectations of a persistent primary deficit, or expectations that interest rates will persistently exceed the rate of economic growth (or some combination of the two). This underscores why debt sustainability analysis often focuses on the primary budget balance, as a country’s debt-to-GDP ratio will be stable if no primary deficit exists and interest costs are at or below the prevailing rate of economic growth. Chart II-3 illustrates the source of the CBO’s projected rise in debt-to-GDP beyond 2031, by presenting the two components of the debt sustainability equation alongside the projected annual change in the debt-to-GDP ratio. The chart makes it clear that while the CBO is forecasting a sizeable primary deficit to continue, it is projected to grow at a slower pace than the debt-to-GDP ratio itself. The increasing rate at which the debt-to-GDP ratio is projected to grow in the latter years of the CBO’s forecast period is clearly driven by the interest rate component, meaning that “r” is projected to be greater than “g”. Chart II-4 presents this point directly, by highlighting that the CBO is forecasting the average interest rate on government debt to exceed that of nominal GDP growth in 2038, and to continue to exceed growth (by an increasing amount) thereafter. Chart II-3Decomposing The CBO's Projected Change In The Debt-To-GDP Ratio Chart II-4The CBO's Projections Rest, In Part, On Rates Eventually Exceeding Growth   Three Adjustments To The CBO’s Baseline We make three adjustments to the CBO’s baseline in order to assess how the US fiscal outlook shifts under an interest rate path that is different than that projected by the CBO. First, we adjust the CBO’s projected budget deficit over the coming few years based on deficit forecasts from our US Political Strategy service following the passage of the American Recovery Plan act.5 Chart II-5We Test The Effect Of An Initially Higher, But More Sustainable, Rate Path Next, we adjust the interest component of the total budget deficit based on a new path for short- and long-term interest rates that models a scenario in which the neutral rate of interest rises to, but not above, GDP growth (Chart II-5). In last month’s report we outlined a scenario in which this could feasibly occur,3 and the hypothetical path for interest rates shown in Chart II-5 thus incorporates both the negative budgetary impact of an earlier rise in interest rates and the positive budgetary impact of “r” never rising above “g”. We explicitly exclude any crowding out effect on long-term interest rates, based on the view that term premia are likely to remain muted in a world of low potential economic growth, unless a fiscal crisis appears to be imminent (see Box II-1). Box II-1 Arguing Against The CBO’s Crowding Out Assumption The CBO’s projection that interest rates will ultimately rise above the rate of economic growth rests on the view that increased government spending will absorb savings that would otherwise finance private investment (a “crowding out” effect). We agree that crowding out can occur over the course of the business cycle, especially in a scenario where increased government spending pushes output above its potential (creating a cyclical acceleration in inflation and eventually an increase in interest rates). But the CBO is assuming that high government debt-to-GDP ratios will crowd out private investment on a structural basis, and on this basis we disagree. First, Chart Box II-1 highlights that there is essentially no empirical relationship across countries between a country’s debt-to-GDP ratio and its long-term government bond yield. Japan is a clear outlier in the chart, but including Japan implies that the relationship is negative, not positive. Chart Box II-1There Is No Empirical Relationship Between Debt-To-GDP And Interest Rates In addition, given that central banks directly control interest rates at the short-end of the curve, a structural crowding out effect can only manifest itself in the form of an elevated term premium embedded in longer-term government bond yields. Our bet is that term premia are likely to stay low in a world of low falling nominal growth, as evidenced by the experience of the past decade.6 Finally, we model the impact of two changes, beginning in 2031, that would work towards reducing the primary deficit: an increase in average government revenue to 20% of GDP (its peak level reached in 2000), and a slower pace of increase on major health care program spending. Despite the fact that population aging will increase mandatory spending on social security and health care over the coming three decades, the CBO has highlighted that the majority of the increase in spending towards these programs is projected to occur due to rising health care costs per person (Chart II-6). We thus model the impact of medical care cost control by limiting the rise in net mandatory outlays on health care programs between 2021 and 2051 to roughly half of what the CBO baseline projects. This adjustment does not prevent mandatory spending on health care programs from rising, given the strong political challenges involved in limiting spending increases that are caused by an aging population. Chart II-6The US Structural Primary Balance Is Heavily Impacted By Medical Costs Charts II-7 and II-8 illustrate how these three adjustments impact the long-term US fiscal outlook. Relative to the CBO’s baseline projections, the American Recovery Plan (ARP) budget deficit forecasts from our US Political Strategy service imply that the debt-to-GDP ratio will be approximately three to four percentage points higher over the very near term, and roughly ten points higher over the long term. Chart II-7Even With Higher Rates, The Fiscal Outlook Is Meaningfully Less Bad… Relative to this new baseline, an increase in interest rates to, but not above, the projected rate of nominal economic growth increases the debt-to-GDP ratio by an additional ten percentage points (20 points higher versus the CBO’s baseline) in the middle of the forecast period, but it lowers the debt-to-GDP ratio over the longer run by eliminating the effect of outsized interest rates magnifying a persistent primary deficit. Still, the debt-to-GDP ratio is projected to rise to a whopping 207% of GDP by 2051 in this scenario, with a budget deficit in excess of 10% of GDP. The third adjustment shown in Charts II-7 and II-8 underscores the impact on the US fiscal outlook of actions aimed at reducing the primary deficit. Increases in government revenue and the prevention of rising health care costs per person results in the debt-to-GDP ratio that is 64 percentage points lower in 2051 than in our normalized interest rate scenario. The budget deficit in this scenario still increases to approximately 6% of GDP thirty years from today, but in this case most of the deficit is due to the net interest component rather than the primary deficit, meaning that the debt-to-GDP ratio would be increasing at a much slower rate if interest rates were no higher than the rate of economic growth. Chart II-8 highlights that net interest spending in this scenario would rise to 4.5% of GDP, which would be meaningfully higher than the prior high of roughly 3% in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Chart II-8...With Higher Taxes And Medical Cost Control Chart II-9A Meaningful, But Not Unprecedented, Rise In Net Interest Outlays But that is far from unprecedented or necessarily consistent with a fiscal crisis. Chart II-9 also shows that Canada’s public debt charges rose to 6.5% of GDP in the early 1990s without triggering a public debt crisis. It is true that Canada subsequently embarked on a painful fiscal consolidation program in order to reduce its public debt burden, but this, in part, occurred because of a cyclically-adjusted primary deficit of approximately 3% - twice as large as that projected for the US in 2051 in our adjusted scenario shown in Charts II-7 and II-8. Revenue And Health Care Cost Reform Our third adjustment to the CBO’s long-term budget outlook involved changes to revenue and health care cost control to reduce the US’ projected primary deficit. Are these adjustments achievable? In our view, the answer is yes: As noted above, our scenario modeled these changes taking place a decade from today, which allows for policymakers and stakeholders to have a substantial amount of time to act and adjust to these changes. On the revenue front, we noted above that US government revenue has reached 20% of GDP in the past, in the year 2000. Chart II-10 highlights that while raising taxes will likely reduce US competitiveness, the US maintains a sizeable tax advantage relative to other advanced economies, and that this was true prior to the tax cuts that took place under the Trump administration. On the health care cost front, Chart II-11 highlights that US healthcare expenditure is much larger as a share of GDP than other countries, which was not the case prior to the 1980s. Chart II-12 highlights that this cost difference is entirely due to inpatient (i.e., hospital) and outpatient (i.e., drug) costs. While it is not clear what form it will take, it seems likely that future reforms by policymakers to eliminate rising health care costs per person will occur and can be achieved. Chart II-10The US Government Can Afford To Raise Revenue Chart II-11The US Spends Much More On Health Care Than Other Countries   Chart II-12The US Significantly Outspends The World On Hospital And Drug Costs The key point for investors is not whether these changes should or should not occur, but whether there are any feasible scenarios in which spiraling government debt and interest payments are avoided without the Fed purposely maintaining monetary policy at levels persistently below the rate of economic growth – and thus risking major inflationary pressure. Our analysis above highlights that there are; the question is when policymakers will choose to act and in what form. A potential tipping point may be when US government spending on net interest as a % of GDP exceeds its prior high, which occurs in 2026 in the scenario modeled in Chart II-8. In a scenario where reforms fail to materialize or where financial markets force policymakers to act, a fiscal risk premium could certainly emerge in longer-term government bond yields, which could lead the Fed to maintain lower short-term interest rates than it otherwise would. But this scenario is only likely to emerge after interest rates converge towards rates of economic growth, as US government debt will remain highly serviceable for some time if "r" remains meaningfully lower than "g". Investment Conclusions There are three potential investment implications of our research. First, the fact that rising medical costs have such a significant impact on the CBO’s projections of the primary deficit implies that fiscal reform, when it eventually occurs, will be negative for US health care stocks. Chart II-13 highlights that US health care sector earnings have outperformed broad market earnings since the mid-1990s, and that the sector has consistently delivered an above-average return on equity. This historical performance likely reflects the sector’s pricing power, which stand to be curtailed through regulatory efforts in a world where rising health care costs per person collide with fiscal belt-tightening. Interestingly, Chart II-12 highlighted that US per capita spending on medical goods is not significantly higher than in other developed markets, suggesting that the health care equipment & supplies industry may fare better over a very long term time horizon than overall health care. Second, Charts II-7 and II-8 highlighted that even if the US does raise revenue as a share of GDP and limits excessive growth in medical costs, a primary deficit will still exist and net interest outlays will still rise to elevated levels compared to what has historically been the case. We noted that Canada experienced a higher public debt burden in the 1990s and did not suffer from a fiscal crisis, but Chart II-14 highlights that the fiscal situation did weigh on the Canadian dollar, which progressively traded 10-20% below its PPP-implied fair value level over the course of the 1990s. Thus, the implication is that eventual fiscal reform in the US may be structurally negative for the US dollar, from an overvalued starting point (panels 3 and 4 of Chart II-14). Chart II-13Eventual Fiscal Reform Will Likely Be Negative For Health Care Stocks Chart II-14The US Fiscal Outlook, Even With Some Reforms, Is Dollar-Negative   Finally, our scenario analysis highlights that very elevated levels of government debt do not guarantee that interest rates will remain structurally low, especially over the next decade when the US primary deficit is projected to remain relatively stable. For investors focused on forecasting the direction of 10-year Treasury yields from the perspective of valuation, it should be noted that the next decade is the relevant projection period for the Fed funds rate, not what occurs to net interest outlays in the two decades that follow. Over the very long run, it is true that there may ultimately be very strong political pressure on the Fed to keep interest rates below the prevailing rate of economic growth, as policymakers in 2030 will be able to avoid a structural adjustment to the primary deficit of roughly 1.1-1.3% of GDP for every percentage point that average interest rates on government debt are below nominal GDP growth. However, we noted above that this pressure is unlikely to build before the second half of this decade even in a scenario where interest rates rise significantly over the coming few years, and it remains an open questions whether the Fed will acquiesce to this pressure given its strong potential to fuel excess private sector leveraging. Over the coming one to two years, the key conclusion is that the US fiscal outlook is not likely to prevent an increase in interest rates over the coming few years in the hypothetical scenario that we described in last month’s report, i.e., an environment where the narrative of secular stagnation is challenged and investor expectations for the neutral rate rise closer to trend rates of economic growth. This remains a risk to our overweight stance towards risky assets and is not our base case view. But it does highlight the importance of monitoring long-dated rate expectations over the coming year, and argues, on a risk-adjusted basis, for a below-neutral duration stance within a fixed-income portfolio. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst III. Indicators And Reference Charts BCA’s equity indicators highlight that the “easy” money from expectations of an eventual end to the pandemic have already been made. Our technical, valuation, and sentiment indicators are very extended, highlighting that investors should expect positive but more modest returns from stocks over the coming 6-12 months. Our monetary indicator has aggressively retreated from its high last year, reflecting a meaningful recovery in government bond yields. The indicator remains above the boom/bust line, however, highlighting that monetary policy remains supportive for risky asset prices. Forward equity earnings already price in a complete earnings recovery, but for now there is no meaningful sign of waning forward earnings momentum. Net revisions remain positive, and positive earnings surprises have risen to their strongest levels on record. Within a global equity portfolio, EM stocks have dragged down global ex-US performance, likely in response to deteriorating leading indicators for the Chinese economy. This implies that they are not likely to lead global ex-US equity performance higher over the course of the year barring an imminent shift in Chinese policy. We continue to expect that euro area stocks will have to do the heavy lifting, driven either by the underperformance of global technology stocks or the outperformance of euro area financials – which are extremely cheap relative to US banks and have much further scope for earnings to normalize as the pandemic draws to a close. The US 10-Year Treasury yield has edged lower over the past month, after having risen to levels that were extremely technically stretched. Despite this pause, our valuation index highlights that bonds are still expensive, and that yields could move higher over the cyclical investment horizon. We expect the rise to be more modest than our valuation index would imply, but we would still recommend a modestly short duration stance within a fixed-income portfolio. Commodity prices, particularly copper, lumber, and agricultural commodities, are screaming higher. This reflects bullish cyclical conditions, but also pandemic-induced supply shortages that are likely to wane later this year. Commodity prices are technically extended and sentiment is extremely bullish for most commodities, suggesting that a breather in commodity prices is likely at some point over the coming several months. US and global LEIs remain in a solid uptrend, and global manufacturing PMIs are strong. Our global LEI diffusion index has declined significantly, but this likely reflects the outsized impact of a few emerging market countries (whose vaccination progress is lagging). Strong leading and coincident indicators underscore that the global demand for goods is robust, and that output is below pre-pandemic levels in most economies because of very weak services spending. The latter will recover significantly later this year, as social distancing and other pandemic control measures disappear. EQUITIES: Chart III-1US Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3US Equity Sentiment Indicators   Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5US Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6US Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance   FIXED INCOME:   Chart III-9US Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected US Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets   CURRENCIES: Chart III-16US Dollar And PPP Chart III-17US Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18US Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals   COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning   ECONOMY: Chart III-28US And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29US Macro Snapshot Chart III-30US Growth Outlook Chart III-31US Cyclical Spending Chart III-32US Labor Market Chart III-33US Consumption Chart III-34US Housing Chart III-35US Debt And Deleveraging   Chart III-36US Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China   Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Footnotes 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy "Taxing Woke Capital," dated April 16, 2021, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report "R-star, And The Structural Risk To Stocks," dated March 31, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report "R-star, And The Structural Risk To Stocks," dated March 31, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 4 Presented in this fashion, a budget deficit (surplus) is recorded with a positive (negative) sign. 5 For more information, please see US Political Strategy report “Biden’s Pittsburgh Speech And Legislative Agenda,” dated April 1, 2021, available at usp.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see “Term premia: models and some stylised facts”, by Cohen, Hördahl, and Xia, BIS Quarterly Review, September 2008.

Highlights Clients countered our opinion that China’s economy has reached its cyclical peak. However, we have already incorporated the supporting facts into our analysis so they will not alter our cyclical outlook for the economy. The favorable external backdrop is a potential downside risk to China’s domestic economy, because the country’s pain threshold for reform is often positively correlated with global growth. We agree that an acceleration in local governments’ special-purpose bond issuance could boost infrastructure investment in the next six months, but we are skeptical about the magnitude of such support. China’s onshore and offshore stock markets remain firmly in a risk-off mode. For now, we recommend investors stay on the sidelines until some of the early indicators turn more bullish. Feature We spent the past week hosting virtual meetings with BCA’s clients in Europe and Asia. We presented our view that China’s economic recovery has likely peaked and escalating risks of a policy overtightening warrant an underweight position on Chinese stocks for the next six months. Most clients shared our concern that policymakers may keep financial and industry regulations more restrictive than the market is currently pricing in, leading to more downside surprises to risk asset prices. Clients also brought up a few opposing views which challenged our analytical framework. In this and next week’s reports we will highlight some of the counterpoints we discussed in these meetings. Interestingly, most of our clients - even ones who are more sanguine about China’s economic outlook - prefer to wait on the sidelines before jumping back into China’s equity market. They foresee sustained volatility in the coming months as the market continues to struggle between digesting high valuations and adjusting expectations for future earnings growth. Has China’s Economic Recovery Reached An Apex? The primary discussion centered around whether the strength in China’s economy has reached a cyclical peak. Q1 GDP points to slower sequential economic momentum from Q4 last year (Chart 1). Some of the high-frequency economic data also indicate that economic activity peaked in Q4 last year (Chart 2).  Chart 1Q1 Sequential Growth Was The Slowest In A Decade Chart 2Has Economic Activity Peaked? Chart 3Our Framework Suggests A Slower Growth Momentum Ahead The view fits perfectly into our analytical framework, which has worked well in the past decade. Historically, China’s credit formation has consistently led economic activity by about six to nine months. A turning point in the credit impulse occurred last October, which suggests that economic activity should start to slow in Q2 this year (Chart 3). However, our clients countered with the following arguments, which support a notion that sequential economic growth rate can still trend higher in the next six months: Aggregate demand in Europe and the US continues to improve, while the COVID-19 resurgence in major emerging economies, such as India and Brazil, has forced their production recoveries to pause. Thus, China’s exports will remain robust and should continue to make substantial contributions to the economy (Chart 4). Infrastructure spending could get a meaningful boost when local governments speed up issuing special-purpose bonds (SPB) in Q2 and Q3. Infrastructure investment growth was relatively weak in Q1, probably the result of a slower pace in credit growth and government expenditures (Chart 5). However, a delay in local government SPB issuance in Q1 this year means more support for infrastructure investment in the rest of the year (Chart 6). Chart 4Counterpoint #1: Chinese Exports Will Stay Strong   Chart 5Slower Credit Growth Led To A Subdued Q1 Infrastructure Investment Growth     Travel restrictions imposed during the Chinese New Year weighed heavily on the service sector in Q1 (Chart 7). If China’s domestic COVID-19 cases remain well controlled, then the trend could reverse and the pent-up demand for service consumption may usher in a significant improvement in Q2 when three major public holidays occur. The service sector accounts for more than half of China’s GDP, therefore, an improvement in this sector should significantly bolster future GDP growth. Chart 6Counterpoint #2: More LG SPBs, More Spending On Infrastructure Chart 7Counterpoint #3: Service Sector Activities Will Pick Up Our Analytical Framework The viewpoints expressed by clients have not changed our cyclical view of China’s economy, since our broad analysis of Chinese business cycle already incorporates the main points that clients raised. Additionally, data such as GDP growth figures are coincident and lagging indicators, and do not explain the direction of forward-looking financial markets. The authorities will shift their policy trajectories only if the data significantly deviate from expectations. We view Q1 GDP and underlying data broadly in line with Chinese leadership’s short- and medium-term economic growth targets and, therefore, will not lead to any policy adjustment. Chart 8If Demand For Chinese Exports Stays Strong, Reform Efforts Will Intensify To our clients’ point that strong exports ahead will support China’s overall GDP growth, we regard a favorable external backdrop as a potential downside risk to the domestic economy. The willingness of Chinese authorities to pursue painful reforms is often positively correlated with global growth (Chart 8). BCA has written extensively about how China has taken advantage of a stronger export sector by increasing the pace of domestic reforms and in the past has embarked on a multi-year reform plan that weighed on growth. At the beginning of this year, Chinese policymakers were set out to “keep credit growth in line with nominal GDP growth in 2021.” Nonetheless, policymakers’ targets for credit and nominal GDP growth rates could change during the year, contingent on their perception of the broad growth outlook and unemployment. Chart 9Both Credit And Economic Growth Rates Are Moving Targets And Subject To Policy Finetuning Even if policymakers keep the country’s leverage ratio steady in 2021, which is our base case view and assuming China’s nominal GDP grows by 11%, then the credit impulse (measured by the 12-month difference in total social financing as a percentage of GDP) will likely fall to about 28% of GDP, down from 32% of GDP in 2020 (Chart 9).  The rate of credit formation increased by 13.6% in the first three months from Q1 last year, above government’s target. We expect a further pullback in credit growth in the rest of the year, to bring the annual pace at or below 12%. Construction capex, which is sensitive to both credit creation and tightening regulations in the housing sector, will likely experience a slowdown. At more than 90% of GDP, China’s economy is mainly driven by domestic demand and a weakening in the domestic economy can more than offset positive contributions from a robust export sector. Infrastructure And Services We expect infrastructure investment will grow by 4-5% this year, which is in line with its rate of expansion in 2020. However, the sequential growth in the sector in Q2 – Q4 this year will be slower than during the same period in 2020 (Chart 10). We agree that a more concentrated issuance of local government SPBs in Q2 and Q3 could help to buttress infrastructure investment. However, SPBs made up only about 15% of overall infrastructure spending in the past three years, so we are dubious that SPBs can provide the crucial support. The rest of the gap for local governments to finance their spending on infrastructure projects will need to be filled through public-private partnerships (PPP) financing, government-managed funds’ (GMFs) revenues, government budgets and bank loans. Note that only non-household medium- and long-term (MLT) bank lending showed a positive impulse so far (Chart 11). While not all of MLT loans are used for infrastructure, they have a positive correlation with investments in infrastructure projects which are generally long term in nature. Chart 10Sequential Growth In Infrastructure Investment Will Be Slower Than In Q2 – Q4 Last Year Chart 11MLT Bank Loans Have Been Supportive To Infrastructure Spending... On the other hand, the contribution of PPPs to total infrastructure spending has been plunging in recent years due to tighter regulations aimed at controlling increased risks related to local government debt (Chart 12). Depressed revenues from land sales and extended corporate tax cuts this year will also curb the ability of local governments to finance infrastructure projects (Chart 13). Chart 12...But Public-Private Partnerships Have Become Too Small To Fill The Financing Gap Chart 13Government-Managed Funds Also Face Headwinds From Falling Land Sales Finally, although the service sector accounts for 54% of China’s GDP (2019 statistic), transport, retail and accommodation, which were hardest hit by COVID-19, accounted for less than 30% of China’s tertiary GDP. This compares with a slightly larger share of tertiary GDP from finance- and housing-related sectors (financial intermediation, leasing & business services, and real estate) –the sectors that have been thriving since the second half of last year when both the equity and housing markets boomed (Chart 14). Nonetheless, it is unreasonable to expect these areas to strengthen even more in an environment where the policy has shifted to contain risks in the financial and housing arenas. The net result to tertiary GDP growth is that the deterioration in finance- and real estate-related segments will likely offset an improvement in transport, retail and accommodation. Chart 14More Than 70% Of China’s Services Sector Is Finance And Real Estate Related Investment Conclusions The ultimate question we got from almost every client meeting was: What would make us turn bullish on Chinese stocks in the next 6 to 12 months?  Chart 15Changes In Domestic Policy Dominate Chinese Stock Performance Since most monthly and quarterly economic data do not provide enough market-moving catalysts, we rely on our assessment of the changes in policy direction, such as interbank liquidity conditions and excess reserves, in addition to overall credit growth (Chart 15). We will also continue to watch for the following signs before upgrading our tactical and cyclical calls from underweight to overweight: Chart 16 shows that cyclical stocks remain depressed relative to defensives in both onshore and offshore markets, underscoring investors’ concerns about China’s economy. A breakout in cyclicals versus defensives would signify a major improvement in investor sentiment towards policy support and economic growth. A technical breakdown in the performance of healthcare and utility stocks relative to investable stocks would be another bullish indicator (Chart 17). These equities have historically led China’s economic activity, core inflation and stock prices by one to three months. A technical breakdown in the relative performance of these sectors would signify that market participants anticipate a meaningful economic upturn in China.   Chart 16Waiting For A Telltale Sign... Chart 17...Before Upgrading Chinese Stocks   Given that the above mentioned indicators remain firmly in a risk-off mode, we maintain our view that China’s economy has reached its peak, and policy has tightened meaningfully. Our cyclical underweight position on Chinese stocks, in both absolute terms and within a global portfolio, is warranted.   Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

ハイライト 中国の鋼材需要の急増を受け、建築およびインフラプロジェクトが今年完了するにつれて上海鉄鋼先物が今月初めに5,200人民元/MT弱の史上高近くまで上昇したことから、銅価格はさらに上昇すると見込まれます（今週のチャート）。 銅は今年および来年にかけて実需ベースでの需給不足を記録し、在庫がさらに減少するとともに中国および世界的に銅スクラップの需要を押し上げるでしょう。 銅価格の上昇が続けば、現在の市場での口先介入が需要と価格上昇を抑えられない場合、中国の膨大な国家保有銅在庫（約200万MTと推定される）の一部を当局が放出する可能性があります。 強い鋼材マージンと製鉄所に対する新たな環境規制が高品位鉄鉱石（65% Fe）需要を押し上げており、同品は今週初めに約223ドル/MT弱の史上高を付けました。ベンチマークの鉄鉱石価格（62% Fe）は今週10年ぶり高値で取引され、約190ドル/MT手前でした。 当社は2021年12月の銅価格予想を4.50ドル/lbから5.00ドル/lbに引き上げます。さらに、本日の取引終了時に2022年物CME/COMEX銅をロングし、2023年物CME/COMEX銅をショートするポジションを取ります。より急峻なバックワーデーションを見込んでの取組みです。 特集 中国の唐山（Tangshan）製鉄拠点における汚染削減のための製鉄所稼働率の最大30%削減という政府指示は、建設およびインフラのブームに対応する既に逼迫した市場をさらに引き締めることになります（チャート2）。このブームは鋼材価格、そして結果的に鉄鉱石価格を急騰させました（チャート3）。過去と同様に、これが銅の強気相場の次の局面の舞台を整えます。 今週のチャート 鋼材の急騰が銅価格の更なる上昇を予告 鉄鋼の急騰は銅価格のさらなる上昇を示唆する 鉄鋼の急騰は銅価格のさらなる上昇を示唆する 当社のモデルでは、特に鉄筋（リバー）価格と銅価格の間に強い関係があることが今週のチャートで確認できます。鋼材は建築・インフラプロジェクトの前段階で使われ（鉄筋で補強されたコンクリートや圧延コイル製品など）、その後、完成したプロジェクトには銅が使われます（配線や配管の形で）。 チャート2 銅の強気相場は続く 銅の強気相場は続く 銅の強気相場は続く 建設・建築ブームに加え、製造業の継続的な回復が銅価格の追い風となり、2021年後半の世界的な活動回復がこれをさらに増幅します。チャート4は名目GDP水準と銅価格の関係を示しています。重要なのは、アジア（中国を含む）およびアジア以外の経済成長が銅価格とコインテグレーション（共積分）関係にあることで、すなわち経済成長と工業コモディティは長期的な均衡を共有しており、それが同時変動を説明します。 チャート3 鋼材ブームが鉄鉱石価格を押し上げる 鉄鋼ブームが鉄鉱石価格を押し上げる 鉄鋼ブームが鉄鉱石価格を押し上げる メディア報道はしばしば、中国の政府支出をGDP比で注目しがちです（例：社会融資総額のGDP比）。しかし商品価格動向を説明しようとする際に経済要因が除外されがちです。中国政府が民間部門（財・サービス面）をさらに拡大することに成功すれば、オーガニックな経済成長が中国のコモディティ需要を説明する上でより重要になります。 チャート4 世界経済の成長が銅価格を押し上げる 世界的な経済成長が銅価格を押し上げる 世界的な経済成長が銅価格を押し上げる 当社の銅モデルでは、名目中国GDP、新興アジア（EMアジア）GDPおよびアジア以外の新興国（EM）GDPに加え、鋼材と鉄鉱石価格が銅価格と共積分関係にあることが分かります。これは純粋な経済学的観点から期待される結果です。一方で、これらの工業用コモディティ価格と中国の名目GDPに対する社会融資総額の割合との間には共積分関係（経済的な共動性や共通トレンド）は見られません。これらのモデルにより、銅価格の説明や予測に役立たない偽の関係を回避できます。 チャート5 鉄鉱石・銅の需要はグリーン・エネルギーの整備で増加する 鉄鋼価格の急騰で銅が上昇 鉄鋼価格の急騰で銅が上昇 チャート6 再生可能エネルギーが新規増分発電を主導 銅、鉄鋼価格の急騰を受け上昇へ 銅、鉄鋼価格の急騰を受け上昇へ 長期的には、当社が過去の調査報告で指摘してきたように、分散型再生可能発電の導入、よりレジリエントな電力網、電気自動車（EV）への移行は、鉄鉱石や鋼材といったばら積み需要、および特に銅のようなベースメタルの需要成長の主要な源泉となります（チャート5）。1 すでに再生可能エネルギーは、世界の電力網に追加される新規増分発電の中で最も高い成長セグメントを占めています（チャート6）。 銅供給の増加にはより高い価格が必要 銅供給は短期（2022年末まで）では需要に対応するのが困難であり、再生可能エネルギーとEVの整備は大半がこれから始まる段階にあります。つまり中期（2025年末まで）および長期（2050年）において、需要を満たすためにはかなりの新供給を開発する必要があります。 短期的には、精錬銅の供給面、特に製錬所が半精製品として精製し製造入力にする凝縮物（コンデンセート）レベルが極めて低下しており、中国の製錬所におけるトリートメント料・精製料（TC/RC）の長期的な急落からも確認できます（チャート7）。先週およそ22ドル/MTで、これらの手数料は2013年に中国でのベンチマークTC/RC指数が開始されて以来の最低水準でした（reuters.comによる）。2 チャート7 供給減少で銅のTC/RCが低下、価格を押し上げる 銅のTCRCsが供給減で下落し、価格を押し上げる 銅のTCRCsが供給減で下落し、価格を押し上げる 銅の供給事情はチャート8にも表れており、年次の供給と需要を残高に換算すると、これが在庫市場を介して調整されます。国際銅研究グループ（ICSG）は、鉱山生産は昨年も前年並みで推移し、精銅供給はわずか1.5%の増加にとどまったと推定しています。 チャート8 実需の不足が銅在庫を引き下げる... 現物不足が銅在庫を取り崩す… 現物不足が銅在庫を取り崩す… ICSGの推定によれば消費は2.2%増加し、中国の保税倉庫在庫を調整後の今年の実需ベースの不足は456千MTが見込まれます。これで銅市場は4年連続の実需不足となり、2017年以降の平均不足は約414千MTです。その結果、在庫が再び供給ギャップを埋める頼みとなり、世界の在庫は前年比約25%減と低水準で今後も減少し続けるでしょう（チャート9）。 鉱業の設備投資が弱く、銅鉱石の品位が低下しているため、相当程度の新投資を促すにはより高い価格が必要です（チャート10）。しかし、これらプロジェクトのリードタイムは最良のケースでも5年であるため、鉱山会社は近い将来に最終投資判断を下してプロジェクトを承認する必要があります（チャート11）。 チャート9 ...結果として4年続く実需不足で在庫は低水準 …4年にわたる現物不足を経て低い …4年にわたる現物不足を経て低い チャート10 弱い投資と低下する鉱石品位を是正するにはより高い銅価格が必要 弱い設備投資と鉱石品位の低下を是正するには、銅価格のさらなる上昇が必要だ 弱い設備投資と鉱石品位の低下を是正するには、銅価格のさらなる上昇が必要だ チャート11 新規鉱山稼働までのリードタイムは短縮中だが時間は限られる 銅、鉄鋼価格の急騰で上昇へ 銅、鉄鋼価格の急騰で上昇へ 投資への含意 当社が銅に注目するのは、銅があらゆる再生可能技術に関わり、電気自動車（EV）にとっても重要であり、特にこの技術が広く普及した場合にその重要性が増すという単純な事実によります（チャート12）。 当社は短期・中期・長期の投資期間にわたり銅供給の課題が続くと予想しています。短期対応として、当社は2020年9月10日に2021年12月物銅をロングすることを推奨しており、このポジションは現在39.2%の含み益です。中長期をカバーするために、当社はS&P グローバル GSCI コモディティ・インデックスおよびiShares GSCI コモディティ ダイナミック ロール ストラテジー ETF（COMT）をそれぞれ2017年12月7日と2021年3月12日に推奨しており、これらは現時点でそれぞれ-2.3%および-0.8%となっています。 チャート12 電気自動車の普及が新たな銅需要を生む 鉄鋼価格の急騰で銅が上昇へ 鉄鋼価格の急騰で銅が上昇へ 本日の取引終了時に、上記の銅の需給ストーリーに基づく中期的な機会を捉えるために、2022年物CME/COMEX銅先物をロングし、2023年物CME/COMEX銅先物をショートするポジションを構築します。市場のさらなる引き締まりにより在庫が取り崩され、銅先物カーブのバックワーデーションがより急峻になると予想しています。 短期・中期・長期の当社ポジションに対する主なリスクは、世界的にCOVID-19パンデミックを抑制できないことであり、これは短期的なリスクだと考えています。第二のリスクは、中国国家備蓄局（別名：国家鉱物備蓄局）が保有する戦略的な銅コンセントレート備蓄の大規模放出です。後者のリスクに関して、同局の実際の保有量は不明ですが、約200万MTの範囲にあると考えられています。3 結論： 当社は工業用コモディティ、特に銅に対して強気の立場を維持します。 ロバート・P・ライアン チーフ・コモディティ＆エネルギー・ストラテジスト rryan@bcaresearch.com   コモディティ概要 エネルギー： 強気 米国エネルギー情報局（EIA）によれば、テキサス州は2022年末までに約10GWのユーティリティ規模の太陽光発電を追加する見込みです。テキサスは2020年に本格的に太陽光市場に参入し、2.5GWを導入しました。EIAは今後2年間で年平均約5GWを追加すると見ており、総太陽光容量は約15GW弱になる見込みです。この新規容量の約30%は米国で最も生産性の高い油田があるパーミアン盆地で建設される予定です。比較として、米国の太陽光発電の主要生産州であるカリフォルニアはEIAによれば3.2GWの新規太陽光容量を追加します（チャート13）。2022年末までに、新規太陽光発電の約3分の1がテキサスで追加される見込みで、同州はすでに国内で最大の風力発電地でもあります。風力の発電可能性は夜間に高く、太陽は昼間に最も豊富です。 貴金属： 強気 パラジウム価格は水曜日に約2,876ドル/ozで取引され、2020年2月の過去最高2,875.50ドル/ozを上回り3,000ドル/ozに迫っています。これは世界最大のパラジウム生産者であるロシアの金属メーカー、ノリリスクの生産見通し引き下げが続いているためです（チャート14）。同社は今週、以前の見通しを更新し、鉱山の浸水により銅・ニッケル・パラジウムの鉱山生産が今年最大20%減少する可能性があるとしました。パラジウムはガソリン車の触媒に使われ、世界がCOVID-19由来の需要破壊と自動車の供給を制限している半導体不足から回復するにつれて、自動車販売の回復が見込まれます。加えて、白金族金属（PGM）の生産は南アフリカの電力供給の不安定さにより妨げられており、国内の電力大手が需給調整のために計画停電を実施せざるを得ない状況です。当社は2020年4月23日にパラジウムのロングを推奨して以降、同金属のロングを維持しており、このポジションは35.6%の含み益です。 チャート13 鉄鋼価格の急騰で銅が上昇へ 鉄鋼価格の急騰で銅が上昇へ チャート14 パラジウム価格 パラジウム価格     脚注 1     例として当社が2020年11月26日に発表したレポート「Renewables, China's FYP Underpin Metals Demand」（再生可能エネルギー：中国の五カ年計画が金属需要を支える）をご覧ください。‌ ces.bcaresearch.comで入手可能です。   2     reuters.comに掲載された2021年4月14日付の記事「RPT-COLUMN-Copper smelter terms at rock bottom as mine squeeze hits: Andy Home」を参照してください。この記事は、鉱山と製錬所間の直接取引が10ドル/MT程度まで報告されたことを指摘しており、銅の実需サイドが現状いかに逼迫しているかを示しています。 3    reuters.comに掲載された2021年4月20日付の記事「Column: Supercycle or China cycle? Funds wait for Dr Copper's call」をご覧ください。    投資見解とテーマ 推奨 戦略的推奨 戦術的トレード コモディティ価格と取組の参考表 2021年にクローズしたトレード クローズ済みトレードの要約 より高いインフレが到来 より高いインフレが到来

Highlights On a timeframe of a few years, a net deflationary shock is a near-certainty even if we do not know its precise nature or its precise timing. Hence, investors must build such a deflationary shock or shocks into their long-term investment strategy. Specifically: The 10-year T-bond yield will ultimately reach zero, and the 30-year T-bond yield will ultimately reach 0.5 percent. For patient investors, this presents a mouth-watering 100 percent return on the long-duration T-bond. The structural bull market in equities will continue until T-bond yields reach their ultimate low. Patient equity investors should steer towards ‘growth’ sectors that will surge on the ultimate low in T-bond yields. Fractal trade shortlist: Taiwan versus China, Netherlands versus China, and Sweden versus Finland. Feature Chart I-1For Long-Term Investors, A Shock Is A Near-Certainty Predicting shocks is easy. The precise nature and timing of shocks is not predictable, but the statistical distribution of shocks is highly predictable. This means that the longer our investment timeframe, the more certain we are of encountering at least one shock – even if we cannot predict its precise nature or timing. Many economists and strategists blame their forecasting errors on shocks, such as the pandemic, which they point out are ‘unforecastable.’ Absent the shocks, they argue, their predictions of the economy and the markets would have turned out right. This is a valid excuse for short-term forecasting errors, but it is not a valid excuse for long-term forecasting errors. On a long-term horizon, encountering a major shock, or several major shocks, is a near-certainty. Hence, economists and strategists who are not incorporating the well-defined statistical distribution of shocks into their long-term investment forecasts and strategies are making a mistake. Individual Shocks Are Not Predictable In the 21 years of this century so far, there have been five shocks whose economic/financial consequences have been felt worldwide: the dot com bust (2000); the global financial crisis (2007/8); the euro debt crisis (2011/12); the emerging markets recession (2014/15); and the global pandemic (2020). To these we can add two wide-reaching political shocks: the Brexit vote (2016); and Donald Trump’s shock victory in the US presidential election (2016). In total, this constitutes seven shocks, four economic/financial, two political, and one natural (Chart I-2). Chart I-2The Seven Global Shocks Of The Century (So Far) Some people argue that economic/financial shocks are predictable, because they arise from vulnerabilities in the economy or financial markets, which should be easy to spot. Unfortunately, though such vulnerabilities are obvious in hindsight, the greatest economic minds cannot see them in real time. The greatest economic minds cannot see economic vulnerabilities. Infamously, on the eve of the global financial crisis, Ben Bernanke was insisting that “there’s not much indication that subprime mortgage issues have spread into the broader mortgage market.” Equally infamously, on the eve of the euro debt crisis, Mario Draghi was asking “what makes you think that the ECB must become lender of last resort to governments to keep the eurozone together?” (Chart I-3 and Chart I-4) Chart I-3Bernanke Couldn't See The GFC Chart I-4Draghi Couldn't See The Euro Debt Crisis Which begs the question, what is the current vulnerability that today’s great economic minds cannot see? As we have documented many times, most recently in The Rational Bubble Is Turning Irrational, the current vulnerability is the exponential relationship between rising bond yields and the risk premiums on equities and other risk-assets (Chart I-5 and Chart I-6). Meaning that $500 trillion of risk-assets are vulnerable to any substantial further rise in bond yields. Chart I-5A 1.5 Percent Decline In The Bond Yield Had A Smaller Impact On The Earnings Yield When The Bond Yield Started At 4 Percent... Chart I-6...Than When The Bond Yield Started ##br##At 3 Percent The second type of shock – political shocks – should be predictable as they mostly arise from well-defined events such as elections and referenda, which an army of political experts analyses ad nauseam. Yet the greatest political minds could not see Brexit or President Trump coming. Indeed, even ‘Team Brexit’ didn’t see Brexit coming, because it had no plan on how to implement Brexit once the vote was won. The third type of shocks – natural shocks – are clearly unpredictable as individual events. Nobody knows when the next major pandemic, earthquake, volcano eruption, tsunami, solar flare, or asteroid strike is going happen. Yet, to repeat, while the precise nature and timing of shocks is not predictable, the statistical distribution of shocks is highly predictable. The Statistical Distribution Of Shocks Is Highly Predictable The good news is that shocks follow well-defined statistical ‘power laws’ which allow us to accurately forecast how many shocks to expect in any long timeframe. The 7 shocks experienced through the past 21 years equates to a shock every three years on average, or 3.33 shocks in any 10-year period. The expected wait to the next shock is three years. The next few paragraphs delve into some necessary mathematics, but don’t worry, you don’t need to understand the maths to appreciate the key takeaways. If the past 21 years is representative, we propose that the number of shocks in any 10-year period follows a so-called Poisson distribution with parameter 3.33. From this distribution, it follows that the probability of going through a 5-year period without a shock is just 19 percent, and the probability of going through a 10-year period without a shock is a negligible 4 percent (Chart of the Week). The result is that if you are a long-term investor, then encountering a shock is a near-certainty and should be built into your investment strategy. How can we test our assumption that the number of shocks follows a Poisson distribution? The maths tells us that if the number of shocks follows a Poisson distribution with parameter 3.33, then the ‘waiting time’ between shocks follows a so-called Exponential distribution also with parameter 3.33. On this basis, 63 percent of the waits between shocks should be up to three years, 23 percent should be four to six years, and 14 percent should be over six years. Now we can compare this expected distribution with the actual distribution of waits between the 7 shocks encountered so far in this century. We find that the theory lines up closely with the practice, validating our assumption of a Poisson distribution (Chart I-7 and Chart I-8). Chart I-7The Theoretical Waiting Time Between Shocks… Chart II-8…Is Close To The Actual Waiting Time Between Shocks To repeat the key takeaways, on a long-term timeframe, encountering at least one shock is a near-certainty, and the expected wait to the next shock is three years. A Shock Is A Near-Certainty, And It Will End Up Deflationary Nevertheless, there remains a pressing question: Will the next shock(s) be deflationary or reflationary? It turns out that all shocks end up with both deflationary and reflationary components: either a deflationary impulse followed by a reflationary backlash or, as we highlighted in The Road To Inflation Ends At Deflation, a reflationary impulse followed by a deflationary backlash. But the crucial point is that the deflationary component will swamp the reflationary component. In the seven shocks of this century so far, six have been deflationary impulses with a weaker reflationary backlash; and one – the reflation trade of 2017-18 – was a reflationary impulse with a stronger deflationary backlash. It is our high conviction view that in the next shock(s), the deflationary component will continue to hold the upper hand (Chart I-9). Chart I-9Each Shock Has A Deflationary And Reflationary Component... But The Deflationary Component Tends To Dominate The simple reason is that as financial asset prices, real estate prices, and debt servicing costs get addicted to ever lower bond yields, the economy and financial markets cannot tolerate bond yields reaching previous tightening highs and, just like all addicts, need a new extreme loosening to feel any stimulus. This means that when the next shock comes – as it surely will – it will require lower lows and lower highs in the bond yield cycle. Let’s sum up. On a timeframe of a few years, a shock is a near-certainty even if we do not know its precise nature – economic/financial, political, or natural – or its precise timing. Furthermore, the shock will be net deflationary. Hence, investors must build such a deflationary shock or shocks into their long-term investment strategy. Specifically: The 10-year T-bond yield will eventually reach zero, and the 30-year T-bond yield will ultimately reach 0.5 percent. For patient investors, this constitutes a mouth-watering 100 percent return on the long-duration T-bond. The 10-year T-bond yield will eventually reach zero. The structural bull market in equities will continue until T-bond yields reach their ultimate low. Patient equity investors should tilt towards ‘growth’ sectors that will surge on the ultimate low in T-bond yields. Candidates For Countertrend Reversals This week we have noticed an unusual decoupling among the tech-heavy markets of Taiwan, Netherlands, and China (Chart I-10). Chart I-10An Unusual Decoupling Between Tech-Heavy Netherlands And China Among these three markets, the strong short-term outperformance of both Taiwan and Netherlands are due to supply bottlenecks in the semiconductor sector that have boosted Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing and ASML, but we expect these bottlenecks ultimately to resolve.  On this basis and combined with extremely fragile 130-day fractal structures, Taiwan versus China and Netherlands versus China are vulnerable to reversals (Chart I-11 and Chart I-12). Chart I-11Underweight Taiwan Versus China Chart I-12Underweight Netherlands Versus China Our first recommended trade is to underweight Netherlands versus China, setting a profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 5 percent. Another outperformance that looks fragile on its 130-day fractal structure is Sweden versus Finland, driven by industrials and financials versus energy and materials (Chart I-13). Chart I-13Underweight Sweden Versus Finland Our second recommended trade is to underweight Sweden versus Finland, setting a profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 4.7 percent.   Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Asset Performance Equity Market Performance   Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - ##br##Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - ##br##Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - ##br##Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - ##br##Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations    

Highlights The Biden Administration's $2.25 trillion infrastructure plan rolled out yesterday will, at the margin, boost global demand for energy and base metals more than expected later this year and next.  Global GDP growth estimates – and the boost supplied by US stimulus – once again will have to be adjusted higher (Chart of the Week). Energy and metals fundamentals continue to tighten. OPEC 2.0's so-far-successful production management strategy will keep the level of supply just below demand, which will keep Brent crude oil on either side of $60/bbl. Base-metals output will struggle to meet higher demand from the ongoing buildout of renewables infrastructure and growing electric-vehicle sales. Of late, concerns that speculative positioning suggests prices will head lower – or, at other times, higher – are entirely misplaced: Spec positioning conveys no information on price levels or direction.  Energy and metals prices, on the other hand, do convey useful information on spec positioning, demonstrating specs do not lead the news or prices, they follow them. Short-term headwinds caused by halting recoveries and renewed lockdowns – particularly in the EU – will fade in 2H21 as vaccines roll out, if the experience of the UK and US are any guide.  Continued USD strength, however, would remain a headwind. Feature If the Biden administration is successful in getting its $2.25 trillion infrastructure-spending bill through Congress, the US will join the rest of the world in the race to re-build – in some cases, build anew – its long-neglected bridges, roads, schools, communications and high-speed transportation networks, and, critically, its electric-power grid.  There's a lot of game left to play on this, but our Geopolitical Strategy group is giving this bill an 80% of passage later this year, after all the wrangling and log-rolling in Congress is done. In and of itself, the infrastructure-directed spending coming out of Biden's plan will be a catalyst for higher US industrial commodity demand – energy, metals and bulks.  In addition, it will support the lift in the demand boost coming out of higher GDP growth globally, which will be pushed higher by US fiscal spending, as the Chart of the Week shows.  Of note is the extremely robust growth expected in India, China and the US, which are among the largest consumers of industrial commodities globally.  Overall growth in the G20 and globally will be expansive in 2022 as well. Chart of the WeekBiden's $2.25 Trillion Infrastructure Bill Will Boost Global Commodity Demand Higher GDP growth translates directly into higher demand for commodities, all else equal, as can be seen in the relationship between EM and DM GDP, supply and inventories and Brent crude oil prices in Chart 2.  While we have reduced our Brent forecast for this year to $60/bbl on the back of renewed demand-side weakness in the EU due to problems in acquiring and distributing COVID-19 vaccines, we expect this to be reversed next year and into 2025, with prices trading between $60-$80/bbl (Chart 3).  OPEC 2.0, the oil-producer coalition led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia, has done an excellent job of keeping the level of oil supply below demand over the course of the pandemic, which we expect to continue to the end of 2025.1 Chart 2Higher GDP Growth Presages Higher Commodity Demand Chart 3Brent Crude Oil Prices Will Average - / bbl to 2025 As the Biden plan makes its way through Congress, markets will get a better idea of how much diesel fuel, copper, steel, iron ore, etc., will be required in the US alone.  What is important to note here that the US is just moving to the starting line, whereas other economies like China and the EU already have begun their investment cycles in renewables and EVs.  At present, key markets already are tight, particularly copper (Chart 4) and aluminum (Chart 5).  In both markets, we expect physical deficits this year and next, which inclines us to believe the metals leg of this renewables buildout is just beginning – higher prices will be required to incentivize the development of new supply.2  Chart 4Copper Will Post Physical Deficit... Chart 5...As Will Aluminum This is particularly important in copper, where growth in mining output of ore has been flat for the past two years.  Copper is the one metal that spans all renewables technologies, and is a bellwether commodity for global growth.  We expect copper to trade to $4.50/lb (up ~ $0.50/lb vs spot) on the COMEX in 4Q21 on the back of increasing demand and tight supplies – i.e., falling mining supply and refined copper output growth (Chart 6). Worth noting also is steel rebar and hot-rolled coil prices traded at record highs this week on Chinese futures markets.  Stronger steel markets continue to support iron ore prices, although the latter is trading off its recent highs and likely will move lower toward the end of the year as Brazilian supply returns to the market.3  We use steel prices as a leading indicator for copper prices – steel leads copper prices by ~ 9 months.  This makes sense when one considers steel is consumed early in infrastructure and construction projects, while copper consumption occurs later as airports and houses are fitted with copper for electric, plumbing and communications applications. Chart 6Copper Ore Output Flat   Does Speculative Positioning Matter? Of late, media pundits and analysts have cited an unwinding of speculative positions in oil and metals markets following sharp run-ups in net long positions as a harbinger of weaker prices in the near future (Chart 7).4  At other times, speculation has been invoked as a reason for price surges – e.g., when oil rocketed  toward $150/bbl in mid-2008, which was followed by a price collapse at the start of the Global Financial Crisis (GFC).5 Brunetti et al note, "The role of speculators in financial markets has been the source of considerable interest and controversy in recent years. Concern about speculative trading also finds support in theory where noise traders, speculative bubbles, and herding can drive prices away from fundamental values and destabilize markets." (p. 1545) Chart 7Speculative Positioning Lower In Brent Than WTI We recently re-tested earlier findings in our research, which found that knowledge of how specs are positioned – either on the long or the short side of the market – conveys no information on the level of prices or the change that should be expected given that knowledge.  However, knowledge of the price level does convey useful information on how speculators are positioned in futures markets.6 In cointegrating regressions of speculative positions in crude oil, natural gas and copper futures on price levels for these commodities, we find the level of prices to be a statistically significant determinant of spec positions. We find no such relationship using spec positions as an explanatory variable for prices.7 On the other hand, Chart 2 above is an example of statistically significant relationships for Brent and WTI price as a function of supply-demand fundamentals displaying coefficients of determination (r-squares) of close to 90% in the post-GFC period (2010 to now).  This supports our earlier findings regarding spec behavior: They follow prices, they don't lead them.8 We are not dismissive of speculation.  It plays a critical role in markets, by providing the liquidity that enables commodity producers and consumers to hedge their price exposures, and to investors seeking to diversify their portfolios with commodity exposures that are uncorrelated to their equity and bond holdings.  Short-Term Headwinds Likely Dissipate COVID-19 remains the largest risk to markets generally, commodities in particular.  The mishandling of vaccine rollouts in the EU has pushed back our assumption for demand recovery deeper into 2H21, but it has not derailed it.  We expect COVID-related deaths and hospitalizations to fall in the EU as they have in the UK and the US following the widespread distribution of vaccines, which should occur in the near future as Brussels organizes its pandemic response (Chart 8).  Making vaccines available for other states in dire straits will follow, which will allow the global re-opening to progress as lockdowns are lifted (Chart 9). Chart 8EU Vaccination Rollouts Will Boost Global Economic Recovery Chart 9Global Re-Opening Has Slowed, But Will Resume In 2H21 The other big risk we see to commodities is persistent USD strength (Chart 10).  The dollar has rallied for the better part of 2021, largely on the back of improving US economic prospects relative to other states, and success in its vaccination efforts.  The resumption of the USD's bear market may have to wait until the rest of the world catches up with America's public-health response to the pandemic, and the global economy ex-US and -China enters a stronger expansionary mode. Bottom Line: We remain bullish industrial commodities expecting demand to improve as the EU rolls out vaccines and begins to make progress in arresting the pandemic and removing lockdowns.  Global fiscal and monetary policy, which likely will be bolstered by a massive round of US infrastructure spending beginning in 4Q21 will catalyze demand growth for oil and base metals.  This will prompt another round of GDP revisions to the upside.  The dollar remains a headwind for now, but we expect it to return to a bear market in 2H21. Chart 10The USD's Evolution Remains Important   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 Going into the April 1 meeting of OPEC 2.0 today, we are not expecting any increase in production.  OPEC earlier this week noted demand had softened, mostly due to the slow recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic in the EU, which, based on their previous policy decisions, suggests the producer coalition will not be increasing production.  The coalition led by KSA and Russia will have to address Iran's return as a major exporter to China this year, which appears to have been importing ~ 1mm b/d of Iranian crude this month (Chart 11).  This puts Iran in direct competition with KSA as a major exporter to China, in defiance of the US re-imposition of sanctions against Iranian exports.  China and Iran over the weekend signed a 25-year trade pact that also could include military provisions, which could, over time, alter the balance of power in the Persian Gulf if Chinese military assets – naval and land warfare – deploy to Iran under their agreement.  Details of the deal are sparse, as The Guardian noted in its recent coverage.  Among other things, government officials in Tehran have come under withering criticism for entering the deal, which they contend was signed with a "politically bankrupt regime."  The Guardian also noted US President Joe Biden " is prepared to make a new offer to Iran this week whereby he will lift some sanctions in return for Iran taking specific limited steps to come back into compliance with the nuclear agreement, including reducing the level to which it enriches uranium," in the wake of the signing of this deal. Base Metals: Bullish Copper fell this week, initially on an inventory build, and has now settled right under the $4/lb mark, as investors await details on the US infrastructure bill unveiled in Pittsburgh, PA, on Wednesday.  According to mining.com, a major chunk of the proposed bill will be devoted to investments in infrastructure, which will be metals-intensive.  Precious Metals: Bullish Gold fell further this week, as US treasury yields rose, buoyed by the increased US vaccine efforts and President Biden’s proposed spending plans (Chart 12). USD strength also worked against the yellow metal, which has been steadily declining since the beginning of this year.  COMEX gold fell below the $1,700/oz mark for the third time this month and settled at $1,683.90/oz on Tuesday. Chart 11 Chart 12     Footnotes 1     Please see Five-Year Brent Forecast Update: Expect Price Range of $60 - $80/bbl, which we published 25 March 2021.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2     Please see Industrial Commodities Super-Cycle Or Bull Market?, which we published 4 March 2021 for additional discussion, particularly regarding the need for additional capex in energy and metals markets. 3    Please see UPDATE 1-Strong industrial activity, profit lift China steel futures, published by reuters.com 29 March 2021. 4    See, e.g., Column: Frothy oil market deflates as virus fears return published 23 March 2021. 5    Brunetti, Celso, Bahattin Büyüksahin, and Jeffrey H. Harris (2016), " Speculators, Prices, and Market Volatility," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 51:5, pp. 1545-74, for further discussion. 6    Please see Specs Back Up The Truck For Oil, which we published 26 April 2018, and Feedback Loop: Spec Positioning & Oil Price Volatility published 10 May 2018.  Both are available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 7     We group money managers (registered commodity trading advisors, commodity pool operators and unregistered funds) and swap dealers (banks and trading companies providing liquidity to hedgers and speculators) together to test these relationships. 8    In our earlier research, we also noted our results generally were supported in the academic literature.  See, e.g., Fattouh, Bassam, Lutz Kilian and Lavan Mahadeva (2012), "The Role of Speculation in Oil Markets: What Have We Learned So Far?" published by The Oxford Institute For Energy Studies.   Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Summary of Closed Trades

Highlights Underweighting T-bonds, tech versus the market, growth versus value, new economy versus old economy, and US versus the euro area are all just one massive correlated trade. Get the direction of the T-bond yield right, and you will get the whole correlated trade right. The rise in the 10-year T-bond yield will meet resistance much closer to 2 percent than to 3 percent… …because the level of the yield is already starting to weigh on the stock market, the financial system, and the real economy. Hence, on a 6-month horizon, fade the massive correlated trade. When allocating to stock markets, don’t confuse a ‘stock effect’ for a ‘country effect’. Fractal trade shortlist: European autos and European personal products. The Pareto Principle Of Investment Chart of the WeekCorrelated Trade: Tech And The US One of the guiding principles of investment is that: Investment is complex, but it is not complicated. The words complex and complicated are often used synonymously, but they mean different things. Complex means something that is not fully predictable or analysable. Complicated means something that is made up of many parts. Investment is not complicated because a few parts drive the relative prices of everything. This is also known as the Pareto Principle, or the 20:80 rule. Just 20 percent of the input determines 80 percent of the output.1 Right now, the 20 that is determining the 80 is the bond yield. Higher bond yields are hurting high-flying tech stocks. This is because the ‘net present value’ of cashflows that are weighted deep into the future are highly sensitive to rising yields. Therefore, underweighting T-bonds means underweighting tech versus the market. Which extends to growth versus value, new economy versus old economy, US versus the euro area, and so on. In effect, all these positions have become one massive correlated trade (Chart of the Week, Chart I-2, and Chart I-3). Chart I-2Correlated Trade: T-Bond, And Growth Vs. Value Chart I-3Correlated Trade: Growth Vs. Value, ##br##And Tech Get the direction of the bond yield right and your whole investment strategy will be right. You will be a hero. Get the direction of the bond yield wrong and your whole investment strategy will be wrong. You will be a zero. Get the direction of the bond yield right and your whole investment strategy will be right. The hero/zero decision for investors is: from the current level of 1.7 percent, at what level will the 10-year T-bond yield peak and reverse? If the answer is, say, 3 percent, then the recent direction of this correlated trade has much further to go, and investors should stay on the ride. But if the answer is, say, 2 percent, then this correlated trade does not have much further to go, and it will soon be time to get off. To repeat, investment is not complicated, but it is complex. The evolution of the bond yield is not fully analysable or predictable. Still, our assessment is that the rise in the 10-year T-bond yield will meet resistance much closer to 2 percent than to 3 percent. This is because the level of yields is already starting to weigh on the stock market, the financial system, and the real economy. Specifically: The global stock market rally has stalled since mid-February because high-flying growth stocks have been reined back by rising bond yields. Recent margin calls and liquidations in the hedge fund space presage points of fragility in the financial system. Note, there is never just one cockroach. US mortgage applications for home purchases and building permits for new housebuilding appear to be rolling over (Chart I-4). Admittedly, these are just straws in the wind. But straws in the wind can be the first sign of a brewing storm. Chart I-4Are Higher Bond Yields Starting To Weigh On The Housing Market? On a 6-month horizon, fade the underweighting to bonds, tech versus the market, growth versus value, new economy versus old economy, and US versus the euro area correlated trade. Sectors Still Rule The Stock Market World The evolution of the pandemic, the pace of vaccination roll-outs, and the size of fiscal stimuluses have become polarised by region and country, with clear leaders and laggards. This raises the question: are the regions and countries that are winning against the pandemic the investment winners too? For the major stock markets, the answer is an emphatic no. Compared with the US, the euro area is experiencing an aggressive third wave of infections, is lagging in its vaccination roll-outs, and is unleashing much less fiscal stimulus. Yet euro area equities have not been underperforming US equities. Proving that the outperformance and underperformance of the major stock markets has very little to do with what is going on in the local economy. The outperformance and underperformance of the major stock markets has very little to do with what is going on in the local economy. By far the biggest driver of euro area versus US stock market performance is the euro area’s massive underweighting to tech stocks vis-à-vis the US. Hence, the tech sector’s recent travails have boosted the euro area stock market’s relative performance. Similar types of sector skews explain the relative performance of all the major stock markets (Table I-1). For example, developed markets (DM) versus emerging markets (EM) is nothing more than healthcare versus basic resources (Chart I-5). Table I-1The Sector Fingerprints Of The Major Stock Markets Chart I-5DM Vs. EM Is Nothing More Than Healthcare Vs. Basic Resources Exchange rates can also have a bearing on stock market relative performance – though the main transmission mechanism is not through competitiveness, but through the so-called ‘currency translation effect.’ Specifically, the multinationals that dominate the major stock markets have their cost bases diversified across multiple currencies. Hence, for a euro-listed multinational company, a weaker euro doesn’t boost its competitiveness. But it does boost the translation of its multi-currency profits into euros, the currency of its stock market listing. Thereby, the weaker euro boosts its stock price. Don’t Confuse A ‘Stock Effect’ For A ‘Country Effect’ Many people think that there is also a strong ‘country effect’ in stock market selection. For example, if US tech hardware outperforms euro area tech hardware, then this is clearly not a sector effect. It must be to do with a difference between the US and the euro area, meaning a country effect. The truth is more nuanced. Many sectors are now highly concentrated in one or two dominant stocks. US tech hardware is concentrated in Apple while euro area tech hardware is concentrated in ASML. Hence, if US tech hardware is outperforming euro area tech hardware, it is because Apple is outperforming ASML (Chart I-6). Chart I-6Is US Tech Vs. Euro Area Tech A 'Country Effect' Or A 'Stock Effect'? Likewise, if euro area pharma is outperforming UK pharma, it is because the dominant euro area pharma stock, Sanofi, is outperforming the dominant UK pharma stock, AstraZeneca (Chart I-7). Chart I-7Is Euro Area Pharma Vs. UK Pharma A 'Country Effect' Or A 'Stock Effect'? So, if US tech hardware is outperforming euro area tech hardware, and euro area pharma is outperforming UK pharma, are these ‘country effects’, or are they ‘stock effects’? We would argue that, in truth, they are stock effects. Meaning they have little to do with what is happening in the country of listing, and much more to do with the specifics of the company. For example, if UK pharma is underperforming, it is because AstraZeneca is underperforming. And if AstraZeneca is underperforming, it is more likely to do with the performance of its Covid-19 vaccine than the performance of the UK economy. The problem is that most performance attributions will incorrectly count what are stock effects as country effects. And the more concentrated that sectors become, the more pronounced this error becomes. Yet nowadays, extreme concentration in one or two stocks per sector is the norm rather than the exception. Hence, what appears to be a country effect is, in most cases, a stock effect. What appears to be a country effect is, in most cases, a stock effect. The important lesson is that when allocating to the major stock markets, do not think in terms of regions or countries because the country effect is, in truth, negligible. Think in terms of the sectors and the dominant stocks that you want to own, and the regional and country allocation will resolve itself automatically. On this basis our high-conviction structural position to be overweight DM versus EM simply follows from our high-conviction structural position to be overweight healthcare versus basic resources. In the DM versus EM decision, everything else is largely irrelevant. Candidates For Countertrend Reversals This week’s candidates for countertrend reversal are European autos, and European personal products. The euphoria towards electric vehicles (EVs) has taken European auto stocks to a technically overbought extreme (Chart I-8). Chart I-8European Autos Are Overbought Conversely, the euphoria towards economic reopening plays has taken European personal products stocks to a technically oversold extreme (Chart I-9). Chart I-9European Personal Products Are Oversold Our recommended trade is overweight European personal products versus European autos (Chart I-10), setting a profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 15 percent. Chart I-10Overweight European Personal Products Versus European Autos   Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The exact numbers 20 and 80 are simply indicative of the Pareto Principle rather than set in stone, they could also be 5 and 95, or indeed 5 and 99 as they do not need to sum to 100. Fractal Trading System 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Asset Performance Equity Market Performance Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Euro Area Chart II-2Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Asia Chart II-4Other Developed   Interest Rate Chart II-5Expectations Chart II-6Expectations Chart II_7Expectations Chart II-8Expectations ​​​​