評価

Highlights China's high-profile jawboning draws attention to tightness in metals markets, and raises the odds the State Reserve Board (SRB) will release some of its massive copper and aluminum stockpiles in the near future. Over the medium- to long-term, the lack of major new greenfield capex raises red flags for the IEA's ambitious low-carbon pathway released last week, which foresees the need for a dramatic increase in renewable energy output and a halt in future oil and gas investment to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. Copper demand is expected to exceed mined supply by 2028, according to an analysis by S&P, which, in line with our view, also sees refined-copper consumption exceeding production this year (Chart of the Week). A constitution re-write in Chile and elections in Peru threaten to usher in higher taxes and royalties on mining in these metals producers, placing future capex at risk. Chile's state-owned Codelco, the largest copper producer in the world, fears a bill to limit mining near glaciers could put as much as 40% of its copper production at risk. We remain bullish copper and look to get long on politically induced sell-offs as the USD weakens. Feature Politicians are inserting themselves in the metals markets' supply-demand evolutions to a greater degree than in the past, which is complicating the short- and medium-term analysis of prices. This adds to an already-difficult process of assessing markets, given the opacity of metals fundamentals – particularly inventories, which are notoriously difficult to assess. Chinese Communist Party (CCP) jawboning of market participants in iron ore, steel, copper and aluminum markets over the past two weeks has weakened prices, but, with the exception of steel rebar futures in Shanghai – down ~ 17% from recent highs, and now trading at ~ 4911 RMB/MT –  the other markets remain close to records.  Benchmark 62% Fe iron ore at the port of Tianjin was trading ~ 4% lower at $211/MT, while copper and aluminum were trading ~ 5.5% and 6.5% off their recent records at $4.535/lb and $2,350/MT, respectively. In addition to copper, aluminum markets are particularly tight (Chart 2). Jawboning aside, if fundamentals continue to keep prices elevated – or if we see a new leg up – China's high-profile jawboning could presage a release by the State Reserve Board (SRB) of some of its massive copper and aluminum stockpiles in the near term. In the case of copper, market guesses on the size of this stockpile are ~ 2mm to 2.7mm MT. On the aluminum side, Bloomberg reported CCP officials were considering the release of 500k MT to quell the market's demand for the metal. Chart of the WeekContinue Tightening In Copper Expected Chart 2Aluminum Remains Tight Brownfield Development Not Sufficient Our balances assessments continue to indicate key base metals markets are tight and will remain so over the short term (2-3 years). Economies ex-China are entering their post-COVID-19 recovery phase. This will be followed by higher demand from renewable generation and grid build-outs that will put them in direct competition with China for scarce metals supplies for decades to come. Markets will continue to tighten. In the bellwether copper market, we expect this tightness to remain a persistent feature of the market over the medium term – 3 to 5 years out – given the dearth of new supply coming to market. Copper prices are highly correlated with the other base metals (Chart 3) – the coefficient of correlation with the other base metals making up the LME's metals index is ~ 0.86 post-GFC – and provide a useful indicator of systematic trends in these markets. Chart 3Copper Correlation With LME Index Ex-Copper Copper ore quality has been falling for years, as miners focused on brownfield development to extend the life of mines (Chart 4). In Chart 5, we show the ratio of capex (in billion USD) to ore quality increases when capex growth is expanding faster than ore quality, and decreases when capex weakens and/or ore quality degradation is increasing. Chart 4Copper Capex, Ore Quality Declines Chart 5Capex-to-Ore-Quality Decline Set Market Up For Higher Prices Falling prices over the 2012-19 interval coincide with copper ore quality remaining on a downward trend, likely the result of previous higher prices that set off the capex boom pre-GFC. The lower prices favored brownfield over greenfield development. Goehring and Rozencwajg found in their analysis of 24 mines, about 80% of gross new reserves booked between 2001-2014 were due not to new mine discoveries but to companies reclassifying what was once considered to be waste-rock into minable reserves, lowering the cut-off grade for development.1 This is consistent with the most recent datapoints in Chart 5, due to falling ore grade values, as companies inject less capex into their operations and use it to expand on brownfield projects. Higher prices will be needed to incentivize more greenfield projects. A new report from S&P Global Market Intelligence shows copper reserves in the ground are falling along with new discoveries.2 According to the S&P analysts, copper demand is expected to exceed mined supply by 2028, which, in line with our view, sees refined-copper consumption exceeding production this year. Renewables Push At Risk Just last week, the IEA produced an ambitious and narrow path for governments to collectively reach a net-zero emissions (NZE) goal by 2050.3 Among its many recommendations, the IEA singled out the overhaul of the global electric grid, which will be required to accommodate the massive renewable-generation buildout the agency forecasts will be needed to achieve its NZE goals. The IEA forecasts annual investment in transmission and distribution grids will need to increase from $260 billion to $820 billion p.a. by 2030. This is easier said than done. Consider the build-out of China's grid, which is the largest grid in the world. To become carbon neutral by 2060, per its stated goals, investment in China’s grid and associated infrastructure is expected to approach ~ $900 billion, maybe more, over the next 5 years.4 The world’s largest fossil-fuel importer is looking to pivot away from coal and plans to more than double solar and wind power capacity to 1200 GW by 2030. Weening China off coal and rebuilding its grid to achieve these goals will be a herculean lift. It comes as no surprise that IEA member states have pushed back on the agency's NZE-by-2050 plan. This primarily is because of its requirement to completely halt fossil-fuel exploration and spending on new projects. Japan and Australia have pushed back against this plan, citing energy security concerns. Officials from both countries have stated that they will continue developing fossil fuel projects, as a back-up to renewables. Japan has been falling behind on renewable electricity generation (Chart 6). Expensive renewables and the unpopularity of nuclear fuel could make it harder for the world’s fifth largest fossil fuels consumer to move away from fossil fuels. Around the same time the IEA released its report, Australia committed $464 million to build a new gas-fired power station as a backup to renewables. Chart 6Japan Will Continue Building Fossil-Fuel Back-Up Generation Just days after the IEA report was published, the G7 nations agreed to stop overseas coal financing. This could have devastating effects for emerging and developing nations‘ electricity grids which are highly dependent on coal. In 2020 70% and 60% of India and China’s electricity respectively were produced by coal (Chart 7).5 Chart 7EM Economies Remain Reliant On Coal-Fired Generation Near-Term Copper Supply Risks Rise Even though inventories appear to be rebuilding, mounting political risks keep us bullish copper (Chart 8). Lawmakers in Chile and Peru are in the process of re-writing their constitutions to, among other things, raise royalties and taxes on mining activities in their respective countries. This could usher in higher taxes and royalties on mining for these metals producers, placing future capex at risk. In addition, Chile's state-owned Codelco, the largest copper producer in the world, fears a bill to limit mining near glaciers could put as much as 40% of its copper production at risk.6 None of these events is certain to occur. Peruvian elections, for one thing, are too close to call at this point, and Chile has a history of pro-business government. However, these are non-trivial odds – i.e., greater than Russian roulette odds of 1:6 – and if any or all of these outcomes are realized, higher costs in copper and lithium prices would result, and miners would have to pass those costs on to buyers. Bottom Line: We remain bullish base metals, especially copper. Another leg up in copper would pull base metals higher with it. We would look to get long on politically induced sell-offs, particularly with the USD weakening, as expected Chart 8Global Copper Inventories Rebuilding But Still Down Y/Y   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com     Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish Next Tuesday's OPEC 2.0 meeting appears to be a fairly staid affair, with little of the drama attending previous gatherings. Russian minister Novak observed the coalition would be jointly "calculating the balances" when it meets, taking into account the likely official return of Iran as an exporter, according to reuters.com. We expect a mid-year deal on allowing Iran to return to resume exports under the nuclear deal abrogated by the Trump administration in 2019, and reckon Iran has ~ 1.5mm b/d of production it can bring back on line, which likely would return its crude oil production to something above 3.8mm b/d by year-end. We are maintaining our forecast for Brent to average $64.45/bbl in 2H21; $75 and $78/bbl, in 2022 and 2023, respectively. By end 2023, prices trade to $80/bbl. Our forecast is premised on a wider global recovery going into 2H21, and continued production discipline from OPEC 2.0 (Chart 9). Base Metals: Bullish Our stop-losses was elected on our long Dec21 copper position on May 21, which means we closed the position with 48.2% return. The stop loss on our long 2022 vs short 2023 COMEX copper futures backwardation recommendation also was elected on May 20, leaving us with a return of 305%. We will be looking for an opportunity to re-establish these positions. Precious Metals: Bullish We expect the collapse in bitcoin prices, the US Fed’s decision to not raise interest rates, and a weakening US dollar to keep gold prices well bid (Chart 10). China’s ban on cryptocurrency services and Musk’s acknowledgment of the energy intensity of Bitcoin mining sent Bitcoin prices crashing. The Fed’s decision to keep interest rates constant, despite rising inflation and inflation expectations will reduce the opportunity cost of holding gold. According to our colleagues at USBS, the Fed will make its first interest rate hike only after the US economy has reached "maximum employment". The Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey reported that job openings rose nearly 8% in March to 8.1 million jobs, however, overall hiring was little changed, rising by less than 4% to 6 million. As prices in the US rise and the dollar depreciates, gold will be favored as a store of value. On the back of these factors, we expect gold to hit $2,000/oz. Ags/Softs: Neutral Corn futures were trading close to 20% below recent highs earlier in the week at ~ $6.27/bu, on the back of much faster-than-expected plantings. Chart 9 Chart 10     Footnotes 1     Please refer to Goehring & Rozencwajg’s Q1 2021 market commentary. 2     Please see Copper cupboard remains bare as discoveries dwindle — S&P study published by mining.com 20 May 2021. 3    Please see Net Zero by 2050 – A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector, published by the IEA. 4    Please see China’s climate goal: Overhauling its electricity grid, published by Aljazeera.  5    We discuss this in detail in Surging Metals Prices And The Case For Carbon-Capture published 13 May 2021, and Renewables ESG Risks Grow With Demand, which was published 29 April 2021.  Both are available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 6    Please see A game of chicken is clouding tax debate in top copper nation, Fujimori looks to speed up projects to tap copper riches in Peru and Codelco says 40% of its copper output at risk if glacier bill passes published by mining.com 24, 23 and 20 May 2021, respectively.    Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2021 Summary of Closed Trades

特別レポート

Highlights We update our assumptions for the likely 10-15 year return for a wide range of different asset classes. Our methodology is basically unchanged from our last Return Assumptions report published in 2019, though we have refined our analysis and use of data in some areas. Returns over the next decade will be very low compared to history. We project that a standard global portfolio (50% equities, 30% bonds, and 20% alternatives) will return only 3.0% a year in nominal terms. That compares to a historic return of 6.3%. There are still some assets that will produce better returns, most notably small caps (4.9% a year in the US) and alternatives (6.2% for private equity, for example). But they also carry higher risk. Spreadsheets are available with detailed data. Introduction This is the third edition of our work on return assumptions. Since publishing the previous reports in November 2017 and June 2019, we have had many opportunities to discuss our methodologies with clients and in the Global Asset Allocation course at the BCA Academy. This has allowed us to test and, in many cases, refine our approach. We believe the methodologies we use have stood the test of time. We have always emphasized that this sort of capital markets assumptions (CMA) analysis is an art, not a precise science. We continue to prefer to project returns over a somewhat undefined 10-15 year period, since this allows us to think about the underlying trend of likely returns. Many other CMA papers use five (or even three) year time horizons which, in our view, are problematical since they rely heavily on a forecast of the timing, length, and severity of the next recession. Our approach is based on the concept that the return on the risk-free long-term government bond is the cornerstone to projecting asset returns, and that this return is rather predictable: It is approximately the current yield. Most other asset returns can be built up from that – the return on high-yield bonds, for example, by assuming that their historic spread over government bonds, and default and recovery rates will continue in the future. For equities, we continue to use six different methodologies, which are based on a mixture of valuation and projected earnings growth. This approach – that assumed returns can be built up from a combination of current yield plus forecast future growth in capital values – also works for most alternative asset classes, for example real estate. We have made a few minor changes to our methodology in this edition. We have, for example, made our use of historical data (for spreads, profit margins, growth relative to GDP, etc.) more consistent, using the 20-year average where possible. The biggest change this time is that clients can download here a spreadsheet with all the data in this report in order, for example, to use the data as inputs into their own optimizers. In addition, we have set up our detailed spreadsheet to allow clients to see the underlying inputs, the formulae behind our methodologies, and to input their own assumptions. This will also allow us to update the results of our analysis as often as needed. Please let us know here if you would like more details about this additional service. This Special Report is structured as follows. First, we analyze the overall results: What is the probable return from each asset class over the next 10-15 years, and how do these differ from historical returns. Next, we describe in detail the methodologies we use, for (1) economic growth, (2) fixed-income instruments, (3) equities, and (4) 12 different alternative asset classes. Then, we describe our way of forecasting currency returns, and show the return assumptions in different base currencies. Finally, we update the numbers for volatility and correlations, which many investors need as inputs into optimization programs. The summary of our results is shown in Table 1. The results are all average annual nominal total returns, in local currency terms (except for global indexes, which are in US dollars). The data is updated to end-April 2021 (except for some alternative asset classes where only quarterly data is available). Table 1BCA Assumed Returns Overall Results Returns over the coming decade are likely to be very disappointing compared to history. Our assumptions suggest a typical global portfolio, consisting of 50% large-cap equities, 30% bonds, and 20% alternatives, will produce an annual nominal return of only 3.0%, compared to an average of 6.3% over the past 20 years. A US-only portfolio with a similar composition is likely to produce only a 3.1% return, compared to 7% in history. The reason is simple: Valuations currently are very stretched in almost every asset class. The risk-free rate (the 10-year government bond yield) in the US is 1.6% (compared to a 20-year average of 3.1%). It is negative in the euro area (in nominal terms) and zero in Japan. These rates are the anchor for the returns of all other asset classes, which are theoretically priced off the risk-free rate plus a risk premium. We have long argued that valuations are not a good timing tool for investors. An asset can remain very expensive or very cheap for a considerable period. But all the evidence shows that the valuation at the starting point is a very powerful indicator of long-run returns. The yield on government bonds, for example, has a strong correlation with their 10-year return (Chart 1). In the equity market, the Shiller PE has historically had little correlation with the return over one or two years, but has a 90% correlation with the return over the subsequent 10 years (Chart 2). Chart 1Starting Yield Determines Bond Returns Chart 2Valuation Drive Long-Run Equtiy Returns     With valuations in equity markets now expensive relative to history (for example, forward PE for US stocks of 22x compared to a 20-year average of 16x, and 18x in the euro zone compared to 13x), investors should expect that equity market returns will be low relative to history. Our assumptions point to a 2.6% annual return from US stocks, 2.3% from the euro zone, and 1.6% from Japan (compared to 8.5%, 3.9%, and 3.5% over the past 20 years). Our assumptions are significantly lower than when we last published our analysis in 2019; then we projected 5.6% for US stocks, 4.7% for the euro zone, and 6.2% for Japan. The difference is that equity multiples have risen and risk-free rates have fallen significantly since then. So what should investors do? They have only two choices: Lower their return assumptions, or increase their weightings in riskier asset classes. Chart 3Hard To See How US Pension Funds Will Achieve Their Targets The average US public pension fund (Chart 3) still assumes a return of 7% a year, and private pension funds’ assumption is not much lower. And yet corporate pension funds have been pushed by their consultants in recent years to increase their weighting in bonds, to more closely match their liabilities (Chart 4). It is almost mathematically impossible to achieve their targets with that sort of portfolio. In other countries, such as Australia or Canada, pension funds’ return targets are typically inflation or cash plus 3-4 percentage points. But even those targets are challenging.   Chart 4...Especially With Over 50% In Bonds There are asset classes which will produce higher returns. For example, we project a return of 4.9% from US small-cap stocks – and 9.7% from UK small caps. US high-yield bonds should produce a return of 3.2% a year (even after defaults) and Emerging Markets local currency sovereign debt 2.7% (in USD terms) – not exactly exciting, but at least a pick-up over other fixed-income securities. The projected returns from illiquid alternative assets continue to look relatively attractive. An equal-weighted portfolio of the 12 alternatives we cover is projected to return 5.7% a year, not much lower than the forecast of 6.1% from our 2019 report (and compared to an average of 7.1% of the past 20 years). There are some alt assets where returns have started to trend down: Private equity, for instance, is projected to return 6.2% a year, compared to 11.1% in history, and hedge funds 4.5%, compared to 5.9%. But the illiquidity premium should not disappear completely, even if the move of alternative investments to become more mainstream has reduced it to a degree. So adding more risky assets to a portfolio is an answer, at least for those investors with a long enough time-horizon that allows them to bear the inevitable big drawdowns that come with having a more volatile portfolio. And, unfortunately, lower returns mean that the incremental return gained for each unit of risk taken has declined compared to the past 10 or 20 years (Chart 5) – the efficient frontier has flattened significantly. Chart 5You Need To Take More Risk To Produce Return How We Came Up With The Assumptions GDP Growth Several of our methodologies use assumptions (for example, in equity methods (2) and (3), based on projections of earnings growth, real-estate capital-value growth, and commodities prices) which require estimates of nominal GDP growth in each country and region. To make these forecasts, we assume that nominal GDP growth can be decomposed into: (1) growth of the working-age population, (2) productivity growth, and (3) inflation. This ignores capital intensity, but it has been relatively stable over history and is difficult to forecast. Table 2 shows the assumptions we use, and our forecasts for real and nominal GDP in each country and region. Table 2Calculations Of Trend GDP Growth For population growth we use the United Nations’ median forecast of annual growth in the population aged 25-54 between 2020 and 2040. This ranges from -1% in Japan to +1% in Emerging Markets – although note that the range of forecast population growth in EM varies widely from 1.2% in India to -1.1% in Korea (and in China, too, is negative at -0.7%). This estimate is reasonably reliable, although it does miss some possible factors, such as changes in the female participation rate, hours worked, and changing openness to immigration. Productivity is much harder to forecast. Over the past 10 to 20 years, productivity growth has trended down in most countries (Charts 6A & B). We take a slightly more optimistic view, assuming that productivity growth over the next 10-15 years will equal the 20-year average. We base this on the belief that part of the decline in productivity since the Global Financial Crisis is due to cyclical reasons which are now dissipating, and also to expectations that new technologies coming through (artificial intelligence, big data, automation, robotics etc) will boost productivity in the coming years. Others take a more pessimistic view. The Congressional Budget Office’s forecast of trend real US GDP growth in 2022-2031 of 1.8%, for example, is lower than our estimate of 2.2% mainly because of its more cautious estimate of productivity growth. Chart 6AProductivity Growth (I) Chart 6BProductivity Growth (II)   To derive nominal GDP growth, we assume that inflation over the next 10 years will be on average the same as over the past 20 years, for example 2% in the US, 1.6% in the euro area, 0.1% in Japan, and 3.9% in Emerging Markets (using a weighted average of EM by equity market cap). This estimate, too, has a high degree of uncertainty. One could imagine a scenario whereby inflation picks up significantly over the next decade due to excessively easy monetary policy, overly generous fiscal spending, growth in protectionism, rising labor pressure for wage increases, and the effects of a rising dependency ratio (the ratio of non-working people, especially retirees, to total population).1 But another scenario of continued “secular stagnation” and disinflation, caused by automation-driven job losses and a chronic lack of aggregate demand, is also conceivable. We think our middle-path forecast is the most sensible one to use in projecting likely asset returns, but investors might also want to plan based on these alternative scenarios too. Note that for Emerging Markets, we continue to show two different scenarios, which vary according to different projections of productivity growth. EM productivity growth has been declining steadily since around 2010, and in all major emerging economies, not just China. Our first scenario assumes that this decline ends and that, as in our assumption for developed economies, productivity growth reverts to the 20-year average. The more pessimistic (and, in our view, more likely) scenario assumes that the deterioration in productivity continues and that in 10 years’ time, EM productivity is the same as the average of developed economies. Which scenario will be correct depends on whether emerging economies, not least China, are able to implement structural reforms over the next decade, for example liberalizing the labor market, allowing a greater role for the private sector, improving corporate governance, and institutionalizing more orthodox fiscal and particularly monetary policy. Fixed Income Our anchor for calculating assumed returns is the return on long-term risk-free assets, specifically the 10-year government bond in the strongest countries. It is a reasonable assumption that an investor who buys, for example, a 10-year Treasury bond today and holds it for 10 years will make 1.6% a year in nominal US dollar terms. While this is not perfectly mathematically correct (since it ignores reinvested interest payments, for instance), empirically the return on government bonds has been very closely linked to the yield at the start-point in history (see Chart 1). From this starting-point in each country, we can easily build up the return for other fixed-income assets. These assumptions and the results are shown in Table 3. Table 3Fixed-Income Return Calculations Government bonds in most countries have an average duration of less than 10 years. Over the past five years, in the US it has averaged 6.4 years, and in the euro area 8.0 years. Only in the UK is the average over 10 years: 12.4 years to be precise. To calculate the return from the government bond index for each country we therefore assume that the shape of the yield curve (using the spread between 7-year and 10-year bonds) in future will be the same as the historic 20-year average. Cash. We assume that over the next 10 years the yield on cash will gradually revert to an equilibrium level. We calculate a market-implied real long-term neutral rate from the 10-year historical average of 5-year/5-year OIS implied forwards deflated by the 5-year/5-year implied CPI swap rate. This is a change from the methodology we used in 2019, when we based this off the neutral rate, r*, as calculated by the Holston Laubach-Williams model. But the New York Fed has temporarily stopped updating its calculation of this due to pandemic-induced volatility in the data, and anyway it was not available for every country. We turn the real cash rate into a total nominal return using our assumption for inflation described in detail in the GDP section above, the 20-year historical average of CPI. For inflation-linked securities, such as TIPS, we take the average yield over the past 10 years (a 20-year average was not available in many markets) and add the assumption for inflation described above. Corporate credit. We assume that spreads, and default and recovery rates, while highly volatile over the cycle, remain stable in the long run (Chart 7). We use 20-year averages for these, except that data for investment-grade default rates in Japan, the UK, Canada, and Australia are not available and so we use the average of the US and the euro zone. High-yield default rates are not available for the UK either, and so we do the same. Other bonds. For government-related debt (which is a big part of some bond indexes, 28% in the US for example) we assume that the 20-year historical average of the option-adjusted spread over government bonds will apply in the future too. We use the same methodology for securitized debt (for example, mortgage- and asset-based bonds): The 20-year average spread over the return on government bonds. Emerging Market debt. The assumptions and results for the three categories of EM debt (US dollar sovereign debt, US dollar corporate debt, and local currency sovereign debt) are shown in Table 4. We here assume that the 20-year average historical spread will continue in future. Default and recovery rates are a little harder to calculate, due to a lack of data. For USD sovereign debt (where defaults are rare and so hard to project), we use the rating-based default rate, calculated by Aswath Damodaran of NYU Stern School of Business.2 For USD-denominated EM corporate debt, we use the historical average, calculated by Moody's 2.5%.3 For local-currency debt, we use the same rating-based default rate as for USD sovereign debt. To translate the return into hard currency, we assume that currencies will move in line with the inflation differential between Emerging Markets and the US. For EM inflation we use an average of the IMF’s inflation forecasts for the nine largest emerging markets weighted by their weights in the J.P. Morgan GBI-EM Global Diversified local government bond index, and compare this to our US inflation forecast. This produces an EM inflation forecast of 2.9% a year, compared to 2.2% for the US, thus lowering the USD-based return from local EM debt by 0.7 percentage point. (See a more detailed discussion of forecasting long-term EM currency changes in the Currency section below). Index returns. Table 3 also shows the assumed return for the Bloomberg Barclays bond index for each country and for the global bond index, based on a weighted average of our assumption for each fixed-income asset class and country. Chart 7ACredit Spreads & Default Rates (I) Chart 7BCredit Spreads & Default Rates (II)   Table 4Emerging Market Debt   Equities The assumptions and detailed results for seven different equity markets are shown in Table 5. We have not made any substantial changes to our methodology for equities. We continue to use the average of six different methods to calculate the probable equity returns over the next 10-15 years. These are: Equity Risk Premium (ERP). The return from equities equals the yield on government bonds (we use 10-year bonds) plus an equity risk premium. For the US, we use an equity risk premium of 3.5%. This is based on work by Dimson, Marsh and Staunton4 showing that this is approximately the average excess return of equities over bonds in developed economies since 1900. We scale the equity risk premium for other countries using their average beta to the US market over the past 10 years. This varies from 0.66 for Japan (giving an ERP of 2.3%) and 1.2 in the euro area (ERP is 4.2%). Growth model. Here we assume that the return from equities equals the current dividend yield plus dividend growth. We need to adjust the dividend yield, however, to take into account that in some countries, particularly the US, it is more tax efficient for companies to do buybacks than to pay out dividends. We do this by adding equity withdrawals to the dividend yield. But this needs to be done on a net basis (taking into account equity issuance). We calculate this using the average annual change in the index divisor over the past 10 years. For the US, this is -0.8%, meaning there are more buybacks than new share issues. But in all other regions, the number is positive, and as high as 5.9% a year for Emerging Markets. This dilution is something that many calculations of assumed equity returns miss. For dividend growth, we assume that the dividend payout ratio remains stable, and that earnings growth is correlated with nominal GDP growth. However, history shows that earnings grow more slowly than GDP (logically so, when you consider that companies usually grow fastest before they list on a stock exchange). So we deduct 1% from nominal GDP growth to derive our earnings growth assumption. Note that for Emerging Markets, we use two different measures of dividend growth, depending on future productivity growth, as detailed above in our explanation of the GDP projections. Growth model (with reversion to mean). To take into account that valuations and profit margins typically revert to mean over the long run, we adjust the standard growth model (No. 2 above) by assuming that the current 12-month forward PE ratio and forward net profit margin for each country gradually revert over the next 10 years to their 20-year average. In the US, for example, that would mean that the current 12-month forward PE of 22.5x falls back to 16.0x, and profit margin of 12.5% falls to 10.7%. In every country and region, the profit margin is currently above the long-run average, and in all except the UK the PE is too. Note that we have changed from using the trailing PE and margin, because to use these now would be misleading given the big pandemic-driven decline in profits in 2020. Earnings yield. An intrinsically intuitive (and empirically demonstrable) way of estimating future returns is to use the earnings yield. This is based on the idea that an investor’s return from owning a stock comes either from the company paying a dividend, or from it investing retained earnings and paying a dividend in future. In the US, for example, a forward PE of 22.5x translates into an earnings yield of 4.4%. Again, here we switched this time to using 12-month forward forecast earnings yield, rather the trailing. Shiller PE. There is a strong correlation between valuation at the starting-point and the subsequent return from equities, at least over the long-run, although not over a period of less than 3-5 years (Chart 2). We regressed the Shiller PE (current price divided by average real earnings over the past 10 years) against the return from equities over the subsequent 10 years for each country and region. Composite valuation metric. The Shiller PE has its detractors. Using a fixed 10-year period does not reflect the different lengths of recessions and bull markets. It may say more about the mean-reverting nature of earnings than about whether the current price level is too high. So we also use the BCA Compositive Valuation Metric, which comprises eight indicators including, besides standard valuation measures such as price/sales and price/book, more esoteric ones such as market cap/GDP and Tobin’s Q. Again, we regress the metric against the subsequent 10-year return. Table 5Equity Return Calculations Alternative Assets Real Estate & REITs. We use the same basic methodology for both: The current yield (cap rate or dividend yield) plus projected capital value appreciation (linked to GDP growth). For US direct real estate, for example, we use the simple average cap rate of the five categories of commercial real estate (CRE), apartments, office, retail, industrial, and hotels in major cities: 6.1%. We also use the simple average of available city and category data for other countries. Cap rates are notoriously hard to estimate precisely; our data include a range of real estate, not just prime locations. We assume that capital values will grow in line with nominal GDP growth (using the same assumptions for this as we used for equities, 4.2%). We then deduct 0.5% for maintenance. This produces an expected return of 9.8% for the US. The only difference for REITs is that we do not deduct maintenance since this should already be reflected in the dividend yield. US REITs have a dividend yield currently of 3.5%, which produces an assumed return of 7.7% (Table 6). One risk with this methodology is that in the post-pandemic world, work and life practices might change. This will hurt office and residential real estate in major cities (which are overrepresented in investible CRE), though smaller cities and rural areas might benefit. As a result, capital values might fall. Table 6Alternatives Return Calculations Farmland & Timberland. Our methodology is similar to that for real estate: Current yield plus projected growth in capital values. For farmland, we use the farmland renter yield, sourced from the US Department of Agriculture. To estimate future land values, we take the gap between land value growth over the past 40 years (3.7%) and nominal growth of world GDP over that time (5.2%), assume that gap will continue and so deduct it from our estimate of global nominal GDP growth going forward (3.6%). This gives a result of 6.5%. For timberland, we assume that annualized returns in the future are the same as over the past 20 years. This produces a return assumption of 5.7%, which is (logically) moderately lower than our assumed return for farmland. Private Equity & Venture Capital. We project the return for private equity (PE) using the 30-year time-weighted average of the three-year rolling annualized return of PE over US large-cap equities, 3.6% (Chart 8). This produces an assumed return of 6.2%. For venture capital (VC), we use the same historical average for VC over PE (0.4%) to arrive at an assumed return of 6.6%. Hedge Funds. We use the 20-year time-weighted return of the Hedge Fund Composite Index over cash, 3.5% (Chart 9). This projects a future annual nominal return of 4.5%. Commodities. We previously used a methodology based on the idea that commodities’ bear markets in history have been rather fairly consistent, lasting on average 17 years, with an average decline of 50%, and that the current bear market began in 2012 (Chart 10). However, there are arguments that a new “commodities super-cycle” may be starting, driven by government infrastructure spending, and investment in alternative energy.5 We are agnostic for now on whether that will be the case, but it makes sense to switch to a neutral methodology, more in line with what we use for other assets classes: The return from commodities relative to GDP over the long run. Specifically, the CRB Raw Industrials Index has risen by an annualized 1.6% since 1951, during which time US nominal GDP growth averaged 6% (Chart 11). We assume that the differential will continue in future (although we calculate growth using global, not US, GDP), giving an annual return from commodities over the next 10-15 years of -0.9%. Gold. We calculate this using a regression of the gold price against nominal GDP growth and the annual change in the real 10-year yield over the past 40 years. For the forward-looking return assumption, we use a forecast of real rates (based on the equilibrium cash rate plus the average historical spread between the 10-year yield and cash) and a forecast of global nominal GDP growth. This produces an assumed return of 3.8%. Structured products. This asset class consists mainly of mortgage-backed and other asset-backed securitized instruments. In the US, these have historically returned 0.6% over US Treasurys. We assume that this premium continues, producing a total future return of 1.1% a year. Chart 8Private Equity Premium Chart 9Hedge Fund Return Over Cash     Chart 10Commodity Prices In History Chart 11Commodity Prices Vs. GDP Growth     Currencies Chart 12Currencies Tend To Revert To PPP To translate our local currency returns into an investor’s base currency, we need to arrive at some projections for FX movements over the next decade. Fortunately, for developed market currencies at least, it is relatively straightforward to use purchasing power parities (PPP) to do this since, over the long run, all the major currencies have tended to revert to PPP (Chart 12). We assume that in 10 years’ time all currencies will trade at PPP. We use the IMF’s estimate of today’s PPP for each currency to calculate the current under- or over-valuation. We assume that PPP will change in future years according to the relative inflation between each country and the US. The IMF provides five-year inflation forecasts and we assume that inflation will continue at this rate until 2031. For the euro zone, we calculate the PPP of the euro using the GDP-weighted PPPs of the five largest economies. The results (Table 7) suggest that the US dollar is currently overvalued and, given the forecast of higher inflation in the US than elsewhere in the future, will depreciate significantly against all major currencies except the Australian dollar. The USD is projected to depreciate by 1.7% a year against the euro and 1.1% against the yen over the next 10 years. It is likely to appreciate by 1.3% a year against the AUD, however. Table 7Currency Return Calculations Emerging Markets (Table 8) are more complicated. There is no evidence that EM currencies move towards PPP over time. All the major EM currencies are currently very cheap versus PPP (varying from 34% undervalued for the Chinese yuan to 67% for the Indonesian rupiah) but they were 10 years ago, too, and have not significantly moved towards PPP over that time. Table 8EM Currencies To calculate likely EM currency moves against the USD, therefore, we carry out a regression of the nine largest EM currencies against their relative CPI inflation rate to US inflation in history. We assume an intercept of zero. The regression coefficients vary from +0.5 for China to -1.7 for Malaysia. Apart from China, Malaysia, Poland and South Africa, the coefficients were negative, meaning that historically the USD has strengthened against the EM currency at least partly in line with relative inflation. To calculate likely future currency movements, we use the IMF’s five-year inflation forecasts and assume that the same rate of inflation will continue for our whole projection period. This methodology points to moderate annual depreciation of most EM currencies against the USD, varying from 0.8% a year for the Russian ruble to 0.1% for the Indonesia rupiah. The Chinese yuan and Taiwanese dollar are projected to appreciate moderately. We calculate the average EM currency movement using the weights of these nine large economies in the EM J.P. Morgan GBI-EM Global Diversified local-currency sovereign bond index. This produces a small (0.1%) a year appreciation. However, the IMF’s EM inflation forecasts may be too optimistic. It forecasts, for example, that Brazilian inflation will be only 3.3% a year in future, compared to an average of 6.1% over the past 20 years, and Russian inflation 4.0% versus a historical average of 9.3%. This suggests that EM currency performance could be worse than our projections. Table 9 shows the returns for the major asset classes expressed in local currency terms for six base currencies, based on the calculations explained above. Table 9Returns In Different Base Currencies Correlation And Volatility Below, in Table 10, we provide correlations for clients who need these inputs for their optimization calculations. Table 10Long-Run Correlation Matrix Returns can be calculated using the sort of forward-looking methodologies we have described above. For volatility, we think it is reasonable to use historical average data (Table 1, far right column), since volatility does not tend to trend over the long run (Chart 13). But correlation is a different matter. Correlations have varied significantly in history due to structural changes or regime shifts. The correlation of equities to bonds, it is well known, has moved from positive in the 1980s and 1990s, to negative since 2000 – probably because inflation disappeared as a factor moving bond prices (Chart 14). The correlation between equity market has risen as a result of the globalization of investment flows, though note that it fell back in 2010-2019. Chart 13Volatility Is Fairly Stable In The Long Run Chart 14Correlations Are Not Stable   So what correlations should investors use in an optimizer? Our recommendation would be to use the longest period of history available. A US investor, for example, might take the average correlation between Treasury bonds and large-cap US equities since 1945, 0.1%. Table 10 shows the correlation since 1973 of all the major asset classes for which data is available. Unfortunately, this misses some important asset classes such as high-yield bonds and Emerging Market equities, whose history does not go back that far. The results are intuitive – and prudent. From these numbers, it would seem sensible to use an assumption of a small positive correlation between US Treasurys and US equities, for example. US investment-grade debt has a correlation of 0.4 against equities. Global equity markets are all fairly highly correlated to each other, ranging mostly from 0.4 to 0.7. The most non-correlated asset class is commodities, especially gold.   Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com   Amr Hanafy, Senior Analyst Global Asset Allocation amrh@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 These are themes that BCA Research has been writing about for several years. See, for example, please see Global Investment Strategy, "1970s-Style Inflation: Could It Happen Again? (Part 1)," dated August 10, 2018; and " 1970s-Style Inflation: Could It Happen Again? (Part 2)," dated August 24, 2018. 2 Please see http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/datafile/ctryprem.html 3 Annual Emerging Markets Default Study: Coronavirus Will Push Up Default Rates https://www.moodys.com/researchdocumentcontentpage.aspx?docid=PBC_1214906 4 Please see, for example, https://www.credit-suisse.com/media/assets/corporate/docs/about-us/research/publications/credit-suisse-global-investment-returns-yearbook-2021-summary-edition.pdf. 5 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy, "Industrial Commodities Super-Cycle Or Bull Market?", dated March 4, 2021.

Dear client, In addition to this weekly report, we also sent you a Special Report on cryptocurrencies, authored by my colleagues Guy Russell and Matt Gertken. The conclusion is that government authorities are likely to lean against the proliferation of cryptocurrencies, something we suspected in our most recent report on the topic. Regards, Chester Highlights Net foreign inflows into US assets probably peaked in March. Meanwhile, there are strong reasons to believe outflows from US securities will accelerate in the coming months. As such, the 12-18-month outlook for the US dollar remains negative. Cryptocurrencies are correcting sharply amidst a crackdown in China, a risk we warned investors about in our Special Report last month. We are increasingly favoring the yen. Lower the limit-sell on USD/JPY to 109. Hold long CHF/NZD positions recommended last week. Feature Chart I-1Current Account Deficit = Capital Account Surplus The US runs a sizeable trade deficit. As such, it must import capital to finance this deficit (Chart I-1). Over the last year, this has been driven by equity and agency bond purchases by foreigners. However, we might be at the apex of a shift, where foreign appetite for US securities starts a meaningful decline. Financing The US Deficit TIC data is usually a lagging indicator for FX markets, but still holds valuable insights into foreign appetite for US assets. On this front, the March data was particularly instructive: There were strong inflows into US Treasury notes and bonds, to the tune of almost $120 bn. This was the greatest driver of monthly inflows. This was also the largest monthly increase since the global financial crisis. Net inflows into US equities stood at $32.2 bn in March. This is on par with the three-month average, but a sharp deceleration from December inflows of $78.3 bn. Corporate bonds commanded particularly strong inflows in March to the tune of $43.1 bn. It appears that foreign private concerns swapped their agency bond purchases with corporate bonds. US residents repatriated $54.1 bn back home in March. Official concerns were big buyers of long-term US Treasury bonds, but this was offset by a large sale of US T-bills. Net foreign official purchases of overall US securities were just $6.5 bn. With the dollar down since March, it is a fair assumption that the strong inflows we saw since then have somewhat reversed. The question going forward is whether there has been a regime shift in US purchases, specifically the purchase of equities (and agency bonds). And if so, can the purchase of US Treasurys pick up the slack (Chart I-2). Foreign inflows into the US equity market tend to be driven by expected rates of return, either from an expected rerating of the multiple or from profit growth. A rerating of the US equity multiple, relative to the rest of the world, has inversely tracked interest rates (Chart I-3). This is due to the higher weighting of defensive sectors in the US equity market. Concurrently, we showed in a recent report that profit growth on an aggregate level also tends to move in sync with relative economic momentum.1  Chart I-2Equity Inflows Have Financed ##br##The US Deficit Chart I-3Rising Bond Yields Would Curtail Equity Inflows If growth is rotating away from the US, and global bond yields still have upside, this will curtail foreign appetite for US equities. This appears to be the story since March, as non-US bourses have outperformed (Chart I-4). Chart I-4ANon-US Markets Are Bottoming Chart I-4BNon-US Markets Are Bottoming In terms of fixed income flows, the rise in US bond yields towards a peak of circa 180bps in March undoubtedly triggered strong inflows into the US Treasury market. Since then, yields outside the US have been moving somewhat higher, especially in Germany. This should curtail bond inflows, and also fits with a growth rotation away from the US. While foreign central banks were net buyers of US Treasurys in March, the “other reportables” category from the CFTC data show a huge short position in US 10-year futures. Foreign central banks are usually grouped in this category. This will suggest the accumulation of Treasurys should reverse in the coming months (Chart I-5). Chart I-5Did Central Banks Hedge Their March Purchases? A rotation of growth from the US towards other parts of the world would also make it more difficult to finance the US current account deficit. This is because it will compress real interest rate spreads between the US and the rest of the world. From a historical perspective, inflows into US Treasury assets only tend to accelerate when real rates in the US are at least 50-100 bps above that in other G10 economies (Chart I-6). That could explain why despite a positive Treasury-JGB spread of 165 basis points, Japanese investors were very much absent buyers in March (Chart I-7). Chart I-6Real Rate Differentials And Bond Capital Flows Chart I-7The Big Boys Did Not Buy Much Treasurys In March Critical to this view is the outlook for US inflation. On this front, we note the following: First, the output gap in the US should close faster than most other economies, at least according to the OECD (Chart I-8). Ceteris paribus, US inflation should outpace that in other countries in the near term and put downward pressure on real rates. Chart I-8The US Should Generate Higher Inflation Fiscal spending has been more pronounced in the US compared to other countries, which will further fan the inflationary flames. The Fed is the only central bank in the G10 committed to an inflation overshoot. In a nutshell, there is compelling evidence to suggest US inflows peaked in March from both foreign equity and bond investors. Upside surprises in inflation are more likely in the US in the very near term compared to other economies, which will depress real rates. Meanwhile, higher global yields are also a negative for the US equity market. There Is No Alternative Chart I-9A Deep And Liquid Pool Of Treasurys My colleague, Mathieu Savary, has made the case that there is no alternative to US Treasurys. The treasury market is the most liquid and the deepest safe haven pool in the capital market universe (Chart I-9). Ergo, a flight to safety will always bid up Treasurys, as we saw in March 2020. We do agree that Treasurys will continue to act as the world’s safe haven benchmark for now. However, that privilege is fraying at the edges, and it is the marginal changes that matter for dollar investors. Competition for safe haven assets continues to intensify as the narrative switches from 40 years of disinflationary forces to the rising prospect of an inflation overshoot. Inflation is anathema to fiat currencies, including the dollar. For investors, precious metals have been a preferred habitat for anti-fiat holdings. That said, cryptocurrencies are also rising in the ranks as an alternative. In our Special Report2 released a month ago, we suggested government regulation was a huge risk for cryptocurrencies. But more specifically, the degree to which cryptocurrencies can benefit from a shift away from dollars will depend on whether private investors or central banks drive the outflows. Since the peak in the DXY index in 2020, the biggest sellers of US Treasurys have been private investors. Cryptocurrencies benefited from this diversification. That has changed since March, which partly explains the big drawdown in crypto prices. In general, you always want to align yourself with strong buyers who are price indiscriminate. Foreign central banks (the biggest holders of US Treasurys) prefer gold as their anti-dollar asset. This puts an solid footing under gold prices, compared to cryptocurrencies or other anti-fiat assets. It is worth noting that competition between the dollar and gold often run in long cycles. In the 1970s, as inflation took hold in the US, the dollar depreciated and gold soared. In the 1980s, the dollar took off and gold fell sharply, as the Federal Reserve was able to bring down inflation. The 1990s were relatively disinflationary, which supported the dollar (Chart I-10). A whiff of rising inflation in the early 2000s hurt the dollar, while the 2010s were characterized by very low inflation, supporting the dollar. More recently, the dollar is weakening as inflationary trends accelerate faster in the US (Chart I-11). Chart I-10The Dollar And Inflation Move Opposite Ways (1) Chart I-11The Dollar And Inflation Move Opposite Ways (2) One of our favorite indicators for gauging ultimate downside in the dollar is the bond-to-gold ratio. The rationale is that the bond-to-gold ratio should capture investor preference at the margin for either US Treasurys or gold. This in turn has been a good measure of investor confidence in the greenback. On this basis, the bond-to-gold ratio (TLT-to-GLD ETF) is breaking down to fresh cycle lows (Chart I-12). This has historically pointed towards a lower US dollar. Chart I-12The Dollar And The Bond-To-Gold Ratio Within precious metals, we like gold but love silver. As such, we are short the gold-to-silver ratio since an entry point of 68. Our bias is that initial support for this ratio is 60. Meanwhile, we also like platinum, and will go long versus palladium at current levels. A Few Other Indicators A few other market developments are pointing to a lower dollar in the coming months. The dollar tends to decline in the second half of the year. This has been true since the 1970s (Chart I-13). Importantly, even during the Paul Volcker years in the 80s when the dollar staged a meaningful rally, it often fell in the second half of the year. The winner in the second half of the year has usually been the Swiss franc and the Japanese yen (Chart I-14).  Chart I-13The Dollar Usually Strengthens In H1 Chart I-14The Dollar Usually Weakens In H2 The OECD leading economic indicators still suggest US growth remains robust relative to the rest of the G10. However, our expectation is that this gap will decrease sharply in the second half of this year. That said, the current reading is a risk to our dollar bearish view (Chart I-15). Chart I-15US Exceptionalism Is A Risk For Dollar Bears Lumber has started to underperform Dr. Copper. Lumber benefits from solid US housing activity, while copper is more tied to global growth and the emerging investment in green technology. As a counter-cyclical currency, the dollar also tends to underperform higher beta currencies when lumber is underperforming copper (Chart I-16). The copper-to-gold ratio has also bottomed, suggesting ample liquidity is now fueling growth (Chart I-17). We suggested last week that the velocity of money across countries was a key variable to watch in getting the dollar call right. So far, the collapse in money velocity is least acute in China, explaining the rise in the copper-to-gold ratio and the improvement in non-US yields compared to the US. Chart I-16Lumber/Copper Prices And The Dollar Chart I-17Copper/Gold Prices And Bond Yields In summary, many cyclical indicators still point to a lower dollar. The key risk to this view is an equity market correction, and/or persistent relative strength in US growth.   Chester Ntonifor Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Report, "Trading Currencies Using Equity Signals," dated May 7, 2021. 2 Please see Foreign Exchange Special Report, "Will Cryptocurrencies Displace Fiat," dated April 23, 2021. Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Limit Orders Closed Trades

特別レポート

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

Highlights The reason to own stocks is not profit growth. The combination of unspectacular sales growth and down-trending profit margins means that global profit growth will be lacklustre, at best. The reason to own stocks is that the ultimate low in the T-bond yield is yet to come. This ultimate low in the T-bond yield will define the ultimate high in the global stock market’s valuation and the end of the structural bull market in stocks. Until that ultimate low in bond yields, long-term investors should own stocks… …and tilt towards long-duration growth sectors and growth-heavy stock markets such as the S&P500 that will benefit most from the final collapse in yields. The correction in DRAM, corn, and lumber prices suggests that the recent mania in inflation expectations is about to end. Fractal trade shortlist: copper and tin are fragile, go long T-bonds versus TIPS. Feature Chart of the WeekGlobal Profits Surged During The Credit Boom, But Have Gone Nowhere Since The main reason to own stocks is not what you think. The usual long-term argument to own stocks is based on profit growth – specifically, that an uptrend in profits drives up stock prices. Except that since 2008, this is not true (Chart of the Week and Chart I-2). Profits have barely grown, yet the global stock market has doubled.1 Chart I-2Since The Credit Boom Ended, Global Profits Have Barely Grown As profits have barely grown since 2008, the main reason that the global stock market has doubled is that the valuation paid for those profits has surged. Looking ahead, we expect this to remain the main reason to own stocks. The Reason To Own Stocks Is Not Profit Growth Profits are the product of sales and the profit margin on those sales. During the credit boom of the nineties and noughties, the strong tailwind of credit creation supercharged sales growth. At the same time, the profit margin on those sales trended higher (Chart I-3). Chart I-3Since The Credit Boom Ended, Sales Growth Has Slowed And Profit Margins Have Trended Lower Hence, in the decade leading up to 2008, global stock market profits surged, outstripping both sales and world GDP. Then the credit boom ended, and profits languished, because: Absent the tailwind from the credit boom, sales growth moderated. The profit margin trended lower. In the post-pandemic years, we expect both trends to persist. The credit boom is not coming back. Furthermore, as the pandemic recession was not protracted, sales are not at a depressed level from which they can play a sharp catch-up, as they did after the 2008 recession and the 2015 emerging markets recession. The structural downtrend in the profit margin will continue. Meanwhile, the structural downtrend in the profit margin will continue. Governments are desperate to mitigate – or at least, contain – the ballooning deficits that have paid for their pandemic stimuluses. Raising corporate taxes from structurally depressed levels is an easy and politically expedient response, as we have already seen from both the Biden administration in the US, and the Johnson administration in the UK. Higher corporate taxes will weigh on structural profit margins (Chart I-4). Chart I-4Corporate Taxes Will Rise From Structurally Depressed Levels The combination of unspectacular sales growth and down-trending profit margins means that global profit growth will continue to be lacklustre, at best. The Reason To Own Stocks Is That The Ultimate High In Valuations Is Yet To Come To repeat, the main reason that the global stock market has doubled since 2008 is that its valuation has surged (Chart I-5). Chart I-5The Main Driver Of The Stock Market Has Been Valuation Expansion In turn, the stock market’s valuation has surged because bond yields have plummeted. Empirically, the valuation of the global stock market is tightly connected with the simple average of the (inverted) yields on the safest sovereign bond, the US T-bond, and the riskier sovereign bond, the Italian BTP. The main reason that the global stock market has doubled since 2008 is that its valuation has surged. Through 2012-13, the decline in the Italian BTP yield, by signifying the fading of euro break-up risk, boosted stock valuations. In more recent years though, it has been the US T-bond yield that has been more influential in driving the global stock market’s valuation (Chart I-6). Chart I-6The Stock Market's Valuation Expansion Is Due To Lower Bond Yields But the crucial point to grasp is that the relationship between the declining bond yield and stock market valuation becomes exponential. This is because as bond yields approach their lower bound, bond prices have less additional upside but considerably more downside. This extra riskiness of bonds means that investors demand a diminishing risk premium on equities versus bonds. So, as bond yields decline, the required return on equities – which equals the bond yield plus the risk premium – collapses. And as valuation is just the inverse of required return, valuations soar. Chart I-7 and Chart I-8 demonstrate this exponential relationship in practice. Note that the bond yield is on the logarithmic left scale while the stock market’s valuation is on the linear right scale. The logarithmic versus linear scale visually demonstrates that at a lower bond yield, a given change in the bond yield has a much greater impact on the stock market’s valuation. Chart I-7The Relationship Between Lower Bond Yields And Stock Market Valuation Expansion Is Exponential Chart I-8When Bond Yields Reach Their Ultimate Low, Stock Market Valuations Will Surge Specifically, if the 30-year yield in the US reached the recent low achieved in the UK, it would boost the stock market’s valuation by nearly 50 percent. We fully expect this to happen at some point in the coming years because of The Shock Theory Of Bond Yields which we introduced in last week’s report. In a nutshell, the shock theory of bond yields states that each successive deflationary shock takes the bond yield to a lower structural level, until it can go no lower. Although it is impossible to predict the timing and nature of individual shocks such as the pandemic, it is easy to predict the statistical distribution of shocks. On this basis, the likelihood of a net deflationary shock is 50 percent within the next three years, and 81 percent within the next five years. Whatever that deflationary shock is, and whenever it arrives, it will mark the ultimate low in the 30-year T-bond yield – at a level close to the recent low in the UK. This ultimate low in the T-bond yield will also define the ultimate high in the global stock market’s valuation and the end of the structural bull market in stocks. Until that ultimate low in bond yields, long-term investors should own stocks. And tilt towards long-duration growth sectors that will benefit most from the final collapse in yields. Growth sectors and growth-heavy stock markets such as the S&P500 will continue to outperform, as they have done consistently since 2008. The Inflation Bubble Is Bursting   The last couple of months has seen a mania in inflation expectations. As industries reconfigured for the end of lockdowns, supply bottlenecks in some commodities led to understandable spikes in their prices. These commodity price increases then unleashed fears about inflation. As investors sought inflation hedges, it drove up commodity prices more broadly … which added to the inflation fears…which added further fuel to the mania in inflation expectations. And so, the indiscriminate rally in commodities continued. The inflation bubble is bursting. But now it seems that the indiscriminate rally is over. DRAM prices have rolled over, belying the thesis that there is widespread shortage in semiconductors (Chart I-9). More spectacularly in the past week, the corn price has tumbled by 12 percent while the lumber price has slumped by 25 percent (Chart I-10). Chart I-9DRAM Prices Have ##br##Rolled Over Chart I-10Lumber Prices Are Correcting, Will Other Commodities Follow? Given that the commodity rally was indiscriminate, there is a danger that any correction will spread into other commodities like the industrial metals, copper and tin – especially as their fractal structures are at a level of fragility that has identified previous turning points in 2008, 2011, 2015, 2017 and 2020 (Chart I-11 and Chart I-12). Chart I-11Copper's Fractal Structure Is Fragile Chart I-12Tin's Fractal Structure Is Fragile In any case, the mania in inflation expectations is about to end. An excellent way to play this is to expect compression in the market implied inflation rate in T-bond yields versus TIPS yields (Chart I-13). Chart I-13The Mania In Inflation Expectations Is About To End Hence, this week’s recommended trade is to go long the 10-year T-bond versus the 10-year TIPS, setting a profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 3.6 percent.   Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1  To clarify, Chart 2 shows world stock market earnings per share, both 12-month forward and 12-month trailing. Whereas Charts 1 and 3 show sales and net profits (not per share). Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Equity Market Performance   Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Highlights Duration: Despite last month’s weak employment growth, we continue to expect the economy to reach maximum employment in time for the Fed to lift rates in 2022. Maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. TIPS: Long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates have returned to levels that are consistent with the Fed’s target. Breakevens are also discounting a very rapid increase in near-term inflation at the front-end of the curve. Investors should take this opportunity to reduce TIPS exposure from overweight to neutral and to close inflation curve flattener and real yield curve steepener positions. Yield Curve: The Treasury curve has transitioned into a bear-flattening/bull-steepening regime beyond the 5-year maturity point, and as such, our recommended yield curve positioning must be re-considered. We recommend that investors position for maximum carry across the yield curve by going long the 5-year bullet and short a duration-matched 2/30 barbell. April Payrolls Shock The Bond Market In the current environment, there is probably nothing more important for US bond investors than keeping a close eye on the monthly employment data. The Federal Reserve has made the first rate hike contingent on a return to “maximum employment”, and bond yield fluctuations reflect the market’s changing assessment of the timing and pace of future Fed rate hikes. Chart 1A Big Miss On Payrolls With that in mind, investors got a shock last Friday when April’s employment report disappointed expectations by one of the widest margins ever. The economy added only 266 thousand jobs to nonfarm payrolls in April while the Bloomberg consensus estimate was calling for 1 million! At present, the market is looking for Fed liftoff in February 2023 (Chart 2). We calculate that monthly employment growth must average at least 412 thousand for the Fed to reach its maximum employment goal by the end of 2022, in time to lift rates in early-2023 (Chart 1 on page 1). Average monthly employment growth of at least 698 thousand is required to hit the Fed’s maximum employment target by the end of this year.1   Chart 2Market Priced For Liftoff In February 2023 The last section of this report (titled “Evidence Of A Labor Shortage In The April Payrolls Report”) explores possible reasons for the weaker-than-expected employment data and concludes that payroll growth will be stronger in the second half of this year. We continue to expect that the economy will reach maximum employment in time for the Fed to lift rates in 2022, and as such, we advise bond investors to maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. Peak Inflation Last week, we downgraded our allocation to TIPS from overweight to neutral and closed two yield curve positions – an inflation curve flattener and a real yield curve steepener – that had been in place since April 2020.2 We made these moves for two reasons: There is a good chance that realized inflation won’t match the aggressive expectations that are already discounted in the front-end of the inflation curve. Long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates are now consistent with the Fed’s target. In other words, they can’t rise much further without the Fed acting to bring them back down. On the first point, we continue to expect that inflation will be relatively strong between now and the end of the year, but the market has already more than priced-in this outcome. The 1-year CPI swap rate is currently 3.18% and the 2-year CPI swap rate sits at 2.99% (Chart 3). Even if we assume that core CPI increases by a robust +0.2% per month going forward, that will only cause 12-month core CPI inflation to reach 2.29% by the end of this year (Chart 4). Chart 3An Inflation Snapback Is Priced In Chart 4Inflation In 2021 Chart 5TIPS Are Very Expensive To further that point, this week we unveil our new TIPS Breakeven Valuation Indicator (Chart 5). The indicator is based on the theory of adaptive expectations – the theory that inflation expectations are formed based on recent trends in the actual inflation data. In essence, the indicator compares the current 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate to different measures of inflation and determines whether 10-year TIPS are currently cheap or expensive relative to 10-year nominal bonds. A negative reading indicates that TIPS are expensive, while a positive reading suggests that TIPS are cheap. At present, the indicator sits at -0.88. Historically, when TIPS are this expensive on our indicator there are strong odds that the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate will fall during the next 12 months (Table 1). Table 1TIPS Breakeven Valuation Indicator Track Record On the second point, we have often noted that a range of 2.3% to 2.5% on long-maturity TIPS breakevens (levels seen during the mid-2000s) is consistent with the Fed’s inflation target. The 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates haven’t spent much time near those levels during the past decade, but that is starting to change. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate recently shot up to 2.52%, above the top-end of our target band, while the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate sits near the low-end of the range at 2.34% (Chart 6). Even Fed Chair Powell acknowledged that TIPS breakeven rates are “pretty close to mandate consistent” in the press conference that followed the April FOMC meeting.3 This is not to say that we expect the Fed to pivot quickly towards tightening. However, once the economy reaches maximum employment and the Fed starts to lift rates, the pace of rate hikes will be much quicker if long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates are threatening to break above 2.5%. This puts a long-run ceiling on TIPS breakevens, one that we are quickly approaching. As for our inflation curve flattener and real yield curve steepener positions, neither makes sense unless TIPS breakeven rates continue to rise (Chart 7). Chart 6Long-Maturity Breakevens Are At Target Chart 7Exit Inflation Curve Flattener And Real Yield Curve Steepener   The cost of inflation compensation is much more volatile at the front-end of the curve than at the long end, which means that the inflation curve tends to flatten when breakevens rise and steepen when they fall. In other words, the inflation curve will not flatten further unless breakevens move higher. While we don’t see room for further inflation curve flattening, we also think that the curve will remain inverted. With the Fed targeting a temporary overshoot of its 2% inflation target, an inverted inflation curve is much more consistent with the Fed’s stated goals than a positively sloped one. As for the real yield curve, it’s easiest to think of a real yield curve steepener as the combination of a nominal curve steepener and an inflation curve flattener. If the inflation curve holds steady, then there is no difference between a real yield curve steepener and a nominal yield curve steepener. On that note, the next section of this report discusses why the case for a nominal yield curve steepener is also starting to break down. Bottom Line: Long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates have returned to levels that are consistent with the Fed’s target. Breakevens are also discounting a very rapid increase in near-term inflation at the front-end of the curve. Investors should take this opportunity to reduce TIPS exposure from overweight to neutral and to close inflation curve flattener and real yield curve steepener positions. Nominal Treasury Curve: Pick Up Carry In Bullets The average yield on the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury Master Index troughed on August 4th 2020 and rose by 92 basis points until it peaked on April 2nd. The Treasury curve steepened dramatically during that period, with increases in the 10-year and 30-year yields far outpacing the rise in the 5-year yield (Table 2). Table 2Treasury Yield Changes Since The August 2020 Trough But the shape of the yield curve has behaved differently since yields peaked on April 2nd. The average index yield is down 11 bps since then, but the decline has been led by the 5-year while the 10-year and 30-year yields have been relatively sticky. We view this as evidence that, as we edge closer to an eventual rate hike cycle, the yield curve is entering a new regime. This is a natural progression. When rate hikes are only expected to occur far into the future, there will be very little volatility at the front-end of the curve and the yield curve will tend to steepen when yields rise and flatten when they fall. But over time, as we get closer to expected rate hikes, volatility will shift toward shorter and shorter maturities. This will eventually cause the yield curve to flatten when yields rise and steepen when they fall. Chart 8Buy 5-Year Versus 2/30 While there is still very little volatility in 1-3 year yields, it looks like the curve beyond the 5-year maturity point has transitioned into a bear-flattening/bull-steepening regime. That is, when yields rise we should expect the 5/30 slope to flatten and when yields fall we should expect the 5/30 slope to steepen. Indeed, we see that a gap has recently opened up between the trends in the 5/30 slope and the Treasury index yield, while the 2/5 slope remains tightly correlated with the level of yields (Chart 8). The big implication of this regime shift is that we should no longer expect our current recommended yield curve position, long the 5-year bullet and short a duration-matched 2/10 barbell, to perform well in a rising yield environment. To profit from rising yields, investors would be better off positioning for a flatter 5/30 curve by going short the 10-year bullet and long a duration-matched 5/30 barbell. However, this is not the strategy we’d recommend for investors who are already running below-benchmark portfolio duration and are thus already exposed to rising yields. The reason is that while we think the market’s current expected fed funds rate path is slightly too dovish, it is not that far from a reasonable forecast. Put differently, we see bond yields as biased higher but the near-term upside could be limited. For this reason, and since we are already exposed to higher yields through our portfolio duration call, we prefer to enter a yield curve position that will profit from an environment of stable yields. That is, a carry trade that offers a large amount of yield pick-up. The best trade in that regard is a position long the 5-year bullet and short a duration-matched 2/30 barbell (Chart 8, bottom panel). This position offers a positive yield pick-up of 31 bps, a nice cushion against the risk of capital losses from further 2/30 steepening. Bottom Line: The Treasury curve has transitioned into a bear-flattening/bull-steepening regime beyond the 5-year maturity point, and as such, our recommended yield curve positioning must be re-considered. We recommend that investors position for maximum carry across the yield curve by going long the 5-year bullet and short a duration-matched 2/30 barbell. Evidence Of A Labor Shortage In The April Payrolls Report Given the well-founded optimism about the pace of US economic recovery (real GDP grew 6.4% in the first quarter after all) it was very surprising that only 266 thousand jobs were added in April. One possible reason for the weak job growth is that a lack of labor supply is holding it back. We explored this issue in a recent report and concluded that there is a lot of evidence to support the claim.4 While it is a bad idea to read too much into any single datapoint, we think it’s likely that the labor shortage played a significant role in April’s poor employment number. At first blush, the industry breakdown of April’s employment report appears to refute the labor shortage narrative. For example, the Leisure & Hospitality sector added 331 thousand jobs on the month, by far the most of all the industry groups (Table 3). This is interesting because the Leisure & Hospitality sector – primarily restaurants and bars – is a close-contact service industry with low average wages, the exact sort of industry where we would expect to see evidence of a labor shortage. Table 3Employment By Industry But we don’t think strong Leisure & Hospitality job growth refutes the labor shortage narrative. For one thing, while +331k is a lot of new jobs in a single month, it could have been a lot more. The third column of Table 3 shows that the Leisure & Hospitality industry is still 2.8 million jobs short of where it was prior to COVID. Further, other indicators within the Leisure & Hospitality sector clearly point toward a lack of labor supply. The Job Openings Rate is much higher in the Leisure & Hospitality sector than in the economy as a whole (Chart 9) and Leisure & Hospitality wages have grown much more quickly during the past few months (Chart 9, bottom panel). It seems highly likely that Leisure & Hospitality job growth would be stronger if not for supply side constraints. More generally, economy-wide measures of labor demand have recovered much more quickly than the actual employment data (Chart 10). The job openings rate and the NFIB Jobs Hard To Fill survey have both surpassed their pre-COVID peaks, and more households describe jobs as “plentiful” than as “hard to get”. The one outlier is the unemployment rate which, after controlling for furloughed workers, has barely budged off its peak (Chart 10, bottom panel). This points strongly to labor supply being the limiting factor, not demand. Chart 9Leisure & Hospitality Wages Are Accelerating Chart 10Evidence Of A Labor Shortage   Bottom Line: There is a lot of evidence that a lack of labor supply is holding back job growth. However, we expect that supply constraints will be cleared up relatively soon as widespread vaccination makes people more comfortable re-entering the labor force, and as expanded unemployment benefits lapse. We expect that job growth will be much stronger in the second half of 2021 and into 2022.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 We define maximum employment as an unemployment rate of 4.5% and a labor force participation rate equal to its pre-COVID level of 63.3%. 2 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Negative Oil, The Zero Lower Bound And The Fisher Equation”, dated April 28, 2020. 3 https://www.federalreserve.gov/mediacenter/files/FOMCpresconf20210428.p… 4 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Making Money In Municipal Bonds”, dated April 27, 2021. Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Non-US stocks have greatly underperformed US equities over the last decade, but a leadership change might be underway. As such, equity flows could be an important factor in dictating currency trends over a cyclical horizon. The narrative in favor of non-US stocks includes a recovery in profits, cheap valuations, and a secular theme that will favor capital spending in traditionally “heavy” industries. Non-US growth should also overtake the US beyond 2021, when most of the global population is vaccinated. Cyclical currencies have historically tracked the relative performance of their respective bourses. This implies a lower dollar. Higher bond yields also present a formidable headwind for the outperformance of US stocks, relative to other markets. An outperformance of non-US bourses will be particularly favorable for the AUD, NOK, SEK, and GBP. The yen will likely play catchup towards the middle of the cycle. Feature Currencies respond to broad inflows, including into bonds, equities or foreign direct investment. For most of 2020, the dominant currency flows were from fixed income investors. As most short rates are now anchored near zero, the story is morphing towards the potential winners from a recovery, especially in the equity market sphere. Non-US stocks tend to outperform the US when the dollar is falling. That said, the causality-effect link is not so clear-cut, as we penned in our Special Report last year.1 Admittedly, a lower dollar boosts the common-currency returns for US-based investors, leading to more capital deployment in offshore markets. Meanwhile, commodities tend to do well when the dollar declines, benefiting emerging market and commodity-producing countries. Financing costs for non-US corporations borrowing in dollars are also eased. Historically, profit growth has been the ultimate driver of stock prices and profitability is more contingent on productivity gains than translation effects. This suggests the starting point for gauging relative equity flows, and the potential impact on currencies, is to evaluate which countries/economies could be primed for outperformance. Relative Growth As A Starting Point One of the key drivers of relative earnings growth between two countries is relative economic performance. Chart I-1 shows that earnings-per-share in the G10 relative to the US tended to improve when growth was shifting in favor of the rest of the world. This, in turn, has been a key driver of relative equity performance. Chart I-1Relative Profits And Relative Growth What is remarkable is that this relationship has been pretty consistent across countries, including those that have huge exposures to the global economy such as Sweden, Norway, or even the United Kingdom. In general, relative economic performance has driven relative EPS growth (Chart I-2A & 2B). The reason is that these bourses still have a sizeable dependence on the domestic economy. Chart I-3 shows that for even the most export-driven economies, exposure to domestic sales is still at least 20%. Australia, a commodity country has almost 60% of sales from domestic sources. Our bias is that non-US growth will start to outperform towards the backend of this year. This will pressure the dollar lower (Chart I-4). This conviction rests on three critical pillars: Chart I-2AA Cross Country Look At Relative Profits Growth Chart I-2BA Cross Country Look At Relative Profits Growth   Chart I-3Domestic Sales Matter A Lot For Global Equity Bourses Chart I-4The Dollar Trends With ##br##Relative Growth   The rest of the world will catch up in vaccination campaigns relative to the US. This is almost a fait accompli. Canada is well behind in terms of vaccination progress compared to the US or the UK (Chart I-5). But in Quebec, where BCA is headquartered, Premier François Legault has suggested that everyone who wants a vaccine will be able to get their first dose by June 24. Relative employment growth in Canada is already picking up, and the central bank has already begun tapering asset purchases ahead of the Fed. The broader message is that the service sector has been held hostage by relatively closed economies outside the US. This will change as economies open up.   Producer prices (PPI) are picking up globally and the US is leading the pack. This will also rotate in favor of other economies. Producer prices first took off in the US as the sectors that benefited from the pandemic were those related to technology and healthcare. Norway also gained from the rebound in oil prices. Other countries should begin to catch up, as demand for goods and services broadens beyond the pandemic-related scope (Chart I-6). From a longer-term perspective, PPI usually peaks and troughs in the US ahead of other economies. Again, as we exit a recession, consumption tends to broaden from defensive goods towards more discretionary spending. Given that other economies are bigger producers of these discretionary items, this should start to shift relative pricing power towards these countries (Chart I-7). Non-US growth has been held hostage to cascading crises since the US housing market bust. In 2010, we had the euro area debt crisis. In 2011, the Fukushima disaster knocked down Japanese growth. In 2015, tight monetary policy in China led to a global manufacturing recession. In short, rest-of-world growth has not been able to catch breath for a decade. Chart I-5Many Countries Will Replicate The US and UK Vaccination Success Chart I-6Global PPIs Are ##br##Picking Up   Chart I-7US PPI Usually Leads Other Countries The silver lining is that the COVID-19 crisis has ushered in coordinated global monetary and fiscal stimulus. For the first time in a long while, non-US growth can start to outperform, according to IMF estimates (Chart I-8). Chart I-8The IMF Expects Non-US Growth To Outperform Flows tend to gravitate to capital markets with the highest expected returns, and this is certainly the case when US versus non-US stocks are concerned. If we accept the premise that relative growth matters for equity allocations, then it also makes sense that relative equity performance will coincide with currency performance, due to portfolio flows. Across the G10 economies, getting the equity call right has usually been synonymous with having the appropriate currency strategy (Chart I-9). This is especially the case since equity flows have been supportive of the dollar (Chart I-10). Chart I-9ACurrencies And Equities Move Together Chart I-9BCurrencies And Equities Move Together Chart I-10Equity Flows Have Been Supportive Of The Dollar A More Quantitative Approach While relative growth is important, it is not the sole factor in determining which countries or sectors will outperform. Most investors have at least two other powerful tools that have stood the test of time in making equity allocations. These include the valuation starting point, and the historical return on capital. Valuation is the easiest place to start. Over time, non-US bourses have tended to outperform the US when the relative valuation starting point was attractive. This has been especially true around recessions, when leadership changes tend to occur. Chart I-11A, 11B, 11C, and 11D show that countries such as Japan, Mexico, and Germany should sport more attractive returns over the next decade compared to the US. The list is not comprehensive, but our previous work suggests this valuation tool works across many countries and various geographies. Chart I-11AValuation Matters For Long-Term Returns Chart I-11BValuation Matters For Long-Term Returns Chart I-11CValuation Matters For Long-Term Returns Chart I-11DValuation Matters For Long-Term Returns   Not surprisingly, the currencies that are the most undervalued in our models also have cheap equity markets. These include the Scandinavian currencies, commodity plays, the Japanese yen, and the pound. A rerating of these markets will be synonymous with a rerating in their currencies (Chart I-12). The rise in global bond yields will also prove to be a formidable headwind for US stocks. Technology constitutes 28% of the US equity market, the largest allocation within the G10. Together with defensive sectors such as health care and consumer staples, this ratio rises to 60%. As a result, the relative performance of the US equity market has been inversely correlated to bond yields (Chart I-13). Should bond yields continue to gravitate higher over the next few years, this will lead to a powerful rotation towards more cyclical bourses. The rise in yields will be particularly favorable for deep value sectors like banks (due to rising net interest margins) and commodities (due to inflation protection). Chart I-12The Dollar Remains ##br##Expensive Chart I-13US Outperformance Has Dovetailed With Lower Bond Yields Going forward, expected return on capital will be more difficult to gauge, but countries that have a history of providing superior shareholder returns are a good place to start. For example, we know that the winners of the last decade have had the largest returns on equity, as was the case for the winners during the prior decade. Given the mammoth task of performing this exercise on a cross-country basis, and across factors, we enlisted the help of our colleagues who run BCA’s Equity Analyzer platform. The EA platform provides a BCA score of 0 to 100 for all developed market stocks, according to their ranking on 30 carefully selected and curated factors. Crunching the numbers revealed a few interesting results: A long strategy based on selecting the top decile stocks according to their EA score outperformed both domestic and global indices (Chart I-14). The quality factor has been one of the better determinants of future stock market returns. The EA quality score is based on return on equity, asset growth, accruals, and margins. On this basis, the bourses with a higher concentration of quality stocks in their indices are found outside the US (Chart I-15). Using an overall blended score, which includes not only the quality factor, but also others such as value, size, and momentum, suggests investors will be rewarded by tilting away from the US. For example, 20%-30% of stocks in Scandinavian bourses make it into the top decile EA portfolio (Chart I-16). Even if one focuses solely on growth sectors such as technology and health care, non-US companies are still more attractive (Chart I-17). Chart I-14The BCA EA Platform Allows Investors To Pick Winners Chart I-15Quality Stocks Are Heavily Weighted Outside The US Chart I-16A Composite Score Ranks US Stocks Poorly Chart I-17Lots Of Attractive Growth Stocks Outside The US In a nutshell, non-US markets are attractive from a valuation standpoint and across a swathe of other metrics that have been useful in benchmarking future returns. An outperformance of non-US stocks will favor cyclical currencies, as portfolio flows gravitate to these markets. We are already selectively long a basket of Scandinavian currencies; we will be gradually accumulating other currencies such as the GBP, the CAD, and the JPY on weakness. Specifically, the yen is becoming interesting not only as portfolio insurance, but also as a play on the cyclical Japanese market. We will be covering these currencies in depth in upcoming reports. Housekeeping Three important central banks met this week. The general tone was dovish. The Bank of England kept policy roughly unchanged, but there were three important takeaways. First, the BoE suggested any pickup in UK inflation will be transitory. Second, the BoE will slow its bond purchases, as they approach the central bank’s target. And finally, growth estimates were revised upward. Our take is that the meeting was a non-event for cable in the near term and bullish longer term. The message from the Reserve Bank of Australia was bit more dovish. They kept open the possibility of additional measures on the July 6 meeting. Our bias is that the RBA is trying to fend off deflationary pressures from a strong currency. This only delays the bullish backdrop for the AUD. Next Tuesday’s budget will provide some information about additional support to the Aussie economy. The Norges bank remains on the path to hike interest rates later this year. This supports our bullish NOK thesis. We have been reluctant to establish fresh long positions as we enter a seasonally strong month for the dollar. However, our buy list is growing as we highlighted above. For now our open positions are highlighted on page 14.    Chester Ntonifor Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, "Currencies And The Value-Versus-Growth Debate," dated July 10, 2020. Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 The recent data out of the US were mildly positive. The ISM Manufacturing PMI came in at 60.7 in April, well below an estimate of 65. The ISM Manufacturing New Orders Index came in at 64.3 in April, slightly below an expectation of 66.6. The trade deficit for March was -74.4B USD, in line with expectations. Personal Spending for March was 4.2% month-on-month, as expected. The dollar DXY index rose by 0.8% this week. While the PMI data for April came in on the mild side, inflationary pressures continue to build up as reflected in the robust New Orders, Backlog of Orders as well as the Prices Paid indices. That said, the Fed’s current stance is that price surges will likely be transitory. This is near-term negative for the greenback since it implies policy will not be tightened anytime soon. Report Links: Arbitrating Between Dollar Bulls And Bears - March 19, 2021 The Dollar Bull Case Will Soon Fade - March 5, 2021 Are Rising Bond Yields Bullish For The Dollar? - February 19, 2021 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 The recent Euro data have been mildly positive. Unemployment rate for March was 8.1%, slightly better than the predicted 8.3%. GDP fell 1.8% year-on-year, compared to an expected 2% decrease. CPI came in at 1.6% for April year-on-year, in line with expectation. German Retail Sales for March came in at 7.7% month-on-month comfortably beating a 3% expectation. Overall euro area retail sales surged 12% year-on-year in March, comfortably outpacing consensus of a 9.4% rise. The euro was down 0.9% against USD this week. However, as the weekly vaccination increase in both the US and the UK are slowing down, it continues to rise in the euro area.  Infections are stabilizing in Germany and the Netherlands, and are on a downtrend in France and Italy. This puts a floor under the euro. Report Links: Relative Growth, The Euro, And The Loonie - April 16, 2021 Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 On Japanese Inflation And The Yen - January 29, 2021 The Japanese Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 The recent data out of Japan have been strong. The unemployment rate for March came in at 2.6%. Industrial Production for March came in at 2.2% month-on-month, versus the estimate of -2%. Tokyo Core CPI came in at -0.2%, below market consensus. Vehicles sales surged by 22.2% year-on-year in April. The Japanese yen was flat against USD this week. A lagging vaccine campaign, rising COVID-19 case count, and the state of emergency continue to drag down sentiment towards Japan. However, the yen’s real effective exchange rate is trading at one standard deviation below fair value and our intermediate-term indicator is hinting at a rebound. Report Links: The Dollar Bull Case Will Soon Fade - March 5, 2021 On Japanese Inflation And The Yen - January 29, 2021 The Dollar Conundrum And Protection - November 6, 2020 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 The recent data out of UK have been positive. The Nationwide HPI for April was 7.1% higher than a year ago, beating an expectation of 5%. The BoE kept interest rates at 0.1% and its asset purchase target at £895bn. The pound was flat against the USD this week. The Bank of England kept policy on hold this week, but there were three important takeaways. First, the BoE sees any near-term pickup in inflation as temporary. This should keep a near-term lid on rate hike expectations and the pound. Second, the BoE will slow its bond purchases, as they approach the central bank’s target. And finally, growth estimates were revised upward, especially for 2022. This is bullish cable longer term. On the political front, a potential surprise of another Scottish independence may put some downward pressure on the currency. Report Links: Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 The Dollar Conundrum And Protection - November 6, 2020 Revisiting Our High-Conviction Trades - September 11, 2020 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 The recent data out of Australia have been strong. The AIG Manufacturing Index for April came in at 61.7, higher than the prior 59.9 reading. The AIG Construction Index for April came in at 59.1, below the 61.8 print in March. The trade balance for March came in at AUD 5.6bn, below an expectation of AUD 8bn. The RBA cash rate remained at 0.1%. The Australian dollar was flat this week against the USD. The RBA provided a dovish tone at its meeting this week, extending QE until February, and kept open the possibility of additional measures on the July 6 meeting. In the near term, upbeat economic data continue to provide support for the AUD. However, the tourism industry (6% of employment) is needed to get Australia back to full employment. Our bias is that the RBA will continue to fight against an appreciating currency, until the economy reaches escape velocity. Report Links: The Dollar Bull Case Will Soon Fade - March 5, 2021 Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 Australia: Regime Change For Bond Yields & The Currency? - January 20, 2021 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 The recent data out of New Zealand have been strong. Employment grew by 0.6% quarter-on-quarter in Q1. The Labor Cost Index for Q1 came in at 0.4% over prior quarter, and 1.6% year-on-year. The unemployment rate for Q1 declined to 4.7%, from 4.9%. Building consents increased 17.9% month-on-month in March. The New Zealand dollar was down 0.5% against USD this week. As we indicated in our report last week, the NZD is overpriced by several measures and the elevated equity market is of particular concern. The weakening GlobalDairyTrade Price Index could potentially be a harbinger of peaking agricultural prices in the coming months. This will lead the NZD to underperform other commodity currencies.  Report Links: Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 Currencies And The Value-Versus-Growth Debate - July 10, 2020 Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 The recent data out of Canada have been soft. The trade balance for March came in at -1.14bn CAD versus CAD 1.42bn the previous month. Building permits rose 5.7% month-on-month in March. The CAD was flat against USD this week. Despite concerns over elevated commodity prices and a vaccination campaign that is lagging other advanced economies, recent strong employment growth and the tapering of asset purchases by the BoC should continue to boost the currency, the top performing among G10 so far this year. In the near term, Canadian exports will benefit from US fiscal stimulus, which will also provide support for the loonie. Report Links: Relative Growth, The Euro, And The Loonie - April 16, 2021 Will The Canadian Recovery Lead Or Lag The Global Cycle? - February 12, 2021 Currencies And The Value-Versus-Growth Debate - July 10, 2020 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 The recent Swiss data have been strong. The KOF Leading Indicator for April came in at 134, beating the 119.5 estimate.  CPI for April came in at 0.3%. SECO Consumer Climate for Q2 came in at -18, higher than the -30 back in Q1. The Swiss franc was down 0.5% against the USD this week. The Swiss economy continues to surprise to the upside. With our intermediate-term indicator on a downward path, we remain optimistic on our long EUR/CHF position for now, despite potential upside risks to the franc given the Indian COVID-19 outbreak. Report Links: Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 The Dollar Conundrum And Protection - November 6, 2020 On The DXY Breakout, Euro, And Swiss Franc - February 21, 2020 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 The recent data out of Norway have been strong. The unemployment rate for April came in at 4%, from 4.2% the prior month. The house price index for April came in at 12.2% year-on-year, similar to the 12.5% reading of March. Interest rate were held at 0% by the Norges Bank. The NOK was down 1.8% against the USD this week. The krone is the winning currency since the pandemic hit, suggesting some consolidation was much due. With Norwegian inflation rising sharply above the central bank’s 2% target earlier this year, the Norges Bank reiterated during its meeting on Thursday that a rate hike later this year is well in sight. Against the backdrop of the impending European recovery this summer and Norway’s own commendable vaccination progress, we continue to be long the NOK against the USD and EUR.  Report Links: Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 Revisiting Our High-Conviction Trades - September 11, 2020 A New Paradigm For Petrocurrencies - April 10, 2020 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 The recent Swedish data have been strong. Industrial Production for March came in at 1.1% month-on-month. Year-on-year, IP is rising by 5.7%. Industrial New Orders for March came in at 10% year-on-year. GDP in Q1 was 1.1% higher than the prior quarter, beating the estimate of 0.5%. The Swedish krona was down 1.4% against the USD this week. BCA Research’s European Investment Strategy service indicated that there is significantly more upside to Swedish stocks against both Eurozone and US equities over the remainder of the cycle. Sweden is levered to the global industrial cycle with exports representing 45% of GDP. The recovery in both Europe and across the globe should continue to benefit the krona. The tapering of asset purchases by the Riksbank later this year will also provide support to the currency in the meantime. We continue to be long SEK/USD and SEK/EUR. Report Links: Revisiting Our High-Conviction Trades - September 11, 2020 Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Where To Next For The US Dollar? - June 7, 2019 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Limit Orders Closed Trades

Highlights The kiwi will continue to benefit from a pandemic-free recovery and normalization in monetary policy from the RBNZ. However, the kiwi is becoming expensive according to most of our models. This will begin to impact growth via the trade channel. For the rest of the year, the NZD/USD could hit 75 cents, but will likely underperform other developed market currencies. Feature Chart I-1NZD And Relative Economic Growth New Zealand has been one of the few countries to get the COVID-19 pandemic under control in short order. Since June of last year, the number of new infections has been practically zero. The vaccination program is lagging most other developed countries, but the authorities expect most citizens will be inoculated by the end of this year. The travel bubble with Australia has opened up the service sector to a recovery that remains the envy of most other developed economies. The New Zealand dollar has responded in tandem with the improvement in domestic conditions (Chart I-1). While the USD is up this year, NZD has still appreciated by about 1% against the dollar. From the March lows last year, the kiwi is up 22%, only trailing the Australian dollar and Norwegian krone within the G10. In this report, we explore the outlook for the kiwi, looking at key drivers such as the pandemic, the commodities boom, and the prospect for monetary policy amidst a hot housing market. In our view, the NZD still faces upside, but less so than other developed market currencies. A Robust Recovery Together with Singapore and Australia, Bloomberg ranks New Zealand as one of the safest places to be during the pandemic. This has allowed the manufacturing PMI in New Zealand to hit fresh highs, easily surpassing very robust activity in the US. Relative economic performance between New Zealand and its trading partners has tended to define the trend in the currency. The services sector is still trailing behind, as most of the world remains under lockdown (Chart I-2). However, a travel bubble has opened up with Australia, and it is fair to assume that service-sector activity is a coiled spring ready to rebound, especially as tourism constitutes a non-negligible share of New Zealand GDP (Chart I-3). Chart I-2A Recovery In Services Underway Chart I-3Tourism Will Boost NZ GDP Employment in New Zealand has already seen a sizeable recovery. The unemployment rate hit 4.9% in December, very close to the Reserve Bank of New Zealand’s (RBNZ) own estimate of NAIRU. Next week’s release should show an even more robust rebound. Inflation remains well contained at 1.5%, but as the economy begins to bump against supply-side constraints, this should change. The quarterly employment survey showed that wages are rising at a 4% clip. Eventually, a labour market that has fully recovered, burgeoning inflationary pressures and an economy open for business will mean the need for the RBNZ to maintain emergency monetary policy settings will be eliminated. A Terms-Of-Trade Boom While the domestic economy has benefited from strong government support, and very accommodative monetary policy settings, the external environment has also provided a gentle tailwind for the New Zealand economy. Over the last few decades, one of the key primary drivers of the NZD exchange rate has been terms of trade. New Zealand’s top exports are predominantly in agricultural commodities. Strong export growth has boosted the trade balance, both in volume and price terms (Chart I-4). An increasing trade balance naturally means that NZDs are being buffeted with demand. China has led the pack in imports from New Zealand vis-à-vis other countries by simple virtue of the fact that the authorities started injecting stimulus much earlier on, which helped ease domestic financing conditions. China is also New Zealand’s biggest export market. While the credit impulse in China is set to slow this year, demand for foodstuffs is less sensitive compared to demand for other higher-beta commodities. This will support New Zealand exports. At the same time, there has been a supply component to the boom in agricultural commodity prices. Adverse weather has impacted the planting season for many agricultural goods. As a result, stock-to-use ratios have begun to roll over, particularly in some of the goods that New Zealand exports (Chart I-5). This is likely to reverse, as farmers take advantage of higher prices and increase productivity. Chart I-4A Terms Of Trade ##br##Boom Chart I-5Falling Stocks Have Boosted Agricultural Prices In a nutshell, the outperformance of the kiwi has been a combination of supply shocks in the agricultural market, and an economy that has had an impressive rebound. Going forward, the kiwi should continue to do well versus the dollar as economic momentum picks up. The Housing Mandate Housing prices in New Zealand have been on a tear (Chart I-6). As a result, the government has mandated that house price considerations be tied into monetary policy decisions. The direct implication of this is that interest rates in New Zealand are set to increase. In the coming months, the labor market mandate for the RBNZ is about to become a lot tougher, because of the opposing forces between financial and economic stability. Tightening monetary policy too fast and too soon will expose the economy to a potential relapse in growth. But allowing housing prices to continue to become unaffordable for most residents is both politically untenable and economically unsustainable. The end game is likely to be as follows: The RBNZ will be quick to tighten monetary policy on domestic grounds and housing market concerns. This will provide a further boost to the kiwi. Yields in New Zealand are already among the highest in the G10, which will only accelerate with tighter monetary conditions. By the same token, the Chinese economy will likely slow as the credit impulse is peaking. This means New Zealand domestic growth will become more important for the NZD than external conditions. Countries with relatively easier monetary policy will see some benefit. Particularly, the Reserve Bank of Australia might lag the RBNZ. If this eventually benefits the Aussie economy, it might hurt the AUD/NZD cross now, but might make way for fresh long positions later (Chart I-7). Chart I-6A Housing Market Boom Chart I-7Where Next For AUD/NZD? Historically, housing prices in New Zealand have correlated quite strongly with the exchange rate. If the RBNZ is successful in engineering lower housing prices, it will also succeed in weakening the NZD (Chart I-8). Chart I-8House Prices And The Kiwi We were stopped out of our long AUD/NZD trade last week for a modest profit of 2.3%. We are standing aside for the time being, but will be buyers of the cross at 1.05. This will likely be realized towards the end of this year when optimism on the kiwi is likely to peak. How High Can The NZD Bounce? Another reason why the rise in the NZD might soon face strong upside resistance is valuation. Usually, a rise in the NZD over a cycle goes uninterrupted until the cross becomes expensive. On this basis, the kiwi might soon peak. Our purchasing power parity (PPP) models point to a 10% overvaluation in the New Zealand dollar (Chart I-9) versus the USD. Chart I-9The NZD Is Expensive One of our favorite metrics for the kiwi’s fair value is its real effective exchange rate relative to its terms of trade. On this basis, the New Zealand dollar is around fair value. On a longer-term real effective exchange rate basis (REER), the kiwi is 7.4% expensive, or 0.7 standard deviation above the mean (Chart I-10). Chart I-10The NZD Is Expensive The equity market in New Zealand looks particularly vulnerable. Heavily weighted in defensive sectors, this bourse will be particularly vulnerable to a rise in yields that will derail potential equity inflows (Chart I-11). Chart I-11Kiwi Stocks Are Expensive Chart I-12CHF/NZD Could Rise With Volatility Another opportunity is to buy the CHF/NZD cross, which looks attractive at current levels (Chart I-12). Should markets experience some form of turbulence, the cross will benefit. Meanwhile, CHF/NZD just dipped to the upward sloping trend line that has dictated support levels for this cross since 2007. Thus, we recommend investors initiate a long position in CHF/NZD.   Chester Ntonifor Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 The data out of the US were mildly positive this week. Quarter-on-quarter annualized GDP growth came in at 6.4% in Q1, rising from 4.3% in the previous quarter. Initial jobless claims fell to 553K in the week ended April 23, from 566K the previous week. Consumer Confidence for April came in at 121.7 beating the expected 113. The S&P/Case-Shiller House Price Index rose 11.9% year-on-year in February. Fed maintained the target range for the Fed Funds rate at 0 to 0.25%. The US dollar DXY index was flat this week. Although the dollar advanced earlier in the week with treasury yields posting small gains, it weakened on Wednesday ahead of the Fed meeting. Compared to the record-breaking preliminary PMIs of last Friday, milder data this week and the dovish tone of the Fed aren’t helping the downward trend of the dollar. Report Links: Arbitrating Between Dollar Bulls And Bears - March 19, 2021 The Dollar Bull Case Will Soon Fade - March 5, 2021 Are Rising Bond Yields Bullish For The Dollar? - February 19, 2021 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 Recent euro area data have been soft. The IFO Business Climate Index inched up only 0.2 points to 96.8 and disappointed expectations of a much more significant increase to 97.8.  The BNB Business Barometer of Belgium surprised to the upside and jumped to a decade high of 4.4 from a revised 1.04. The German GfK Consumer Confidence contracted to -8.8 for May and the French Consumer Confidence stayed the same in April. The euro strengthened by 0.5% against the US dollar this week. The uneven data out of Europe reflects differences in COVID restrictions throughout the region. Tighter measures were announced in some German regions and Belgium is easing restrictions. However, overall, we remain optimistic on the outlook for the entire region as the accelerating vaccination effort should support the economy reopening this summer. We are long EUR/CHF. Report Links: Relative Growth, The Euro, And The Loonie - April 16, 2021 Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 On Japanese Inflation And The Yen - January 29, 2021 The Japanese Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 The data out of Japan was scant this week. Bank of Japan maintained interest rates at -0.1%. Retail Sales in March grew 5.2% year-on-year, beating forecasts of 4.7%. The Japanese yen weakened by 0.5% this week. Due to the current state of emergency throughout the country, the Bank of Japan is ready to further ease monetary policy as needed and warned of the likelihood for consumption to stay depressed. That said, our intermediate term indicator is hinting at a rebound in the currency. Report Links: The Dollar Bull Case Will Soon Fade - March 5, 2021 On Japanese Inflation And The Yen - January 29, 2021 The Dollar Conundrum And Protection - November 6, 2020 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 The data out of the UK this week was positive. The Confederation of British Industry (CBI) retail sales volume balance rose to 20 in April from -45 in March, recording the sharpest growth since 2018. The British pound rose by 0.7% against the US dollar this week. The strong retail sales numbers came amidst lockdowns being lifted. While May will continue to see further restrictions eased, cable faces threats from its own success so far this year as well as UK’s recent political turmoil. Also, both the speculative positioning and our intermediate-term indicator are at elevated levels.  Report Links: Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 The Dollar Conundrum And Protection - November 6, 2020 Revisiting Our High-Conviction Trades - September 11, 2020 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 The data out of Australia have been soft lately. CPI in Q1 rose 0.6% versus Q4 last year, below the expected 0.9%. The year-on-year growth of 1.1% also undershot the 1.4% forecast. Trimmed mean CPI grew 0.3% on the prior quarter and 1.1% versus a year ago, both failing to beat expectations.  The Q1 export price index rose 11.2% over the prior quarter, compared to the 5.5% rise in Q4. The Australian dollar rose by 1% against the US dollar this week. In addition to both CPI measures disappointing to the downside, a foreseeable peak in the commodity market driven by the slowdown in China can also be a downward drag on the currency especially when the sentiment on the Aussie is elevated. We are short AUD/MXN and were stopped out of our long AUD/NZD trade. Report Links: The Dollar Bull Case Will Soon Fade - March 5, 2021 Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 Australia: Regime Change For Bond Yields & The Currency? - January 20, 2021 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 The data out of New Zealand have been neutral. Trade Balance in March improved by NZD 33M over a month ago and NZD 1690M a year ago.  ANZ business confidence came in at -2 in April, higher than the -4.1 the prior month. The New Zealand dollar strengthened by 1% against the US dollar this week. We discuss the kiwi at length in the front section of this week’s report. The conclusion is that NZD faces near-term upside, but will lag other procyclical currencies over the longer term. Report Links: Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 Currencies And The Value-Versus-Growth Debate - July 10, 2020 Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 The data out of Canada this week continue to be positive. Both Retail Sales and Core Retail Sales in February grew 4.8% over the prior month, comfortably exceeding the expectations of 3.7% and 4% growth, respectively. The Canadian dollar rose 0.8% against the US dollar this week. The loonie reacted positively to the strong retail numbers as it continues its path upward on strong inflation data of recent months and a hawkish Bank of Canada. However, even as the COVID case count appears to have peaked, there remains downside risks of very elevated commodity prices and our intermediate-term indicator still just off a recent peak. Report Links: Relative Growth, The Euro, And The Loonie - April 16, 2021 Will The Canadian Recovery Lead Or Lag The Global Cycle? - February 12, 2021 Currencies And The Value-Versus-Growth Debate - July 10, 2020 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 There was scant data out of Switzerland this week. ZEW expectations for April came in at 68.3, slightly higher than the 66.7 from the prior month. The Swiss franc rose 0.4% against the US dollar this week. While the waning of investors’ sentiment and net speculative positioning may point to some softening in the near term, the recent COVID crisis in India can provide support to this risk-off currency. We are long EUR/CHF. Report Links: Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 The Dollar Conundrum And Protection - November 6, 2020 On The DXY Breakout, Euro, And Swiss Franc - February 21, 2020 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 The data out of Norway this week was positive. Core Retail Sales came in unchanged in March versus the prior month, but beat expectations of a 0.9% decline. The Norwegian krone was 0.8% higher against the USD this week. Norway fits the bill in terms of a post-pandemic boom. New COVID-19 cases are under control, the economy is rebounding, oil prices are strong and the central bank is on a path the raise interest rates this year. Being long the NOK is one of our strongest convictions calls in FX. We are long NOK/USD and NOK/EUR. Report Links: Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 Revisiting Our High-Conviction Trades - September 11, 2020 A New Paradigm For Petrocurrencies - April 10, 2020 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 Data out of Sweden this week have been mixed.  The Riksbank maintained the policy rate at 0%. Trade Balance in March came in at SEK4.1B versus SEK6B in the prior month. Retail sales in March grew by 2.6% month-on-month and 9.1% year-on-year, both an improvement versus the prior period. The unemployment rate in March rose to 10% versus 9.7% the prior month. The Swedish Krona strengthened 0.5% against the US dollar this week, continuing its upward momentum throughout April. The recent accommodative signals from the Riksbank meeting were within expectations amidst elevated COVID case counts and restrictions. Despite its commendable gains so far this month, we remain optimistic on this high beta currency as the eurozone recovery and global reflation are in sight. Report Links: Revisiting Our High-Conviction Trades - September 11, 2020 Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Where To Next For The US Dollar? - June 7, 2019 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Limit Orders Closed Trades

来週のストラテジー・レポートの代わりに、初回のカウンターポイント・ウェブキャスト『メガテーマ、差し迫るショック、そして注目トレード』を発表します。ご参加いただければ幸いです。 ハイライト 標準的な経済理論では、貨幣は完全に代替可能であると想定します。しかし実務では、人々は収入と貯蓄というメンタル・アカウントに異なる感情を結び付けるため、貨幣は代替可能ではありません。これは「メンタル・アカウンティング・バイアス」として知られています。 メンタル・アカウンティング・バイアスは、パンデミック期に蓄積された大量の貯蓄を消費に回すよりも、債務返済に使う可能性が高いことを意味します。 メンタル・アカウンティング・バイアスはまた、高利回りの株式に対して過剰な支払いをしていることを意味します。 長期投資家は銀行を避けるべきであり、「バリュー」も避けるべきです。 正しく計算すると、株式リスクプレミアムは現在ほとんど存在しません。 米国の長期債利回りは、上方に動くよりも下方に動く余地の方がはるかに大きいです。 フラクタルトレード候補：株式対債券、PKR、およびニュージーランド株式。 特集 今週のチャート 消費は賃金で説明される… 消費は賃金によって説明される... 消費は賃金によって説明される... 今週のチャート …給付金では説明されない ...景気刺激策による給付金ではない ...景気刺激策による給付金ではない 多くの経済学者は、経済が完全に再開されれば、パンデミック期に家計に蓄積された大量の貯蓄が家計支出の津波を引き起こすと予測しています。 しかし、この予測をするのに適切なのは経済学者ではありません。家計が蓄積した貯蓄を使うかどうかの答えは、心理学の領域に属します。 お金を使うかどうかはどの「メンタル・アカウント」に属しているかによる 私たちは 債券市場における大きな異常 で、収入から支出する傾向は高い一方で、富から支出する傾向は低いと指摘しました。つまり、未消化の収入が消費に回るかどうかは、世帯がそれを追加の収入とみなすか追加の富とみなすかによって決まるということです。 これにより次の疑問が生じます。どうしてお金を使うかどうかの判断が、それを収入と分類するか富と分類するかによって左右されるのでしょうか？答えは心理学、すなわち「メンタル・アカウンティング・バイアス」として知られる現象にあります。 ノーベル賞受賞の心理学者ダニエル・カーネマンは、私たちはお金をさまざまなアカウントに分類しており、それらは時に物理的であり、時に単に心の中だけのものであると指摘しています。そして、私たちがこれらのアカウントから支出する意欲には明確な階層が存在します。 私たちの「メンタル・アカウント」から支出する意欲には明確な階層があります。 階層の最上位には月々の賃金があり、次に当座（チェック）口座の資金が続きます。これらの「収入」アカウントからは支出しやすいのです。階層のさらに下には貯蓄口座や投資ポートフォリオがあります。これらの「貯蓄」または「富」のアカウントからは支出しにくいのです。 標準的な経済理論は貨幣が完全に代替可能だと仮定するため、当座口座の1ポンドは貯蓄口座の1ポンドと何の違いもないとします。しかし実務では、人々は収入と貯蓄のメンタル・アカウントに異なる感情を結び付けるため、貨幣は代替可能ではありません。 賃金や当座口座から貯蓄口座に資金を移すと、その資金を支出する意欲は崩れます。これが、消費が収入のメンタル・アカウントを支配する賃金に密接に追随する一方で、主に貯蓄のメンタル・アカウントに入る給付金とは意味のある関連がない理由を説明します（今週のチャートおよびチャートI-2）。 Chart I-2 給付金は消費傾向に有意な影響を与えなかった 景気刺激策による現金給付は消費動向に有意な影響を与えなかった 景気刺激策による現金給付は消費動向に有意な影響を与えなかった 貯蓄のメンタル・アカウントから支出することには消極的でも、貯蓄を使って債務を返済することには積極的です。実際、貯蓄と債務の間にあるこの感情的な結びつきを踏まえ、多くの貸し手は貯蓄口座を住宅ローン債務と相殺する住宅ローン商品の提供を行っています。 これらを総合すると、パンデミック期に蓄積された家計貯蓄の在庫は、消費動向を押し上げる可能性は低く、むしろ家計債務の削減に使われる可能性が高いということになります。そうなれば、最近の公的債務の一部は民間債務の返済に回るだけであり、1990年代の日本で起きたことと同様の展開となるでしょう（チャートI-3）。 Chart I-3 日本では公的債務が結局民間債務の返済に回った 日本では、公的債務が結局、民間債務の返済に充てられた 日本では、公的債務が結局、民間債務の返済に充てられた これは銀行の資産成長にとって問題です。 「バリュー」は価値をもたらさない メンタル・アカウンティング・バイアスは、近年の金融市場で支配的な現象であるいわゆる「利回りの追求」も説明します。一見すると利回りの追求は理にかなっているように見えますが、利回りと値上がり（キャピタル・アプリシエーション）を区別すること自体が非合理的なのです。 収入と富の関係と同様に、投資の利回りから得られるお金と値上がりから得られるお金は（税制が同等であると仮定すれば）完全に代替可能です。しかし実際には、多くの投資家は利回りと値上がりを別々のメンタル・アカウントに割り当て、投資の利回りを支出用のお金、資本の増加を貯蓄用のお金と分類します。 したがって、たとえばリタイアした投資家のように、資産が支出用のメンタル・アカウントに資金を生み出すことを望む投資家は、利回りを生む投資に対して非合理的なバイアスを持ちます。一方、資産を貯蓄のメンタル・アカウントで増やしたい投資家は、値上がりを生む投資に偏ります。繰り返しますが、資金は本来代替可能であるため、これらのメンタル・アカウントは非合理的です。 通常の状況下では、これらの非合理的なバイアスは問題になりません。なぜなら、支出用と貯蓄用の両方のメンタル・アカウントに適した投資先が十分に存在していたからです。しかし近年では、かつて支出用アカウントに安全なインカムを供給していた現金や国債といった資産はもはやそうしていません。 したがって、その後の利回りを求める殺到の中で、インカム志向の投資家は危険なトンネルビジョンに陥っています。株式の将来のトータルリターンではなく利回りに固執することで、利回り追求型の投資家は高利回りの株式に対して過剰に支払いを行い、長期的な富を犠牲にしています。 株式の将来のトータルリターンではなく利回りに固執することで、投資家は高利回り株に過剰に支払っている。 一例を挙げます。グローバルな金融株のフォワード・利益利回りが8％であることは、ヘルスケアの5％やテクノロジーの3.5％よりもはるかに割安に見えるかもしれません。しかし本当に重要なのは、そのフォワード・利益利回りが将来のトータルリターンにどのように変換されるかです。この観点から見ると、金融株の見かけ上の割安さは幻影であることがわかります。 金融危機後のフォワード・利益利回りと将来リターンの関係を用いると、高利回りの金融株は、ごく最近まで低利回りのテクノロジーよりも低いリターンをもたらすように価格付けされていました。現在でも金融株は、低利回りのヘルスケアよりも低いリターンをもたらすように価格付けされています。ヘルスケアと同じ長期リターンを提供するためには、金融株のバリュエーションは20％下落する必要があります（チャート I-4 - チャート I-6）。 Chart I-4 金融株の8％予想利益利回り = 2％の見込みリターン 金融セクターの利益利回り8％＝見込みリターン2％ 金融セクターの利益利回り8％＝見込みリターン2％ Chart I-5 ヘルスケアの5％予想利益利回り = 8％の見込みリターン ヘルスケアのアーニングス・イールド5パーセント＝見込みリターン8パーセント ヘルスケアのアーニングス・イールド5パーセント＝見込みリターン8パーセント Chart I-6 テクノロジーは割高 テックは割高 テックは割高 したがって、メンタル・アカウンティング・バイアスは銀行にとって二重の打撃となります。銀行の資産成長に問題をもたらし、投資家が高利回り株に過剰に支払う原因にもなります。これが投資の究極の逆説を生み出します。『バリュー』の定義的特徴は、それ自体が価値を提供しないということです！ 長期投資家は銀行を避け、またバリューを避けるべきです。 米国債利回りは上方より下方に動く余地が大きい 前述の分析は、株式の適正な評価アプローチ、特に株式リスクプレミアム、すなわち高品質債券に対する株式の将来の超過リターンに関して重要な含意を持ちます。 よくある誤ったアプローチは、株式のフォワード利益利回りから10年債利回りを引くことです。米国のフォワード利益利回りを4.5％とすると、名目債利回り1.5％に対して株式リスクプレミアムは余裕のある3％、あるいは実質債利回り-1％に対しては非常に余裕のある5.5％であると示唆されます。 このアプローチの明白な誤りは、リンゴとオレンジを引き算している点です。10年債利回りは今後10年間にその債券から受け取るリターンです。しかし先に見たように、フォワード利益利回りは今後10年間に株式から受け取るリターンではありません。 リンゴ同士を比較するためには、まずフォワード利益利回りを将来的な10年のトータルリターンに変換する必要があります。現在の変換値は名目で2％のリターン（チャート I-7 - チャート I-8）、実質で0％のリターン（チャート I-9 - チャート I-10）となります。これらを名目・実質の債利回りと比較すると、株式リスクプレミアムはほとんど存在しないことがわかります。 Chart I-7 利益利回りを予想名目リターンに変換すると… 利益利回りを将来の名目リターンに変換する... 利益利回りを将来の名目リターンに変換する... Chart I-8 …株式リスクプレミアムがほとんど存在しないことがわかる ...株式リスクプレミアムがほとんど存在しないことを見出す ...株式リスクプレミアムがほとんど存在しないことを見出す Chart I-9 利益利回りを予想実質リターンに変換すると… アーニングス・イールドを将来の実質リターンに換算する... アーニングス・イールドを将来の実質リターンに換算する... Chart I-10 …株式リスクプレミアムがほとんど存在しないことがわかる ...株式リスクプレミアムがほとんど存在しないことを示す ...株式リスクプレミアムがほとんど存在しないことを示す ほとんど存在しない株式リスクプレミアムは、株式が高く評価されていることを意味し、またこの高い評価は債利回りが大きく上昇しないことに依存しています。さらに、評価が高いのは株式だけではありません。私たちが The Road To Inflation Ends At Deflation で指摘したように、300兆ドルにのぼる世界の不動産の評価もまた、債利回りが大きく上昇しないことに大きく依存しています。 株式は高く評価されており、その高い評価は債利回りが大きく上昇しないことに依存している。 結論として、現在の水準から見ると、米国の長期債利回りは上昇するよりも下落する余地の方がはるかに大きいと考えます。 カウンタートレンド反転の候補 パンデミック安以来の株式対債券の力強いラリーは、2013年のブルランの終わりや2020年初めのベアランの終わりに見られたようなフラクタル的な脆弱性のポイントに達しています（チャート I-11）。したがって現在のラリーは一服する局面にあります。 Chart I-11 株式対債券のラリーは一服の局面にある エクイティ対ボンドのラリーは小休止が見込まれる エクイティ対ボンドのラリーは小休止が見込まれる アジア太平洋地域では、最近のパキスタン・ルピーの強いパフォーマンスはカウンタートレンドの売りに脆弱であることに注意しています（チャート I-12）。 Chart I-12 PKRはアンダーウェイト PKRをアンダーウェイト PKRをアンダーウェイト 最後に、非常にディフェンシブなニュージーランド株式市場は過去1年で大きくアンダーパフォームしました。しかし、130日と65日の両方のフラクタル構造における脆弱性は、カウンタートレンドでアウトパフォームする準備が整っていることを示唆しています（チャート I-13）。 Chart I-13 ニュージーランドをオーバーウェイト ニュージーランドをオーバーウェイト ニュージーランドをオーバーウェイト したがって、今週の推奨は世界に対してニュージーランドをオーバーウェイトとし、利食い目標と対称的なストップロスを4％に設定することです。   Dhaval Joshi チーフ・ストラテジスト dhaval@bcaresearch.com フラクタル・トレーディング・システム フラクタルトレード 6か月の推奨 構造的な推奨 クローズド・フラクタルトレード クローズド・トレード 資産パフォーマンス 株式市場パフォーマンス   注目指標 - 債券利回り Chart II-1 注目指標 - 債券利回り - ユーロ圏 注目すべき指標 - 債券利回り - ユーロ圏 注目すべき指標 - 債券利回り - ユーロ圏 Chart II-2 注目指標 - 債券利回り - ユーロ圏を除く欧州 注目すべき指標 - 債券利回り - ユーロ圏を除く欧州 注目すべき指標 - 債券利回り - ユーロ圏を除く欧州 Chart II-3 注目指標 - 債券利回り - アジア 注目指標 - 債券利回り - アジア 注目指標 - 債券利回り - アジア Chart II-4 注目指標 - 債券利回り - その他の先進国 注目指標 - 債券利回り - その他先進国 注目指標 - 債券利回り - その他先進国   注目指標 - 金利見通し Chart II-5 注目指標 - 金利見通し 注目すべき指標 - 金利見通し 注目すべき指標 - 金利見通し Chart II-6 注目指標 - 金利見通し 注目すべき指標 - 金利見通し 注目すべき指標 - 金利見通し Chart II-7 注目指標 - 金利見通し 注目すべき指標 - 金利見通し 注目すべき指標 - 金利見通し Chart II-8 注目指標 - 金利見通し 注目すべき指標 - 金利見通し 注目すべき指標 - 金利見通し    

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