政府

ハイライト ECBのテーパリング？：ECBがカナダ銀行やイングランド銀行に続き、予想より早く国債買入を縮小し始める—ひょっとすると来月の政策会合で—かもしれないという投資家の懸念は的外れです。ECBが最も避けたいのは、欧州の成長とインフレの加速を先取りして金融緩和の縮小に踏み切った結果としてユーロ高とイタリア国債利回りの急騰を招くことです。 ユーロ圏債券ストラテジー：我々は現在の欧州債券に関する推奨を維持します：グローバル債券ポートフォリオ内で欧州をオーバーウェイトとし、コア国の国債に対してペリフェラル（周辺国）ソブリンおよびコーポレートを優先する一方、ブレークイーブンが割安なフランス、イタリア、ドイツのインフレ連動債もオーバーウェイトとします。また、ECBの利上げ織り込みを織り戻す新たな戦術取引として、2023年12月ユーロイボー金利先物（3か月）ロングを提案します。 特集 親愛なる顧客の皆様へ、 来週、月刊のバンク・クレジット・アナリスト誌の同僚と共同で、現在の世界的な住宅ブームが投資に与える影響についてのスペシャルレポートを発表します。そのレポートは5月28日金曜日にお届けします。通常の週次発行スケジュールには6月1日火曜日に戻ります。 - Rob Robis 今週のチャート 欧州債利回りの期待外れの上昇 欧州債券利回りの期待外れの上昇 欧州債券利回りの期待外れの上昇 来月の金融政策会合に向けて、欧州中央銀行（ECB）総裁のクリスティーヌ・ラガルドは、パンデミック開始以来初めて理事会メンバーを対面で招集する予定だと伝えられています。これは、ワクチン接種が進んでCOVID-19の深刻な局面から脱しつつある欧州に対して、どの程度の金融支援がまだ必要かを巡る議論が行われるであろう会合において興味深い副次的要素を提供します。先の4月のECB会合の議事要旨によれば、既に一部のECB関係者は経済成長とインフレ期待のリスクが「上振れに傾いている」と指摘しています。 欧州の景況感が改善する中、欧州の債券利回りは反応して上昇しています（今週のチャート）。ベンチマークである10年ドイツ国債利回りは現在-0.11%で、年初来46bp上昇しましたが、その半分は過去１か月での動きです。利回りの上昇はドイツやフランスといったコア国に限定されたものではなく、10年イタリア国債利回りは現在1.11%に達し、2021年初めの水準（0.52%）の倍以上になっています。インフレ期待も急速に高まっており、5年先5年物フォワードのユーロ消費者物価指数スワップは現在1.63%で、2018年12月以来の水準です。 これらの利回り上昇は他国で見られる大きな上昇に比べると遅れています。米国とカナダの10年国債利回りは年初来それぞれ72bp、90bpの上昇を記録しています。これらの国々で利回りが急騰したのは、インフレ期待の上昇と中央銀行の国債買入縮小（テーパリング）への懸念が原因であり、カナダについては先月、実際にカナダ銀行が国債買入ペースの減速を発表して的中しました。 我々の見解では、ECBがよりタカ派的な政策スタンスへの転換を検討するにはまだ時期尚早です。この見解は、上昇したものの依然としてより引き締めを示唆していない我々のECBモニターによって裏付けられます。欧州の債券売りは「過剰で、速すぎる」ケースに見えます。 ECBは今や多くの課題を抱えている 最近のユーロ圏の経済指標は、米国で先行して見られた強さに追いついただけでなく、場合によっては長年見られなかった水準に戻っています。ドイツのZEW景気期待指数の期待項目は5月に約14ポイント急上昇し、2000年以来の水準に達しました。製造業のMarkit PMIは4月に過去最高の62.9に達しました。欧州委員会のユーロ圏消費者信頼感指数はほぼパンデミック前の水準に戻っており（チャート2）、サービス業のMarkit PMIの回復継続に良い前兆です。 パンデミックに関する良いニュースが成長見通しの急伸を後押ししています。新規COVID-19感染者の増加ペースは着実に低下しており、パンデミック初期に最も深刻な被害を受けた地域の一つであるイタリアでは現在（7日移動平均）10月以来で最も低い新規感染率を示しています。一方で、ワクチン接種のペースは当初の遅い立ち上がりから加速しており、1日あたりの接種回数（100人当たり）はドイツ、フランス、イタリアで米国を上回っています（チャート3）。 チャート2 欧州の成長は回復中 欧州の成長は回復している 欧州の成長は回復している チャート3 欧州での接種加速 欧州におけるワクチン接種の加速 欧州におけるワクチン接種の加速 チャート4 欧州の余剰生産能力はどの程度か？ 欧州にはどれだけの余剰生産能力があるのか？ 欧州にはどれだけの余剰生産能力があるのか？ 接種の急速な進展は、2020年Q4と2021年Q1のロックダウンによる二番底型リセッションからの確かな回復を欧州にもたらす見込みです。欧州委員会は先週、ユーロ圏の成長見通しを上方修正し、実質GDPは2021年に4.3%、2022年に4.4%の拡大を見込むとしました（従来見通しは両年とも3.8%）。NGEU（ネクスト・ジェネレーションEU）パッケージを通じた公共投資の回復が夏の後半に資金支出を始めることで、全てのユーロ圏諸国は2022年末までにパンデミック前の生産水準に回帰する見込みです。 ECBは6月の会合で、自らの経済成長およびインフレ見通しを引き上げることは確実でしょう。後者の見通しは、ECBの理事会内で最大の議論材料になる可能性が高いです。 製造業PMIのような調査ベースの指標が比較的協調的に回復しているにもかかわらず、失業率や一般的な余剰生産能力の指標にはユーロ圏内で大きなばらつきが残っています（チャート4）。これは、ヘッドラインHICPインフレ率の年次増加率が多くのユーロ圏国で約2%に近づいている一方で、イタリアやスペインのように依然として非常に高い失業率に苦しむ国々があるため、ECBがこの実現インフレの上昇が持続するかを判断するのを難しくします。 ユーロ圏内の失業率の広い分布は、現行の政策金利水準（0%前後かそれ以下）が適切であることも示唆しています。ヨーロッパの労働市場の強さの「幅」を測る単純な指標の一つは、OECDが推定する完全雇用のNAIRU以下の失業率を有するユーロ圏国の割合を見ることです。1 この指標は、基本的なテイラールールにより算出されるユーロ圏短期金利の適正水準の推定と良く相関します。現時点では、ユーロ圏諸国のうち完全雇用を超えているのはわずか43%であり、これはECBの政策金利がおおむね0%付近である状況と整合します（チャート5）。 チャート5 政策金利が0%付近であるのが依然適切 政策金利が0％近辺でも依然として適切である 政策金利が0％近辺でも依然として適切である やや多めの国（47%）は賃金上昇の加速を見ています（下段）。これは、一部の国のNAIRU推定が低すぎる可能性があり、2015年以降のユーロ圏全体の賃金上昇加速と整合します。しかし、多くのユーロ圏国がパンデミックで増加した失業の処理途上にあることを踏まえると、ECBが労働市場の動態を十分に把握し、必要な金融政策の調整を決めるまでには時間がかかるでしょう。 データトレンドの「幅」はテイラールールのような理論的な金利指標とだけ相関するわけではありません。実際のECBの政策決定は、高い成長とインフレがユーロ圏全域にどの程度広がっているかによって動機付けられます。 チャート6では、チャート5の労働市場の幅指標と類似の指標を、他の経済・インフレデータを用いて示しています。具体的には、以下を観察するユーロ圏各国の割合を示しています： チャート6 ECBは成長とインフレが広範に及ぶときに引き締める傾向 成長かつインフレが広範に及ぶとき、ECBは通常、金融政策を引き締める 成長かつインフレが広範に及ぶとき、ECBは通常、金融政策を引き締める a) OECD景気先行指数が1年前の水準より高く、成長モメンタムが加速していること； b) ヘッドラインHICPインフレの最新値が1年前と比べて上昇しており、インフレモメンタムが加速していること； c) ヘッドラインHICPインフレがECBの「ほぼ2%未満」目標を上回っており、比較的高いインフレであること。 1998年のユーロ導入以降の過去のECBの金融引き締め局面（実際の政策金利の引上げ、あるいはECBのバランスシートの横ばい～縮小トレンドの形をとったもの）をすべて見ると、ECBは少なくともユーロ圏国の75%が成長とインフレの両方で加速していない限り引き締めに踏み切らないことが明らかです。実際の利上げは、2000年、2005～2007年、2011年の利上げサイクルのように、少なくとも75%の国でインフレ率が2%を超えていたときに発生しました。より最近では、2017年にECBは成長とインフレが加速した際にバランスシートの拡大を停止しましたが、インフレが2%を超える国が50%にとどまったため、政策金利の調整は行いませんでした。 今日、実質的に全てのユーロ圏国がパンデミックで落ち込んだ1年前の水準と比べて成長モメンタムが加速しています。ユーロ圏の59%の国でインフレが加速しており、この数字は欧州のさらなるロックダウン解除と世界的なコモディティ価格の上昇に伴いさらに上昇する可能性があります。しかし、ヘッドラインインフレが2%を超える国はわずか12%にとどまっており、2017年の経験に照らすと、実現インフレはECBのバランスシート調整を引き起こすほど強くはありません。 6月のECBテーパリングに賭けるな 過去のECBの行動から判断すると、6月の政策会合で国債買入のテーパリングを発表するのは時期尚早です。より可能性が高いのは、ECBの成長・インフレ見通しの上方修正がきっかけとなり、量的緩和、TLTROのような銀行向け資金供給プログラム、政策金利といったECBの金融刺激策の各要素をどう扱うかという議論が始まることです。しかし、ECBが方針の次の一手を決定するには、インフレ目標自体の性質がまもなく変わる可能性があるため、6月会合で結論に達するのは不可能でしょう。 ECBは現在、2003年以来初となる金融政策ストラテジーのレビューを行っており、今年後半に完了する予定です。インフレ目標にはある程度の柔軟性を持たせる調整が予想されますが、その具体的な内容はまだ不明です。ECBが連邦準備制度（Fed）の先例に倣い「平均インフレ目標」政策へ移行し、目標を下回る期間の後にインフレ目標の超過を許容する可能性はあるのでしょうか？ ECBのチーフエコノミストであるフィリップ・レーンは3月に、FRBの新たなアプローチには「非常に強い論理性がある」と述べています。同時に、いくつかの欧州諸国における「非常に異なるインフレの歴史」が、一時的に高めのインフレを許容するような制度について合意に達することを難しくする可能性があるとも指摘しました。2 より最近では、フィンランド中央銀行総裁であり理事会の穏健派メンバーで現在のECB総裁候補とも見なされたオッリ・レーンが、5月9日のフィナンシャル・タイムズのインタビューでECBが米国型の平均インフレ目標へ移行することを支持すると述べました。3 レーンは、失業を最小化することに重きを置く米国型の焦点は「より低い自然利子率という現状では理にかなっている」と述べ、ECBの現在のインフレ目標の文言は「非対称性の認識を生んでおり、『2%が上限である』と見なされてインフレ期待を抑制している」と説明しました。 我々は、ドイツ連銀のイェンス・ヴァイトマンが、ECBのインフレ目標を2%超の一時的な上振れを容認するように変更することに激しく反対するだろうと想像します。ドイツのヘッドラインHICPインフレは既に4月に2.1%に達しており、ドイツ経済の長期にわたるロックダウン解除に伴いさらに上昇する可能性があります。しかし、たとえヴァイトマンが「緩和」のいかなる動きにも強硬に反対しないとしても、ECBのストラテジーレビューの完了が近づいていることを考えると、テーパリングのような政策変更がそれ以前に信頼性を持って発表される可能性は非常に低いでしょう。もし高めのインフレが容認されるなら、そもそもなぜテーパリングを行う必要があるのでしょうか？ インフレ戦略レビューを越えて見れば、ECBが次の金融政策の一手を検討する際に重荷となり得る他の要因もあります： 中国の政策引き締め：欧州の最大の貿易相手である中国は、2020年にパンデミック対応で成長を支えるために許容した借入の急増後、信用成長や財政支出を抑制し始めています。我々の中国クレジット・インパルス指標は、欧州から中国への輸出の年次成長率を約9か月先行しており（チャート7）、今年後半に輸出の劇的な減速を示唆しています。これは特にドイツのように中国向け輸出依存度が高い国々にとってユーロ圏成長の下振れリスクとなります。 貸出成長の鈍化：ユーロ圏全体の銀行貸出の年次成長率は2月に12.2%でピークを迎え、現在は10.9%に低下しています（チャート8）。軟化の多くはドイツとフランスで発生しており、これらの国はECBのTLTROを通じた優遇銀行資金の大幅な活用を見ていました。最新のTLTROプログラムのためにECBが設定した価格面でのインセンティブは非常に魅力的であり、ドイツとフランスの銀行は安い資金を利用して貸出を拡大したようです。これは銀行貸出データの経済的解釈をECBにとってより難しくしており、特にイタリアの貸出成長とTLTRO利用が現在加速している点がそれに拍車をかけています。 チャート7 欧州の輸出需要に対する警告サイン 欧州の輸出需要の警戒サイン 欧州の輸出需要の警戒サイン チャート8 ECBのTLTROはイタリア重視に ECBのLTROがイタリアに焦点を当てつつある ECBのLTROがイタリアに焦点を当てつつある NGEU支出：前述の通り、€7,500億のNGEU（ネクスト・ジェネレーションEU、別名「リカバリー・ファンド」）からの支払いは、各国の政府投資提案がEUの承認を得れば今年後半に開始される見込みです。NGEU資金はデジタルやグリーン関連の投資など、将来の経済成長を押し上げるイニシアティブを資金供給することを目的としています。多くのユーロ圏国がすでに提案を提出しており、イタリアは€1,920億の要求で主導しています。 チャート9 NGEUは今後5年間で欧州成長に大きく寄与する ECBの見通し：卵の殻の上を歩く ECBの見通し：卵の殻の上を歩く チャート10 NGEUの影響は前倒しで現れる NGEUの影響は前倒しで現れる NGEUの影響は前倒しで現れる S&Pグローバルの最近の研究は、NGEU投資によりユーロ圏全体の成長が2021年から2026年にかけて累積で1.3～3.9ポイント押し上げられる可能性があると結論づけています（チャート9）。4 同研究はまた、支出の影響は次の2年間に前倒しで現れるだろうと指摘しています（チャート10）。イタリア政府はNGEU投資がイタリアの低迷するトレンド成長率を1.5%まで倍増させる可能性があると考えています。多くのECB関係者は、NGEUのような構造的財政刺激があれば極めて緩和的な金融政策を維持する必要性が低くなると指摘しています。しかし、NGEU提案が最終化され、承認された資金額が配分されるまでは、ECBは政府投資を考慮に入れた経済予測を調整することができません。 これらの即時的な不確実性、特に欧州がパンデミックのロックダウンからどれだけうまく再開できるかを含め、我々はECB理事会が6月の政策会合で現行の金融政策ツールやガイダンスの即時変更が必要だと結論付けるという筋の通ったシナリオは見ていません。 結論：ECBがカナダ銀行やイングランド銀行に続いて予想より早く国債買入を縮小し始める—ひょっとすると来月の政策会合で—という投資家の懸念は的外れです。 ECBの次の可能性のある動きと投資への影響 6月にテーパリング発表があるとは考えにくい一方で、将来の動きに向けた示唆が出る可能性は十分あります。ECBは政策転換のかなり前から市場を準備させることで悪名高く、したがって6月会合後の公式声明やラガルド総裁の記者会見には、ECBの次の動きに関する手がかりが含まれる可能性があります。 チャート11 ECBの緩和は多様な形態をとる ECBの金融緩和は様々な形を取る ECBの金融緩和は様々な形を取る 来年3月に終了予定のパンデミック緊急購入プログラム（PEPP）についての議論が6月に持ち上がる可能性はあります。欧州経済の再開の成功やNGEU資金の最終承認額がより明確になる9月の政策会合で取り上げられる可能性の方が高いと考えられます。これらが、COVID-19ショックに起因して導入された資産買入プログラムを維持する必要性を決定づけるからです。 緩和を段階的に縮小する際にECBが選択できる政策オプションは多岐にわたります。 調整可能な政策金利は複数あります。ECBが次に利上げを試みる際、最初に動く金利はおそらく短期金利の「下限」を示す預金金利（現在-0.5%）になるでしょう（チャート11）。 ただし、利上げはバランスシート関連ツールの縮小・巻き戻しの前には発生しないでしょう。つまり、まず資産買入が縮小されます。市場参加者はその政策選択の順序を良く認識しており、短期金利の非常にフラットな経路が欧州のOISカーブに織り込まれています。 OISとCPIスワップ曲線のフォワードレートのスプレッドは、市場の実質金利のフォワード価格付けの代理として使えます。現状、市場が示唆する実質ECB政策金利は今後10年で-2%から-1%の間にとどまると織り込まれています（チャート12）。言い換えれば、市場は今後10年間で予想インフレを上回らない非常にフラットなECB政策金利の経路を織り込んでいます。 欧州の自然実質利子率はトレンド成長が低いため非常に低い可能性がありますが、実質金利が-2%といった水準にあるということは、欧州経済に関する多くの悪い構造的ニュースを織り込んでいることを意味します。比較すると、NY連銀がパンデミック前の2020年第2四半期に算出した欧州の自然実質利子率（r-star）は+0.6%とプラスでした。 このように実質金利のマイナス期待が長期化すると、ベンチマークであるドイツ国債利回り曲線上に実質的にマイナスの実質利回りが持続することの説明がつきます。単純に言えば、ECBが本格的な利上げサイクルを演出できると信じられていないのです—これは日本のフィクスト・インカム投資家には馴染みのある結果です。 ECBがユーロの水準を常に懸念しており、それが欧州の成長とインフレ期待に影響する役割を果たすことを考えると、市場がECBにとって金利を大きく引き上げるのは通貨高を招きかねず難しいと考えるのは正しいでしょう。ECBが2014年にマイナス金利政策に移行して以来、購買力平価（PPP）ベースで一貫してユーロが過小評価されてきたのは偶然ではありません（チャート13）。 チャート12 市場は今後10年の欧州実質金利のマイナスを予想 市場は今後10年間、欧州の実質金利がマイナスになると予想している 市場は今後10年間、欧州の実質金利がマイナスになると予想している 先を見れば、ECBは市場に対して金利の将来経路を上方修正させユーロを大幅に押し上げるような政策変更（テーパリングを含む）を示唆する際には慎重である必要があります。 チャート13 低いECB金利がユーロの過小評価を維持 低いECB金利がユーロの割安感を維持している 低いECB金利がユーロの割安感を維持している つまり、欧州の実質債利回りは少なくとも2021年後半にかけて深くマイナスのままである可能性が高く、名目利回りの追加上昇は主にインフレ期待の上昇によることになります（チャート14）。これにより、現在水準から欧州債利回りがさらに上昇できる余地は限定されます。 チャート14 欧州債券ストラテジーの要約 欧州債券ストラテジー概要 欧州債券ストラテジー概要 我々は引き続き、コア欧州債利回りは少なくとも2021年後半は米国債利回りに対して「低いイールドベータ」で推移すると考えており、2022年にフェデラル・リザーブが国債買入のテーパリングを開始すると予想しています。したがって、グローバル債券ポートフォリオではコア欧州国債を米国債に対して戦略的にオーバーウェイトするという推奨を維持します。米国でのテーパリングの発生確率が欧州より高く、その後の利上げもECBよりFRBの方が実施する可能性が高いと見ているからです。 専用の欧州債券ポートフォリオ内では依然としてベンチマークよりやや短めのデュレーションを推奨しますが、もし10年ドイツ国債利回りが大きくプラス領域に上昇した場合には、欧州のデュレーションエクスポージャーを引き上げることを検討します。 我々はまた、ドイツ、フランス、イタリアのブレークイーブンが我々のグローバル評価モデル群で唯一割安であるため、欧州のインフレ連動債に対するオーバーウェイト推奨を維持します。 欧州のクレジットでは、スプレッド商品をソブリン債に対してオーバーウェイトすることを引き続き推奨します。これはイタリアやスペインの国債だけでなく、投資適格およびハイイールドのコーポレート債を含みます。これらの市場に対してより弱気になるべきタイミングは、ECBが資産買入をテーパリングし始めた時です。クレジットスプレッドはECBのバランスシートの成長が鈍化している期間に拡大する傾向があります（チャート15）。 ECBが最終的にテーパリングを決定した際には、TLTROのネット残高は現在水準近くで維持される可能性が高いと考えています（満期を迎えるものを置き換える新たなTLTROを導入することで）。これにより、イタリアのような脆弱な国々でECBのイタリア国債買入減少と安価なECB資金へのアクセス減少という二重の打撃で借入コストが急騰する事態を避けることができます。 最後に一言—我々は今週、戦術的オーバーレイ・ポートフォリオの第19ページで、市場がよりタカ派なECB見通しを織り込むのを織り戻すための新たなトレードを導入します。最初のECBによる利上げの最も可能性の高い規模は10bpであり、これはOISカーブで2023年中頃に織り込まれています。2023年末までにはフォワードレート曲線でほぼ25bpの利上げが織り込まれています。我々はECBが2023年に利上げするとは予想していませんが、たとえ利上げがあっても、6か月以内に累積で25bpの利上げが実現する可能性は低いと考えます。したがって、エントリープライス100.27で2023年12月限の3か月ユーロイボー金利先物ロングを推奨します（チャート16）。 チャート15 ECBのテーパリングは欧州クレジットにとって悪材料 ECBのテーパリングは欧州クレジットにとって悪いニュースになるだろう ECBのテーパリングは欧州クレジットにとって悪いニュースになるだろう チャート16 2023年12月ユーロイボー先物をロング 2023年12月限ユーロイボー・フューチャーズをロングする 2023年12月限ユーロイボー・フューチャーズをロングする 結論：ECBが最も避けたいのは、欧州の成長とインフレの加速に事前対応して金融緩和を縮小し始めた結果として必然的に生じるユーロ高とイタリア国債利回りの急騰です。我々は現在の欧州債券に関する推奨を維持します：グローバル債券ポートフォリオ内で欧州をオーバーウェイトとし、コア国の政府債に対してペリフェラルのソブリンおよびコーポレートを優先するとともに、ブレークイーブンが割安なフランス、イタリア、ドイツのインフレ連動債もオーバーウェイトとします。   Robert Robis, CFA チーフ・フィクスト・インカム・ストラテジスト rrobis@bcaresearch.com 脚注 1 NAIRUは失業率の非加速的インフレ率（Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment）の略称です。 2 レーンのコメントは、2021年3月16日にフィナンシャル・タイムズで掲載された広範なインタビューに由来します。記事はこちらで参照できます： https://www.ft.com/content/2aa6750d-48b7-441e-9e84-7cb6467c5366 3 レーンのコメントは今月初めの5月9日に公表され、こちらで参照できます： https://www.ft.com/content/05a12645-ceb2-4cd5-938e-974b778e16e0 4 S&Pグローバルのレポート「Next Generation EU Will Shift European Growth Into A Higher Gear」はこちらで参照できます： https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/research/articles/210427-next-generation-eu-will-shift-european-growth-into-a-higher-gear-1192994 推奨 GFIS推奨ポートフォリオ対カスタムベンチマーク指数 ECBの見通し: 卵の殻の上を歩く ECBの見通し: 卵の殻の上を歩く デュレーション 地域配分 スプレッド商品 戦術的トレード 利回りとリターン グローバル債利回り 過去のリターン

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

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

Feature Chinese stocks remain in limbo despite robust economic data in April and early May (Chart 1).  Onshore equities are pricing in policy tightening risks and a peak in the domestic economic cycle. Meanwhile, a regulatory clampdown on the tech sector continues to curb global investors’ enthusiasm towards Chinese investable stocks.  The PBoC has not changed its course of policy normalization. The falling 3-month SHIBOR since March likely reflects softening demand for interbank liquidity rather than monetary easing (Chart 2). Chart 1Stay Underweight Chinese Stocks Chart 2No Easing In Monetary Policy Fiscal policy has also been consolidating with a renewed focus on reducing local government debt load and financial risks. A delay in local government bond issuance in Q1 could potentially boost bond sales in the second half of the year. However, as we noted late last month, without a synchronized policy push for more bank loans and loosened regulations on provincial government spending, an increase in special-purpose bond issuance alone will not make a significant difference in infrastructure investment nor economic growth. We still expect China's economy, which lags the credit cycle by six to nine months, to start weakening by mid-2021 (Chart 3A & 3B). Chart 3ADomestic Economic Growth Set To Slow Chart 3BPolicy Tightening Will Weigh On Earnings Growth In 2H21   Qingyun Xu, CFA Associate Editor qingyunx@bcaresearch.com   Our BCA Li Keqiang Leading Indicator continues to fall despite a marginal improvement in the Monetary Conditions Index (MCI) component. The deceleration in both money supply and credit growth has more than offset a small uptick in the MCI (Chart 4). Furthermore, a rising RMB in trade-weighted and real terms will not help the profit outlook for China’s exporters (Chart 5). Overall, monetary conditions remain unfavorable for risk assets. This is consistent with the poor performance of Chinese stocks Chart 4Falling Credit And Money Growth More Than Offset A Minor Improvement In The MCI Chart 5Strengthening RMB Will Not Help The Profit Outlook For Chinese Exporters   A sharp jump in state-owned enterprise (SOE) defaults since late last year is due to deteriorating corporate balance sheets. The defaults have exposed the weakened fiscal positions of local governments (Chart 6 & 7). SOE bond defaults have surpassed the number of private bond defaults this year. The more restrictive policy on local government financing, together with an acceleration in SOE defaults, will weigh on spending by local governments, local government financing vehicles (LGFVs) and SOEs.  Chart 6Returns On SOE Assets Remain In Deep Contraction Chart 7SOE Bond Defaults Have Surpassed Private Bond Defaults The Politburo meeting on April 30 established new guidelines to reduce local government leverage, both on- and off-balance sheet debt. According to the new rules, local governments are strictly prohibited from obtaining “hidden debts” for new investment projects directly or through their affiliated SOEs, which include LGFVs. The directives also state that the assets of LGFVs with defaulted loans should be restructured or liquidated if companies are unable to repay their debts. In addition, financial institutions should not accept government guarantees when making decisions on lending to LGFVs or government related entities.  Moreover, stricter measures in the property market have further dampened local governments’ fiscal situations since land sales account for 53% of local government fiscal revenues. Growth in government expenditures decelerated in recent months along with slowing land auctions (Chart 8). Scaled down fiscal supports will lead to subdued infrastructure investment growth this year (Chart 9). Chart 8Fiscal Stance Has Tightened Chart 9Subdued Growth In Infrastructure Investments   In addition to policy tightening in the domestic economy, Chinese offshore stocks continue to face regulatory headwinds to root out monopolies in technology, media, and telecom (TMT) companies. The antitrust investigations and fines extending from Alibaba and Tencent to Meituan highlight China’s aim to curb platform oligopolies and monopolies. Meanwhile, Chinese tech firms listed on US exchanges are facing another regulatory threat on their accounting reporting standards, which could potentially result in their delisting from the US bourses.  Moreover, elevated valuations and a weakening in the earnings outlook will generate more downside risks for TMT stocks (Chart 10). Given that TMT stocks account for around 50% of the MSCI China Index’s market capitalization, Chinese investable stocks are disproportionally vulnerable to a selloff in TMT stocks (Chart 11). Chart 10ATMT Stocks: From Tailwind To Headwind Chart 10BTMT Stocks: From Tailwind To Headwind Chart 11MSCI China Is Highly Concentrated In TMT Stocks   China’s official PMI and the Caixin China PMI moved in opposite directions in April due to the nature of the two surveys. The Caixin PMI covers smaller, more export-oriented businesses while the NBS Manufacturing PMI includes larger, more domestically exposed companies. The divergence highlights that the domestic economy is losing speed while external demand remains robust (Chart 12). Given the dominance of domestic demand in China’s economy (investment expenditures, household spending and government spending), strong external demand will not fully offset the deceleration in domestic growth.  New orders and production subcomponents in the official PMI moderated in April from March, which indicates a slowing momentum in economic activity (Chart 13). Moreover, construction PMI fell to 57.4 from 62.3 in March, corresponding with weaker infrastructure spending and more policy tightening in the real estate sector (Chart 13, bottom panel). Chart 12Conflicting Messages From The NBS And Caixin PMIs Chart 13Slowing Momentum In China's Economic Activity   The moderating momentum in China’s economy is also reflected in April’s trade data, which showed a strengthening external sector and a slowing domestic demand. A few observations support our view: First, strong imports since early this year were partly due to robust re-exports. Solid external demand boosted processing imports, which in turn contributed to China’s overall import growth (Chart 14). Secondly, Chinese imports of commodities in volume, such as copper and steel products, have plunged recently. Chinese domestic demand for commodities will likely peak in the coming months, therefore, inventory destocking pressures and weakness in underlying consumption will threaten commodities prices (Chart 15). Finally, the strengthening of coal imports in volume terms may be related to China’s increasingly stringent environmental policies. A temporary cutback in domestic coal supply boosted the demand for imports. However, in the long run, China’s push for green energy will be bearish for Chinese coal imports (Chart 16). Chart 14Solid External Demand Boosted Processing Imports Chart 15Demand Of Commodities May Be Approaching A Cyclical Peak Chart 16China's Coal Imports Likely To Decline In The Long Run   Housing prices in tier-one cities continue to post major gains despite a slew of tightening regulations in the property sector introduced since the second half of last year (Chart 17). The Politburo meeting last month reiterated authorities’ concerns over a bubble in housing. We expect authorities to impose additional regulations to constrain both financing supply and demand in the property sector. In the meantime, the existing policies have successfully started to cool the real estate market.  Chart 17Skyrocketing Housing Prices In First-Tier Cities Chart 18Real Estate And Mortgage Loans Tumbled Under More Restrictive Borrowing Regulations Both mortgage loans and loans to real estate developers tumbled under more restrictive borrowing policies (Chart 18). Growth in home sales has also started to roll over (Chart 19). Housing completed has dropped significantly, which confirms that construction activity is decelerating. Looking forward, the reduced expansion rate of new projects due to shrinking land transfers and stricter borrowing regulations will further dampen construction activities in the second half of this year (Chart 20).   Chart 19Home Sales Growth Started To Ease Chart 20Real Estate Investments Are Set To Slow Further Table 1China Macro Data Summary Table 2China Financial Market Performance Summary​​​​​​​   Footnotes Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights A slower money and credit growth in China will eventually generate disinflationary pressures by weighing on demand for commodities. The PBoC has shifted its inflation anchor and policy framework to target core CPI and the PPI rather than headline CPI. Beijing is scaling back its fiscal supports and cooling the property sector to tackle local government and housing sector debt issues. In the next six to nine months we favor companies and sectors that will benefit from global economic recovery rather than China’s domestic demand. We are long CSI500 relative to China’s A shares. The CSI500 has a larger exposure to the global economy and lower valuation relative to China’s broad onshore market.  Feature As a follow up to last week’s report, we look at another topic raised in recent client meetings: whether rapidly rising producer prices in China will morph into a broad-based inflationary risk and how macroeconomic policies will evolve to counter such a risk. Clients who believe that the ongoing producer price inflation is transitory cited China’s low consumer price inflation, and slowing money and credit growth, as leading indicators of budding disinflationary pressures. Advocates of sustained inflation pointed to robust recoveries and demand among advanced economies, extremely accommodative monetary conditions worldwide, massive fiscal stimulus in the US, a weak US dollar, and supply constraints. It remains to be seen what the worldwide pandemic’s impact will be on the balance between global production capacity and aggregate demand. In this report we analyze the PBoC’s inflation target and policy framework, and conclude that while China’s monetary policy has not become more hawkish, policy tightening seems to be taking place on the fiscal front. Is Inflation In China A Risk? It is debatable whether the strong rebound in GDP growth in Q4 last year and in Q1 this year has closed China’s output gap and will lead to widespread inflation. Given data distortions due to low-base effects from the previous year and uncertainty about China’s productivity and labor force growth, any calculation of the output gap will be unreliable. In addition, China’s employment statistics lack cyclicality and cannot be used to gauge inflationary pressure stemming from wage growth and unit labor costs.     Chart 1A Rollover In Credit Growth Will Weigh On Chinese Demand For Commodities Our cyclical view of inflation is therefore based on the framework that the ongoing moderation in China's money and credit growth will eventually generate disinflationary pressures by weighing on the country’s demand for and price of commodities (Chart 1).  Furthermore, behind a resilient PPI, there are suggestions that the strength in China’s economy is still bifurcated. A narrow-based uptrend in the PPI lacks the ground for sustained inflation, and is unlikely to trigger a general tightening in monetary policy.  While mounting global prices for raw materials propelled strong upstream PPI, producer prices for consumer goods and core consumer price inflation remain very subdued (Chart 2).  The inconsistency in producer prices among various industries highlight the unevenness of the economic recovery and, importantly, persistently muted household consumption (Chart 3). Chart 2A Bifurcated Economic Recovery Chart 3A Muted Recovery In Household Consumption Chart 4Weak Price Transmission From Upstream To Downstream Industries The transmission from upstream industrial PPI to the middle and downstream sectors has also been weak (Chart 4). It is evidenced in the faster growth of manufacturing output volume compared with price increases (Chart 5). This contrasts with the previous inflationary cycles, as well as mining and ferrous metals where surging prices for raw materials have way surpassed recovery in output volume (Chart 6). Given that price changes are more important to corporate profits than volume changes, Chinese middle-to-downstream industries face downward pressure on their profit margins and will likely deliver disappointing profits, despite a strong rebound in production. Chart 5China's Manufacturing Recovery: Stronger Volume Than Prices Chart 6China's Upstream Industries: Prices Surged Faster Than Production Furthermore, PMI input prices, which lead core CPI by about nine months, rolled over in April (Chart 7). While it is too soon to conclude that input prices have peaked, it is implied that upward pressure on core CPI from input prices may start to ease in 2H21. Bottom Line: So far there is no sign that elevated upstream producer prices will create sustainable inflationary pressure on consumer prices. Hence our view is that the PBoC will not respond to a rising PPI by further tightening monetary policy. Chart 7PMI Input Prices Have Rolled Over Chart 8Core CPI And PPI Have Been The PBoC's Inflation Targets Since 2015 The PBoC’s Inflation Target Since 2015, China’s monetary tightening cycles have closely correlated with a combination of the core CPI and PPI instead of headline CPI (Chart 8). The shift to targeting core CPI and PPI occurred despite the central bank’s frequent mention of headline CPI as its inflation target. The reasons for the shift are twofold. First, swings in food and fuel prices have become much larger since 2014, often dominating fluctuations in headline CPI (Chart 9).  Secondly, the price swings were often driven by supply-side factors and did not reflect changes in demand. Therefore, monetary policies could do little to mitigate inflationary or deflationary pressures. Furthermore, the PPI seems to play a greater role in the PBoC’s monetary policymaking than the headline and core CPI (Chart 10).  The tighter relationship between the de facto policy rate and the PPI is not surprising, given that China’s ex-factory price inflation reflects changes in corporate pricing, profit, and inventory cycles – all are driven by the country’s money supply and credit cycles.  Chart 9Large Swings In Food And Energy Prices Distorted Headline CPI In Recent Years Chart 10PPI Plays A Greater Role In The PBoC's Monetary Policymaking The relationship between the 7-day repo rate - the de jure policy rate - and the PPI has broken down since 2015 (Chart 11). Meanwhile, the 3-month repo rate has maintained a close relationship with the PPI (Chart 10, bottom panel). The change in the relationship is because the PBoC shifted its policy to target interest rates instead of the quantity of money supply since 2015 (Chart 12). Moreover, since 2016 the PBoC has generated monetary policy tightening measures through changes in its Macro Prudential Assessment Framework (MPA) rather than directly through interest rate hikes.  Chart 11Relationship Between The 7-Day Repo Rate And The PPI Has Broken Down Since 2015... Chart 12...Due To Monetary Policy Regime Shifted Bottom Line:  The PBoC has shifted its inflation anchor and policy framework since 2015. Core CPI and the PPI are now the main inflation targets. A Quiet Fiscal Tightening? Despite a jump in the PPI, the 3-month repo rate fell sharply in the past two months (Chart 10 on page 6, bottom panel).  It is possible that the PBoC considers escalating producer prices as transitory and, therefore, intends to keep its overall policy stance unchanged. However, the PBoC’s relaxed policy response towards inflation risk may be explained by Beijing’s quiet tightening on the fiscal front. Chart 13The Central Bank Has Made Little Interbank Liquidity Injections Lately The PBoC can hold its policy rates steady by supplying adequate liquidity to the interbank system through open market operations or by reducing the demand for liquidity. On a net basis, the PBoC has recently injected very little liquidity into the interbank system, implying that banks’ liquidity demand has likely softened (Chart 13).  This might be a sign of weakening credit origination. In a previous report we discussed how fiscal stimulus has become a more relevant driver of China’s credit origination since the onset of the 2014/15 economic downcycle. A rising 3-month SHIBOR can be the result of rapid fiscal and quasi-fiscal expansions, which occurred in Q3 last year. A flood of local government bond issuance drained liquidity from commercial banks, which boosted the banks’ needs to borrow money from the interbank system and pushed up interbank rates. Despite higher interest rates, credit growth soared in Q3 as fiscal multiplier provided an imminent and powerful reflationary force to the economy. In contrast, local government bond issuance was down sharply in the first four months of this year, compared with 2019 and 2020. Local governments sold 222.7 billion yuan of special-purpose bonds (SPBs) from January to April, a plunge from 730 billion yuan of debt sold in the same period in 2019 and 1.15 trillion yuan in 2020. The total local government bond issuance in Q1 this year has also been 36% and 44% lower than in Q1 2019 and 2020, respectively. A lack of local governments’ appetite to borrow coupled with a shortage in profitable infrastructure projects might have contributed to the sharp drop in bond issuance this year. Local government financing and spending have been under increased scrutiny this year. Following the State Council Executive Meeting in late March, in which Premier Li Keqiang pledged to reduce government leverage ratio and raise regulatory standards on infrastructure investment, Beijing suspended two high-speed rail projects that were initiated by provincial governments. Messages from Politburo’s meeting last week reinforced our view that policymakers may be scaling back fiscal support while further tightening regulations in the property sector. Both aspects have the potential to cool China’s demand for industrial metals and global industrial material prices (Chart 14 and Chart 15). Chart 14A Slowdown In Chinese Manufacturing Demand Will Have A Greater Impact On Global Industrial Material Prices Chart 15Lower Housing Demand In China Will Help To Cool Industrial Metal Prices We expect the intensity of policy tightening to reach its peak between mid-year to third-quarter 2021. It is unclear at this point whether policymakers are willing to allow local governments to significantly undershoot their SPB quota for this year. Local governments reportedly experienced a shortage in profitable investment projects towards the end of last year, and thus, parked more than 10% of proceeds from 2020 SPB issuance at the central bank. The central government may be taking a wait-and-see attitude this year, and saving more fiscal dry powder for later this year when the economic slowdown becomes more meaningful. Bottom Line: Beijing is pulling back its fiscal supports and cooling the property sector to tackle local government and housing sector debt issues. The deleveraging efforts will curb China’s demand for commodities, and may work to ease inflationary pressure on prices for raw materials. Investment Conclusions The outlook for China’s risk asset prices remains bearish, at least in the next six months. If the credit and fiscal impulse slow enough to depress corporate pricing power, inflation will not be a problem because disinflationary pressures will resurface. However, the growth of corporate profits will disappoint (Chart 16). Beijing may be saving more fiscal dry powder for later this year. Still, SPBs are only a small part of local governments’ financing source for infrastructure projects. Given the central government’s renewed focus on reducing public debt, policymakers are unlikely to unleash fiscal power to significantly boost infrastructure spending or economic growth. In the next six to nine months, we favor companies and sectors that will benefit from global economic recovery rather than China’s domestic demand. With this week's report, we initiate a long position on the CSI500 index, which has a larger exposure to the global market and lower valuation relative to China’s broad onshore market (Chart 17).  Chart 16Aggregate Corporate Profit Growth Will Slow Even Though Inflation Is No Longer An Issue Chart 17Long CSI500/Broad Market   Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

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

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

Bank Credit Analyst

Highlights 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. Feature 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,1 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 GDP2 + (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.3 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,1 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.4 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 Footnotes 1 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 2 Presented in this fashion, a budget deficit (surplus) is recorded with a positive (negative) sign. 3 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 4 Please see “Term premia: models and some stylised facts”, by Cohen, Hördahl, and Xia, BIS Quarterly Review, September 2008.

Bank Credit Analyst

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.