財政

ハイライト もし完全に実施されれば、バイデン大統領の メイド・イン・アメリカ税制プラン はS&P 500の利益を約8%押し下げることになります。私たちはいくつかの提案された税制措置が弱められると予想しており、実際の影響は利益が5%減少する程度になると見ています。 強い経済成長と緩和的な金融政策からの継続的な支援を考えれば、投資家は短期的な増税の影響をやすやすと受け流す可能性が高いです。 しかし長期を見渡すと、米国の税率が引き上げられ続け、最終的に株価に悪影響を及ぼす水準に達するだろうと考える理由が四つあります。第一に、実効の米国法人税率は依然として非常に低いこと。第二に、トランプ政権の減税が投資支出を押し上げなかったことにより、最終的に減税を完全に元に戻しやすくなっていること。第三に、債券利回りの上昇は借入の増加よりも増税で歳出を賄う方が得策にしてしまうこと。第四に、そして最も重要なのは、企業と富裕層への増税に有利に働く政治的な風向きが変わりつつあることです。 民主党はしばらくの間、経済問題で左傾化してきました。一方で保守的な共和党員は、いまや自分たちを嫌うように見える“ウォーク（woke）”な企業群に対する減税をなぜ支持すべきか自問し始めています。 米国の企業部門は自らの利益を擁護してくれる政党を失うリスクに直面しています。したがって、短期的な株式の見通しは依然として明るいものの、長期的見通しは次第に暗くなっています。 バイデンの税制プラン 3月31日、バイデン大統領は アメリカン・ジョブズ・プラン を発表しました。本プランは公共インフラ等に対し、8年間にわたって合計2.25兆ドルの新たな連邦支出を提案しています。メイド・イン・アメリカ税制プラン に概説されているように、バイデン政権はこの新たな支出パッケージの財源として今後15年間で2兆ドルの税収を確保しようとしています。 税制プランの最も重要な三つの条項は次の通りです： 米国内の法人税率を21%から28%に引き上げること。これにより税率はトランプ減税前の水準（35%）の中間点に戻ることになります。法人利益の世界的配分やその他の要因を考慮すると、こうした増税はS&P 500の利益を約4%押し下げることになります。 米企業の海外利益に対する最低税率の引き上げ。バイデン政権はGlobal Intangible Low-Taxed Income（GILTI）の最低税率を10.5%から21%へ倍増することを提案しています。また、Foreign-Derived Intangible Income控除（FDII）を廃止する計画です。これら二つの措置はS&P 500の利益をさらに約3.5%押し下げることになります。 「ブック・インカム」（すなわち企業が株主に報告する利益）に対する15%の最低税。年間利益が20億ドルを超える法人に適用されます。財務省はこの税の対象となる企業は45社になると見積もっています。これはS&P 500の利益をさらに0.5%押し下げます。 これらを合わせると、S&P 500の利益は約8%減少します。実際には、影響は5%前後に近いと考えています。バイデン案にはクリーン・エネルギーや研究開発（R&D）などを対象とした各種税額控除が含まれており、これが一部の増税を相殺するはずです。また最終的な法人税率は28%に達しない可能性が高いです。重要なスイング票であるウェストバージニア州の上院議員ジョー・マンチンは既に25%で抑えることを好むと述べています。 何が既に織り込まれているか？ チャート 1 増税で最も打撃を受ける可能性のある企業群は好調に推移している 増税で最も損失を被る可能性のある企業は好調に推移している 増税で最も損失を被る可能性のある企業は好調に推移している 私たちのデータの読み取りでは、増税の影響はアナリストの利益予想や市場の期待のいずれにもほとんど織り込まれていないようです。 チャート 1 はゴールドマンの「Formerly High Tax（以前は高税）」と「Formerly Low Tax（以前は低税）」の株式バスケットのパフォーマンスを示しています。以前高税だった企業はトランプの減税で最も恩恵を受け、減税が巻き戻された場合には最も損をすることが想定されます。それにもかかわらず、これらはジョージア州の決選投票で上院が民主党に渡って以来、低税の同業者をアウトパフォームしています。 同様に、利益見通しも増税の見込みに反応していません。これは驚くべきことではありません。チャート 2 は、アナリストが利益見積りを調整したのはドナルド・トランプ大統領がTax Cuts and Jobs Actに署名して法制化した2017年12月22日を過ぎてからであったことを示しています。当時と同様に、アナリストは最終的な税制パッケージの詳細を待ってから推計を変えるように見えます。 チャート 2 アナリストは増税の可能性を反映して利益見積りを調整していない アナリストは、税金の増加の可能性を織り込んで利益予想を修正していない アナリストは、税金の増加の可能性を織り込んで利益予想を修正していない 当面は景気循環のダイナミクスが税制より重要 投資コミュニティが増税を織り込んでいないことは株式への逆風ではありますが、控えめな逆風と表現するのが適切でしょう。IBESの推計は依然として2022年のS&P 500企業の利益成長を15%と示しています。来年に企業利益の上昇を阻むには非現実的に大きな税負担が必要になります。 国際通貨基金（IMF）が数週間前に発表した最新の経済見通しは、2022年の米実質GDPが3.5%成長すると予想しており、これはファンドが1月に想定していた水準より1ポイント高い数字です（表 1）。株式リターンと経済成長には強い相関があるため、株式の強気相場は増税があっても生き残る可能性が高いです（チャート 3）。 表 1 成長は依然として堅調 ウォーク資本への課税 ウォーク資本への課税 チャート 3 経済成長が強いときに株は通常債券をアウトパフォームする 景気が強いとき、エクイティは通常、ボンドを上回る 景気が強いとき、エクイティは通常、ボンドを上回る   もちろん、いくつかの銘柄は増税によって打撃を受ける可能性があります。テクノロジーセクターは特に脆弱で、現在S&P 500の中でも最も低い実効税率の一つを享受しているためです（チャート 4）。テック企業は特許のような無形資産からの所得をオフショアの税制回避地に振り向けることにも非常に長けており、まもなく強化されるであろう内国歳入庁（IRS）の標的になる可能性があります。1 現在、私たちはグロース株よりバリュー株を支持しています。増税がテックのような成長セクターに不均衡にマイナスの影響を与える可能性があるという事実は、この見解を強化します。 チャート 4 テックは増税に脆弱である ウォーク・キャピタルへの課税 ウォーク・キャピタルへの課税   増税：長期トレンドの始まりか？ 増税が株価に与える短期的影響についてはそれほど心配していませんが、より長期的な結果については懸念しています。以下で論じるように、バイデンは今後の支出イニシアティブ（例えば今後提示される アメリカン・ファミリーズ・プラン）を賄うために所得税やキャピタルゲイン税を引き上げる可能性が高いだけでなく、法人税を引き上げ続けようという圧力は彼の政権を超えて持続するでしょう。その理由は四つあります： 理由 #1：実効の米国法人税率はいまだ非常に低い チャート 5 法人税収は低い 法人税収は低い 法人税収は低い 2018年4月、Tax Cuts and Jobs Act が施行されて4か月後、議会予算局（CBO）は2019年に米国企業が支払う法人税を2760億ドルと予測しました。しかし最終的に企業が支払ったのは2300億ドルに過ぎませんでした。2 米国の法人所得税収は2018–19年にGDP比でわずか1%にとどまり、2013–17年の半分でした（チャート 5）。ロナルド・レーガンの2期目には、米国企業は約30%の実効税率に直面していました。今日ではそれが15%未満です（チャート 6）。GDP比で見ると、米国政府が徴収する法人税収はほとんどの他のOECD諸国より低くなっています（チャート 7）。   チャート 6 経済全体の実効法人税率は30年以上にわたり縮小してきた 経済全体の実効法人税率は30年以上にわたり縮小し続けている 経済全体の実効法人税率は30年以上にわたり縮小し続けている チャート 7 米国の法人課税は高くない ウォーク資本への課税 ウォーク資本への課税 チャート 8 トランプ氏はIRSに狙われる不運に見舞われた ウォーク資本への課税 ウォーク資本への課税 さらに、米国政府は時に支払われるべき金を集めようとすらしません。資産200億ドル超の法人に対する監査は2011年以降で50%減少しています。年収100万ドル超の個人に対する監査は80%減少しています（チャート 8）。今週上院で証言したチャック・レッティグ内国歳入庁長官は、税の脱漏が政府に年間1兆ドルの損失をもたらしていると推定しました。 理由 #2：トランプの減税が投資支出を押し上げられなかったことが、最終的に減税を完全に逆転しやすくする もしトランプの減税が投資支出を押し上げていたなら、これらが財政赤字に与えるマイナスの影響を見過ごしやすくなったでしょう。しかし証拠は、法人税率の引き下げが資本支出を促進する効果はほとんどなかったことを示しています。 チャート 9 は、Tax Cuts and Jobs Act 可決後の2年間で資本支出がGDP比でほとんど増加していないことを示しています。国際通貨基金によれば、減税のうちわずか5分の1だけが資本投資や研究開発支出の資金に使われました。3 同様に、Hanlon、Hoopes、Slemrodの研究では、S&P 500企業のカンファレンスコールで減税を受けて資本支出を増やす計画について言及した企業は4分の1未満であったと報告されています。4 チャート 9 トランプの減税は投資をほとんど押し上げなかった トランプの減税は投資を促す効果がほとんどなかった トランプの減税は投資を促す効果がほとんどなかった チャート 10 設備投資と知的財産は長持ちしない 事業用設備と知的財産は長持ちしない 事業用設備と知的財産は長持ちしない   なぜ企業投資はあまり上昇しなかったのでしょうか。一つの答えは、利益への課税は資本投資への課税とは同じではないということです。付録1が説明するように、利息費用が税控除の対象である場合、低い法人税は借入を通じて賄われる資本支出に大きな影響を与えない可能性があります。 住宅のような長寿命資産とは異なり、企業の資本ストックの多くは比較的寿命が短い（チャート 10）。事業用機器やソフトウェアの需要は、資本コストよりも総需要の見通しに依存します。 最後に、私たちが 「不平等が量的緩和をもたらした、逆ではない」 と題した報告書で説明したように、今日の企業利益の大部分は何らかの形の独占的な力に帰せられます。標準的な経済理論は、独占的な超過利潤に課税しても生産や投資が減るとは限らないことを示唆しています。 理由 #3：債券利回りの上昇は、借入増加より増税で歳出を賄うことをより合理的にする 金利が依然として極めて低い水準にある間は、増税で政府支出を賄う必要性は差し迫っていません。これは特に、長期的に経済成長（したがって税収）を押し上げると合理的に期待されるインフラ支出に当てはまります。 チャート 11 現状のままだと米国の利払いは急増する 米国の利払いは現状のままでは急増する 米国の利払いは現状のままでは急増する しかし金利が上昇すれば、政府は利払い費の急増に直面するよりも増税を選ぶ方が有利と考えるでしょう。米国を含む多くの経済で公的債務水準は非常に高いため、金利上昇は社会保障プログラムから債券保有者への資金移転を引き起こします。これは有権者に人気がありません。 議会予算局は、歳出削減などの措置が講じられない場合、今後数十年で連邦政府の利払いが急速に膨らむと見積もっています（チャート 11）。次に論じるように、これらの措置は支出削減よりも増税の形を取る可能性が高いでしょう。   理由 #4：企業や富裕層への増税に有利な政治的風向きが強まっている 民主党はしばらくの間左へ移動しています。2001年には「政府が我が国の問題を解決するためにもっと役割を果たすべきだ」と答えた民主党支持者は50%でした。今日ではその割合は83%です（チャート 12）。 チャート 12 民主党支持者はより大きな政府を望んでいる ウォーク資本への課税 ウォーク資本への課税 チャート 13 社会保障・医療関係の大型歳出は今後も増え続ける 社会保障と医療の高額支出は今後も増え続ける 社会保障と医療の高額支出は今後も増え続ける 共和党は小さな政府を好む傾向を示し続けていますが、これは長続きしないかもしれません。メディケアと社会保障は連邦の非利子支出の40%以上を消費しています。両プログラム（特にメディケア）への支出は今後急速に増加する見込みです（チャート 13）。高齢者の政治的志向が共和党寄りである程度あるなら、これは高齢者向け給付を維持するために共和党が増税を支持する傾向を強める可能性があります。 企業や富裕層が社会的にリベラルな政策を支持する傾向が強まっていることは、保守的な共和党員が、なぜ自分たちを嫌うように見える人々や企業への減税を支持し続けるべきかを自問する原因になっています。昨年11月、ジョー・バイデンは米国で最も裕福な郡で20ポイントの差をつけて勝利しましたが、トランプの支持は最も貧しい郡で上昇しました（チャート 14）。この傾向を反映して、「コーポレート・アメリカにほとんど信頼を置いていない」と答えた共和党員の割合は2018年2月の19%から2021年3月には30%に上昇しました（チャート 15）。   チャート 14 民主党は富裕層層で着実に支持を拡大している ウォーク・キャピタルへの課税 ウォーク・キャピタルへの課税 チャート 15 共和党支持者は企業CEOに対してより懐疑的に ウォーク資本への課税 ウォーク資本への課税 共和党支持者の中で、法人税を引き上げることを支持する人の割合は引き下げを支持する人の2倍以上になっています（チャート 16）。全国的には、73%のアメリカ人が企業の影響力に不満を抱いており、これは2001年から25ポイントの上昇です（チャート 17）。 チャート 16 より多くのアメリカ人が富裕層に課税することを望んでいる ウォーク資本への課税 ウォーク資本への課税 チャート 17 大企業に対する態度の悪化 ウォーク資本への課税 ウォーク資本への課税 世論の変化を踏まえれば、バイデンの税制案に対する共和党の反応がいかに「元気がない」ものだったかはさほど驚くべきことではありません。党の指導者たちはプランを形式的に非難した後、迅速に「ウォーク」企業を攻撃する立場に転じました。 ジョージア州の新しい選挙法に対する企業の反応について述べる中で、上院共和党院内総務ミッチ・マコーネルは「我々は権力と富を持つ人々による国民を誤導し脅すための組織的なキャンペーンを目撃している」 と述べました。さらに彼は続けて、「選挙法から環境問題、過激な社会政策、第二改正に至るまで、民間セクターの一部はウォークな並行政府のように振る舞うことに手を出し続けている。企業が憲法秩序の外から我が国を極左の群衆に乗っ取られる手段となれば、重大な結果を招くことになるだろう」と述べました。 私たちが予想するようにこの傾向が続けば、米国の企業部門は自らの利益を守る政党を失うでしょう。したがって短期的な株式の見通しは依然として明るいものの、長期的な見通しはますます暗くなっています。   Peter Berezin チーフ・グローバル・ストラテジスト pberezin@bcaresearch.com   付録1：法人利益への増税が投資を減らすのはどんなときか？ ある企業が機械を1,000ドルで購入するかどうかを検討しているとします。企業は外部の貸出・借入の利回り、すなわち外部金利 r を8%と直面していると仮定します。 付随する表は、機械が生み出す内部収益率（その機械が生成する投資収益）によって企業の利益がどのように変わるかを示しています。 まず、企業が機械の購入を新たな負債の発行で賄う場合を考えます。ここでは内部収益率が10%で機械が永久に使える（すなわち減価償却しない）と仮定します。この場合、機械は年間100ドルの営業収入を生みます。80ドルの利息費用を差し引いた後、企業の税引前利益は20ドルになります（例A）。 企業の所得税率が20%で利息が完全に税控除されるとすると、企業は20*0.2＝4ドルの税金を支払い、税後利益は16ドルになります（例B）。 税金が企業の税後利益を減らしたことに注意してください。とはいえ、それは機械を購入するインセンティブを消滅させるものではありません。20ドルが16ドルになっても、16ドルはゼロより良いのです。 したがって、この単純な例では、資本設備の購入が借入で賄われ、利息支払が完全に税控除される場合、利益課税の導入は投資するか否かの最終判断に影響を与えません。 利息が税控除されない場合は状況が変わります。この場合、企業が機械を買うか否かで無差別になるためには内部収益率が r/(1-t) まで上昇する必要があります。上の例では、内部収益率は8%/(1-0.2)=10%に上がらなければなりません。このとき企業は100ドルの営業利益を得て、その利益に20ドルの税を支払い、80ドルの利息を支払った後にトントンになります（例C）。 利息支払が税控除されない場合、株式による資金調達で新しい資本設備に投資するか否かの計算は、借入の場合と似ています。株式による資金調達を考える最良の方法は、企業が機械を購入した後にその機械の市場価格がいくらになるかを考えることです。税がなく内部収益率が10%であれば、市場価格は100/0.08＝1,250ドルになります（例D）。企業は1,000ドルで買えるので購入するのが合理的です。 もし機械のオーナーがその機械が生み出す所得の流れに対して20%の利益税を支払わなければならないなら、市場価値は80/0.08＝1,000ドルになります（例E）。この時点で企業は機械を購入するかどうかに無差別になります。 機械が永久に持たないという仮定を放棄した場合はどうでしょうか。主な違いは、機械を購入するかどうかの決定が資本コストの変化に対して鈍感になることです。例えば、機械が1年しか持たないとすると、その1年で得られる収益が著しく高くなければ企業にとって購入する価値が出ません（例F）。これにより、機械購入の決定は金利よりも景気循環、特に総需要の見通しにより依存するようになります。   付録 表 1 ウォーク・キャピタルへの課税 ウォーク・キャピタルへの課税 脚注 1 Jed Graham, “バイデンの税制案：Amazon、Google、Facebook、Apple、Microsoftへの影響,” インベスターズ・ビジネス・デイリー (2021年4月8日). 2 “議会予算局の2019会計年度ベースライン見積りの正確性,” 議会予算局（Congressional Budget Office） (2019年12月). 3 Emanuel Kopp, Daniel Leigh, Susanna Mursula, and Suchanan Tambunlertchai, “2017年のTax Cuts and Jobs Act以降の米国投資,” 国際通貨基金（IMF）ワーキングペーパー (2019年5月31日). 4 Michelle Hanlon, Jeffrey L. Hoopes, and Joel Slemrod, “Tax Reform Made Me Do It!” NBER ワーキングペーパー 25283 (2018年11月). グローバル・インベストメント・ストラテジー ビュー・マトリックス ウォーク資本への課税 ウォーク資本への課税 特別トレードの推奨 ウォーク資本への課税 ウォーク資本への課税 現在のマクロクアント・モデル・スコア ウォーク資本への課税 ウォーク資本への課税

ハイライト 継続中かつ予想される財政・金融刺激策とCOVID-19対策の進展を受けた世界成長の強まりは、主要データ提供者による今年の石油需要前提を押し上げています。 当社は本月の需給バランスで2021年の世界需要見積りを64万b/d引き上げて98.25mm b/dとし、OPEC 2.0が脆弱な回復を乱さないようにブレント価格を$60/bbl付近に保つための必要な調整を行うと想定しています。 当社の2022年および2023年のブレント予測はそれぞれ$65/bbl、$75/bblで維持します。 コモディティ市場は、米国、ロシア、中国およびそれらの関係国・同盟国を巻き込む武力衝突の高まる確率を無視しています。ロシアはウクライナ国境に軍を集結させ、米国に干渉するなと警告しました。中国はフィリピン沖に戦艦を集結させ、台湾の防空識別圏への侵入を続けており、米軍を緊張させています。意図的あるいは偶発的な交戦が発生すれば石油価格は急騰します。 価格は上下双方にリスクがあふれています。武力衝突のリスクに加え、ワクチン配布の加速は回復を前倒しし、当社予測を超える価格上昇をもたらす可能性があります。一方で、ブラジル、インド、欧州での死亡者数および入院者数の上昇が示すように、COVID-19によるロックダウン再発の下振れリスクは依然として存在します（今週のチャート）。 特集 石油需要推計—当社の推計も含め—は、主要経済におけるCOVID-19の抑制に向けた測定可能な進展と、特に米国発の潤沢な財政・金融刺激策を受けて回復しています。1 IMFのGDP上方修正を受け、本月の需給バランスで当社は2021年の世界需要見積りを64万b/d引き上げて98.25mm b/dとしました。当社のモデリングでは、脆弱な回復を損なわないようにブレント価格を$60/bbl付近に保つために、サウジアラビア王国（KSA）とロシアが主導する生産者連合であるOPEC 2.0が必要な調整を行うと想定しています。 通常とは異なり、石油需要回復の初期段階は先進国市場（DM）がけん引すると見ています。先進国の代理としてOECDの石油消費を用いています（チャート2）。その後、来年以降は新興市場（EM）経済が再び成長を主導し、2023年にかけて続きます。 今週のチャート COVID-19の死者数・入院者数が世界的回復を脅かす 原油価格の上振れリスクが高まっている 原油価格の上振れリスクが高まっている チャート2 先進国（DM）の需要が今年急増 DMの需要が今年急増 DMの需要が今年急増 OPEC 2.0の余剰生産能力の吸収 当社はサウジアラビア王国（KSA）とロシアが主導する生産者連合であるOPEC 2.0を市場で支配的な生産者としてモデリングし続けています。今年予想する成長はOPEC 2.0の余剰生産能力のかなりの部分を吸収する見込みであり、その大半—約8mm b/dのうち約6mm b/d—がKSAにあります（チャート3）。 主要生産国の余剰生産能力は、米国のシェール生産者がリグと人員を動員して新規生産を集積ラインや主要パイプラインに導入するよりも速く、回復する需要に対応することを可能にします。 当社は米国のシェール生産者を市場価格を受け入れるコホート（価格受容群）としてモデル化しており、市場が許す限り生産すると想定しています。2020年に9.22mm b/dまで落ち込んだ米国生産は、今年9.56mm b/d、2022年に10.65mm b/d、2023年に11.18mm b/dまで回復すると見ています（チャート4）。米国内コンチネンタル産（Lower 48）の生産成長はシェールが主導し、各年とも米国総生産の約80%を占める見込みです。 チャート3 コアOPEC 2.0の余剰生産能力がまず需要増に反応する OPEC 2.0のコア予備生産能力は需要の増加に最初に反応する OPEC 2.0のコア予備生産能力は需要の増加に最初に反応する チャート4 シェールは価格受容群における限界供給源 シェールは価格受容群における限界バレルである シェールは価格受容群における限界バレルである 供給面でのOPEC 2.0の支配的地位は、余剰生産能力が枯渇するまでは非連合生産者に経済的地代を奪われることを許さず、非連合生産者にとっては抑制要因となります。その後、価格受容群は資本を呼び込む能力が限られているため、内部留保から多くの探査・生産（E+P）活動を賄う可能性が高いと考えられます。株主は配当の維持・成長、あるいは株式買戻しによる資本還元を要求し続けるでしょう。これが収益性のある企業に生産成長を限定する要因になります。 当社はOPEC 2.0連合の生産規律が供給を需要のわずか下にとどめ、在庫が減少し続けるようにするだろうと見ています。これはCOVID-19パンデミックで需要が破壊されたにもかかわらず実際に起きたことです（チャート5）。これらのモデリング前提から、当社は供給と需要が2023年にかけて均衡へ向かって動き続けると予想しています（表1）。 チャート5 2021年の需給バランス 2021年の需給バランス 2021年の需給バランス 表1 BCA 世界原油 需給バランス（MMb/d、ベースケース） 原油価格の上方リスクが高まっている 原油価格の上方リスクが高まっている 当社はこの需給均衡化が恒常的な物理的不足を誘発し、在庫は2023年にかけて減少し続けると予想しています（チャート6）。在庫が取り崩されるにつれて、OPEC 2.0の支配的な生産者地位はブレントおよびWTIのフォワードカーブをバックワーデーションに保つことを可能にします（チャート7）。2 当社は2022年および2023年のブレント予測をそれぞれ$65/bbl、$75/bblで維持しています（チャート8）。 チャート6 OPEC 2.0の政策は供給を需要の下に置き続ける... OPEC 2.0政策は供給を需要より下回る水準に保ち続けている… OPEC 2.0政策は供給を需要より下回る水準に保ち続けている… チャート7 OECD在庫は2023年までに減少 OECD Inventories Fall to 2023 OECD Inventories Fall to 2023 チャート8 世界経済回復に伴いブレント予測は上昇 世界経済の回復に伴い、ブレントは上昇が予想される 世界経済の回復に伴い、ブレントは上昇が予想される 価格の両方向リスクが充満 当社見解には上振れおよび下振れのリスクが数多くあります。 上振れの例として、英国と米国のワクチン配布の立ち上げ方が示唆に富みます。 両国とも当初はつまづきました。特に米国は1月時点でも戦略が整っていないように見えました。米国が調達と配布を本格化させると接種率は急上昇し、現在では米国内で「通常の」独立記念日（Fourth of July）を迎える見通しにあるようです。英国は今週再開を開始しました。両国は2021年第3四半期に集団免疫を達成すると予想されています。3 調達と配布を誤ったEUは、英国と米国の教訓から利益を得て2021年第4四半期に集団免疫を達成するとマッキンゼーの調査は示しています。このスケジュールの前倒しは、より強い成長と当社予測を上回る石油価格につながるでしょう。 次の大きな課題は、パンデミックが加速し変異株の発生・拡散に理想的な環境を提供している新興経済地域（特にそのような地域）にワクチンを供給することです。ブラジル、インド、欧州での死亡者数・入院者数の上昇が示すように、大規模なCOVID-19によるロックダウンの再発リスクは依然として残ります。 戦の狼煙（Cry Havoc） 当社が見るもう一つの大きな上振れリスクは、米国、ロシア、中国およびそれらの関係国・同盟国を巻き込む武力衝突です。 現時点でコモディティ市場はこれらのリスクを無視しています。戦争のレベルには達していないにせよ、機動的な交戦―航空機が撃墜されたり南シナ海で艦船が交戦するような事態―の確率は日々高まっています。 これは驚くべきことではなく、当社の同僚であるBCAリサーチの地政学ストラテジー（Geopolitical Strategy）が最近指摘した通りです。4 実際、マット・ガートケン（Matt Gertken）が率いる当該サービスは、バイデン政権が就任直後からロシアと中国によってこの種の試練にさらされるだろうと警告していました。 ロシアはウクライナ国境に軍を集結させ、米国に干渉するなと警告しています。中国はフィリピン沿岸に軍艦を集結させ、台湾の防空識別圏への侵入を続けており、米軍を緊張させています。米露、米中間の政治対話はますます激しくなっており、近い将来に和らぐ兆しは見えません。意図的であれ偶発的であれ交戦が発生すれば戦争の遁走を許し、石油価格は一時的に急騰する可能性があります。 最後に、当社が想定するようにイランが核合意（すなわち共同包括的行動計画：JCPOA）を西側諸国と再締結できれば、イランは「正式な」石油輸出国としての復帰を余儀なくされ、OPEC 2.0はこれを受け入れざるを得なくなります。JCPOAは2018年に当時のトランプ大統領によって破棄されました。 これは困難を伴う可能性があります。当社は2014–16年の石油価格崩壊が、サウジが市場シェア戦争を仕掛けて価格を暴落させ、2010年末から2014年半ばにかけて続いた1バレル当たり$100超の価格をイランに許さないための行動だったと考えています。OPEC 2.0、特にKSAは米国–イラン交渉に公には関与していません。しかし2014年に開始された壊滅的な市場シェア戦争の後、KSAおよびOPEC 2.0はJCPOA後にイランの市場復帰を受け入れたことを想起する価値があります。   ロバート・P・ライアン チーフ コモディティ＆エネルギー・ストラテジスト rryan@bcaresearch.com アシュウィン・シャイアム リサーチアソシエイト コモディティ＆エネルギー戦略 ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com   コモディティ概況 エネルギー： 強気 ブレントとWTI価格は、EIAの週間石油在庫報告が2021年4月9週終わりで米国の原油・製品在庫が910万バレル減少したことを示した後に急騰しました。これは商業用原油と蒸留油在庫の大幅な取り崩し（それぞれ590万バレル、210万バレル）が主導しました。これらの取り崩しは過去一週間に主要データ機関（EIA、IEA、OPEC）による世界需要の概ね強気な上方修正を背景としています。これらの評価は、精製製品需要、すなわち「product supplied」が4月9週終わりで日量110万b/d跳ね上がったというEIAデータに裏付けられています。ジョンソン＆ジョンソンの接種問題という挫折があったにもかかわらずワクチン配布が勢いを増しており、在庫の取り崩しと需要改善が上昇の触媒となったようです。米ドルの弱含みや米国の実質金利低下も追い風になりました。 ベースメタル： 強気 今週初めニッケル価格は下落しました。中国の国営新華社通信が中国の李克強首相が上昇するコモディティ価格の中で原材料市場の規制強化の必要性を強調したと報じ、企業の業績に圧力がかかっているとのことでした（チャート9）。この発言は中国のトップ経済顧問である劉鶴が先週コモディティ価格の追跡を当局に求めた後に出たものです。ニッケル価格はこの報を受けて今週初めにトン当たり約$500下落し、ロンドン金属取引所の取引で火曜日終値時点で$16,114.5/MTで取引されていました。他のベースメタルはこのニュースの影響を受けませんでした。 貴金属： 強気 今週初めに発表された3月の米国インフレデータを受けて米ドルと10年物米国債利回りは低下しました。米国の消費者物価は約9年ぶりの大幅上昇を記録しました。インフレヘッジ需要と米ドル・債利回りの低下が金の購入における機会費用を下げたことが金価格を押し上げました（チャート10）。この不確実性と米国の財政刺激策によるインフレ圧力の高まりが金需要を増加させます。スポットのCOMEX金は火曜日終値で$1,746.20/ozで取引されていました。 穀物・ソフトコモディティ： 中立 USDAの報告によると、米国のトウモロコシ期末在庫は13.5億ブッシェルで、市場予想の13.9億ブッシェルや先月の省の1.50億ブッシェル推定を下回っています（agriculture.comの集計）。世界のトウモロコシ在庫は2.839億トンで、市場予想の2.845億トンおよび省の推定2.876億トンを下回りました。 チャート9 ベースメタルは強気に動く ベースメタルは強気になっている ベースメタルは強気になっている チャート10 金価格の上昇 金価格が上昇へ 金価格が上昇へ   脚注 1     当社が2021年4月8日に発表したUS-Russia Pipeline Standoff Could Push LNG Prices Higherをご覧ください。簡単に言えば、IMFは今年および来年の成長率見通しをそれぞれ6%と4.4%に引き上げ、2021年1月の更新時点と比べてほぼ1ポイントの上方修正を行いました。 2     バックワーデーションのフォワードカーブ—先物の期近価格が期先価格を上回る状態—は需給タイトさを示す市場のシグナルです。精製業者が将来よりも今の原油の入手を高く評価していることを意味します。これはちょうど投資家が明日引き渡される1ドル札に対して1ドルを支払うことを好み、1年後に引き渡される同じ1ドル札には今日98セントしか払わないかもしれないのと同じダイナミクスです。 3    マッキンゼー・アンド・カンパニーが2021年3月26日に発表したWhen will the COVID-19 pandemic end?をご参照ください。 4    BCAの地政学ストラテジーが2021年4月2日に発表した先見的な分析The Arsenal Of Democracyをご覧ください。同レポートは、バイデン政権は中国/台湾、ロシア、イラン、さらには北朝鮮に関する初期のストレス・テストに直面していると指摘しています。ゲーム理論は金融市場が台湾海峡での危機の60%の確率を無視できない理由を説明するのに役立ちます。全面戦争の確率は依然低いものの、台湾は世界で最も重要な地政学的リスクであり続けます。   投資見解とテーマ 推奨事項 戦略的推奨 タクティカルトレード コモディティ価格とプレイ参考表 2021年にクローズしたトレード クローズしたトレードの概要 より高いインフレが到来 より高いインフレが到来

Highlights Global Inflation: The case for maintaining a strategic overall allocation to inflation-linked bonds (ILBs) versus nominal government debt in dedicated global fixed income portfolios remains intact. Global growth expectations are accelerating as vaccinations increase, spare capacity is increasingly being absorbed across the developed world and central banks (led by the Federal Reserve) continue to show no inclination to tighten policy anytime soon. Inflation-Linked Bond Allocations: ILB valuations, however, are no longer uniformly cheap across all countries. Real yields are now moving in a less coordinated fashion as markets try to sort out the timing and pace of eventual future central bank tightening. We recommend shifting inflation-linked bond exposure from Canada to Germany, as both markets have similar valuations but the Bank of Canada is likely to turn less dovish well ahead of the ECB. Feature Chart of the WeekMarkets Remain Unconcerned About An Inflation Overshoot The global reflation trade over the past year has been highly rewarding to investors. Equity and credit markets worldwide have delivered outstanding returns on the back of highly stimulative monetary and fiscal policies implemented to deal with the negative economic effects of COVID-19. The global INflation trade has also paid off for investors in inflation-linked bonds (ILBs), which have outperformed nominal government debt across the developed economies dating back to last spring. The rising trend for global inflation breakevens remains intact, but is approaching some potential resistance points. A GDP-weighted average of 10-year breakeven inflation rates among the major developed economies is just shy of the 2% level that has represented a firm ceiling over the past decade (Chart of the Week). At the same time, the Bloomberg consensus forecast for headline CPI inflation for that same group of countries calls for an increase to only 1.8% by year-end before slowing to 1.7% in 2022. The latest forecasts from the IMF are similar, calling for headline inflation in the advanced economies to reach 1.6% in 2021 and 1.7% in 2022. If those modest forecasts for realized inflation come to fruition, then there is likely not much more upside in inflation breakevens, in aggregate. Country selection within the ILB universe will become more important over the next 6-12 months, as divergences in growth, realized inflation and central bank reactions will lead to a more heterogeneous path for global inflation breakevens. Underlying Inflation Backdrop Still Supports Rising Breakevens On a total return basis, ILBs enjoyed an extended run of success prior to this year. The cumulative total return of the asset class (in local currency terms) between 2012 and 2020 was a whopping 61% in the UK, 25% in Canada, 22% in the US and 21% in the euro area (aggregating the individual countries in the region with inflation-linked bonds). However, the absolute performance of ILBs has been more disperse on a country-by-country basis so far in 2021. ILBs are down year-to-date in Canada (-6.2%), the UK (-5.0%) and the US (-1.4%). On the other hand, euro area ILBs have delivered a positive total return of +0.5% so far in 2021. Real bond yields have climbed off the lows in the US, UK and, most notably, Canada where the overall index yield on the Bloomberg Barclays inflation-linked bond index is now in positive territory for the first time since before the pandemic started (Chart 2). At the same time, real bond yields have been drifting lower in the euro area. These real yield moves are related to shifting perceptions of central bank responses to the global growth upturn. For example, pricing in overnight index swap (OIS) curves have pulled forward the timing and pace of future interest rate increases in the US and Canada – i.e. real policy rates will become less negative - while there has been comparatively little change in euro zone rate expectations. While the absolute returns for ILBs have become less correlated, the relative trade between nominal and inflation-linked government bonds in all countries remains intact. 10-year breakeven inflation rates have been steadily climbing in the US and UK, while depressed Japanese breakevens have crept modestly higher (Chart 3). Even Europe, where inflation has remained subdued for years, has seen a significant shift higher in inflation breakevens. (Chart 4). The turn in breakevens has occurred alongside a major change in investor perceptions of future inflation, with surveys like the ZEW showing an overwhelming majority of financial professionals expecting higher inflation in the US, Europe and the UK. Chart 2A Fading Bull Market In Inflation-Linked Bonds Chart 3A Solid Recovery In Inflation Expectations Chart 4European Inflation Expectations Starting To Normalize Inflation forecasts have shifted in response to faster global growth expectations on the back of vaccine optimism and aggressive US fiscal stimulus. Yet inflation forecasts remain modest compared to the huge growth figures expected for 2021 and 2022. In its latest World Economic Outlook published last week, the IMF upgraded its global real GDP forecast to 6.0% for 2021 and 4.4% for 2022. This represented an increase of 0.5 and 0.4 percentage points, respectively, from the last set of forecasts published back in January. While growth upgrades occurred across all major developed and emerging economies, the biggest upgrades came in the US and Canada, for both 2021 and 2022. As a result, the IMF projects the output gap in both countries to turn positive over 2022 and 2023, and be nearly closed in core Europe, Australia and Japan (Chart 5). The IMF is not projecting a major inflation surge on the back of those upbeat growth forecasts, though. While headline inflation in the US is expected to climb to 2.3% in 2021 and 2.4% in 2022, the same measure in Canada is only projected to rise to 1.7% and 2.0% over the same two years. European inflation is expected to remain subdued, reaching only 1.4% this year and drifting back to 1.2% in 2022 despite real GDP growth averaging 4.1% over the two-year period. The IMF attributes the benign inflation outcomes, even in the face of booming growth rates and the rapid elimination of output gaps, to the structural disinflationary backdrop for so-called “non-cyclical” inflation (Chart 6). The IMF defines this as the components of inflation indices that are less sensitive to changes in aggregate demand. The IMF estimates show that the contribution from non-cyclical components to overall inflation in the advanced economies had fallen to essentially zero at the end of 2020. Chart 5A Big Expected Narrowing Of Output Gaps Chart 6Non-Cyclical Components Still Weighing On Global Inflation There is considerable upside risk for the more cyclical components of inflation that could result in inflation overshooting the IMF projections (Chart 7). Chart 7Cyclical Backdrop Is Inflationary For example, in the US, the Prices Paid component of the ISM Manufacturing index remains elevated at post-2008 highs, while the year-over-year change in the Producer Price Index soared to 6% in March. Across the Atlantic, the European Commission business and consumer surveys have shown a big surge in the net balance of respondents expecting higher inflation in manufacturing and retail trade. Previous weakness in the US dollar and surging commodity prices are playing a major role in this rapid pick-up in price pressures seen in many countries. Given the current backdrop of strong global growth expectations, with actual activity accelerating as vaccinations increase and more parts of the global economy reopen, inflation pressures are unlikely to fade in the near term. With realized inflation rates set to spike due to base effect comparisons to the pandemic-fueled collapse one year ago, the upward pressure on global ILB inflation breakevens will persist in the coming months – especially with breakevens still below levels that would prompt central banks to turn less dovish sooner than expected. Bottom Line: The case for maintaining a strategic overall allocation to inflation-linked bonds (ILBs) versus nominal government debt in dedicated global fixed income portfolios remains intact. Global growth expectations are accelerating as vaccinations increase, spare capacity is increasingly being absorbed across the developed world and central banks (led by the Federal Reserve) continue to show no inclination to tighten policy anytime soon. Assessing Value In Developed Market Inflation-Linked Bonds Chart 8USD Outlook Now More Mixed Although the current backdrop remains conducive to a continuation of the rising trend in global ILB breakevens, there are factors that could begin to slow the upward momentum. The future path of the US dollar is now a bit less certain (Chart 8). While the DXY index is still down 7.4% compared to a year ago, it is up 2.4% so far in 2021. Shorter-term real interest rate differentials between the US and the other major developed markets remain dollar-bearish. At the same time, longer-term real yield differentials have risen in favor of the US (middle panel). Furthermore, US growth is outperforming other developed economies, typically a dollar-bullish factor (bottom panel). Given the usual negative correlation between the US dollar and commodity prices, a loss of downside dollar momentum could also slow the pace of commodity price appreciation. This represents a risk to additional global ILB outperformance versus government bonds. Our GDP-weighted aggregate of 10-year ILB breakevens for the major developed economies is currently just under 2% - levels more consistent with oil prices over $80/bbl than the current price closer to $60/bbl (Chart 9). Chart 9Breakevens Consistent With Much Higher Oil Prices Given some of these uncertainties over the strength of any future inflationary push from a weaker US dollar and rising commodity prices, a broad overweight allocation to ILBs across the entire developed market universe may no longer generate the same strong returns versus nominal government bonds seen over the past year. With the “easy money” already having been made in the global breakeven widening trade, country allocation within the ILB universe has now become a more important dimension for bond investors to consider. To assess the relative attractiveness of individual ILB markets, we turn to a few valuation tools. Our regression-based valuation models for 10-year ILB breakevens in the US, UK, France, Italy, Germany, Japan, Canada and Australia are all presented in the Appendix on pages 14-17. The two inputs into the model are the annual rate of change of the Brent oil price in local currency terms (as a measure of shorter-term inflation pressure) and a five-year moving average of realized headline CPI inflation (as a longer-term trend that provides a structural “anchor” for breakevens based off actual inflation outcomes). We first presented these models in April 2020, but we have now made a change in response to some of the unprecedented developments witnessed over the past year.1 Despite the strong visual correlation between the level of oil prices and inflation breakevens in most countries, we chose to use the annual growth of oil prices, rather than the level, in our breakeven models. This is because we found it more logical to compare a rate of change concept like inflation (and breakevens) to the rate of change of oil. However, the oil input into our breakeven models could produce nonsensical results during periods of extreme oil volatility that did not generate equivalent swings in breakeven inflation rates. A good example of that occurred in 2016, when the annual rate of change of the Brent oil price briefly surged toward 100%, yet 10-year US TIPS breakevens did not rise above 2% (Chart 10). An even bigger swing in oil prices has occurred over the past year, with oil prices up over +200% compared to the collapse in prices that occurred one year ago. Putting such an extreme move into our US model would have pushed the “fair value” level of the 10-year TIPS breakeven to 4% - an implausible outcome given that the 10-year breakeven has never risen to even as high as 3% in the entire 24-year history of the TIPS market. Chart 10Pass-Through Of Extreme Oil Moves Has Limits To deal with this problem, we have truncated the rate of change of oil prices in all our breakeven models at levels consistent with past peaks of breakevens. Going back to the US example, we have “capped” the rate of change of the Brent oil price at +40%, as past periods when oil price momentum was greater than 40% did not translate into any additional increase in TIPS breakevens. We then re-estimated the model using this truncated oil price series to generate fair value breakeven levels. Chart 11A Mixed Impact Of USD Moves On Non-US Breakevens We did this for all eight of our individual country breakeven models and in all cases, truncating extreme oil moves improved the accuracy of the model. Interestingly, we did not truncate the downside momentum of oil prices, as there was no obvious “cut-off” point where periods of collapsing oil prices did not generate equivalent declines in breakevens. Oil prices remain the most critical short-term variable to determine ILB breakeven valuation. While it is intuitive to think that currency movements should also have a meaningful impact on inflation (both realized and expected), the effect is not consistent across countries. For example, euro area breakevens appear to be positively correlated to the euro, while Japanese breakevens rarely rise without yen weakness (Chart 11). One other factor to consider when evaluating the value of breakevens is the possible existence of an inflation risk premium component during periods of higher uncertainty over future inflation. Such uncertainty could result in increased demand for ILBs from investors driving up the price of ILBs (thus lowering the real yield) relative to nominal yielding bonds, leading to wider breakevens that do not necessarily reflect a true rise in expected inflation. A simple way to measure such an inflation risk premium is to compare market-based breakevens to survey-based measures of inflation forecasts taken from sources like the Philadelphia Fed's Survey of Professional Forecasters and the Bank of Canada’s Survey Of Consumer Expectations. The assumption here is that the survey-based measures represent a more accurate (or, at least, less biased) depiction of underlying inflation expectations in an economy. We present these simple measures of inflation risk premia, comparing 10-year breakevens to survey-based measures of inflation expectations, in Chart 12 and Chart 13. Breakevens had been trading well below survey-based measures of inflation expectations after the negative pandemic growth shock in 2020 in all countries shown. After the steady climb in global breakevens seen over the past year, those gaps have largely disappeared, with breakevens now trading slightly above survey based inflation expectations in the US, UK and Australia. Chart 12No Major Inflation Risk Premia In These Markets Chart 13Canadian & Australian Breakevens In Line With Inflation Surveys Chart 14Assessing The Value Of Breakevens In Chart 14, we show the valuation residuals from our 10-year ILB breakeven models, along with two other measures of potential breakeven valuation: a) the distance between current breakeven levels and their most recent pre-pandemic peaks; and b) the difference between breakevens and the survey-based measures of inflation expectations. The model results show that breakevens are furthest below fair value in France, Japan and Germany, and the most above fair value in the UK and Australia. The message of undervaluation from our models is confirmed in the other two metrics for France, Japan, Germany, Canada and Italy. The overvaluation message for Australia is consistent across all three valuation metrics, while the signals are mixed for US and UK breakevens. In Japan, while the combined signals of all three valuation metrics indicate that breakevens are far too low, the very robust positive correlation between Japanese breakevens and the USD/JPY exchange rate implies that a bet on wider breakevens requires a much weaker yen. In Canada, while the 10-year breakeven does appear cheap, the real yield has also climbed faster than any of the other countries over the past several months as markets have rapidly repriced a more hawkish path for the Bank of Canada. Recent comments from Bank of Canada officials have leaned a bit hawkish, hinting at a possible taper of its bond-buying program, as the central bank appears unhappy with the renewed boom in Canadian housing values. An early tightening of monetary conditions would likely cap any additional upside in Canadian inflation breakevens. In Europe, the undervaluation of breakevens is more compelling. The ECB is likely to maintain its dovish policy settings into at least 2023, even if growth recovers later this year as increased vaccinations lead to the end of lockdowns. As shown earlier, European breakevens can continue to rise even if the euro is also appreciating versus the US dollar, especially if growth is recovering and oil prices are rising. Euro area breakevens are likely to continue drifting higher over at least the rest of 2021. Currently in our model bond portfolio, we have allocations to ILBs out of nominal government bonds in the US, France, Canada and Italy, with no allocations in Germany, Japan, Australia or the UK. After assessing our valuation measures, we are comfortable with the ILB exposure in France and Italy and lack of positions in the UK and Australia. We still see the upside case for US breakevens, with the economy reopening rapidly fueled further by fiscal policy, and the Fed likely to maintain its current highly dovish forward guidance until much later in 2021. We are reluctant to add exposure to Japanese ILBs, despite attractive valuations, as we are not convinced that USD/JPY has enough upside potential to help realize that undervaluation of Japanese breakevens. Thus, as a new change to our model portfolio this week that reflects our assessment of ILB breakeven valuations and risks, we are closing out the exposure to Canadian ILBs and adding a new position in German ILBs of equivalent size (see the model bond portfolio tables on pages 18-19). Bottom Line: ILB valuations are no longer uniformly cheap across all countries. Real yields are now moving in a less coordinated fashion as markets try to sort out the timing and pace of eventual future central bank tightening. We recommend shifting inflation-linked bond exposure from Canada to Germany, as both markets have similar valuations but the Bank of Canada is likely to turn less dovish well ahead of the ECB.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Report, "Global Inflation Expectations Are Now Too Low", dated April 28, 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. Appendix Chart A1Our US 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model Chart A2Our UK 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model Chart A3Our France 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model Chart A4Our Italy 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model Chart A5Our Japan 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model Chart A6Our Germany 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model Chart A7Our Canada 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model Chart A8Our Australia 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Private-sector savings exploded during the pandemic, swelling the already large global savings glut. Reluctant to sit on excess cash, households shifted some of their funds into the stock market. With corporate buybacks outpacing new share issuance, stock prices had nowhere to go but up. Falling bond yields further supercharged equity valuations. Despite the run-up in stocks, the global equity risk premium – measured as the forward equity earnings yield minus the real bond yield – still stands at about 6%, similar to where it was in late-2009. Using a simple example, we show why investors should hold more stock than the standard 60/40 rule suggests when bond yields are still this low. While bond yields will rise further over the coming years, it is likely to be a slow process. Investors should remain bullish on stocks over a 12-month horizon, favouring non-US equities over their US peers. Did A Surfeit Of Savings Lead To A Shortage Of Assets? Real interest rates have fallen dramatically since the early 1980s (Chart 1). Economic theory posits that lower real rates discourage savings while encouraging spending. Yet, as Chart 2 shows, with the exception of the late-1990s and the mid-2000s – two periods when spending was buoyed first by the dotcom bubble and then by the housing bubble – the US private sector has run a large financial surplus; that is to say, it has consistently spent less than it earned. Private-sector financial balances in most other economies have followed a similar trend. Chart 1Real Bond Yields Have Been Trending Lower Since The 1980s Chart 2The Private Sector Has Been Mostly Running Surpluses Ben Bernanke famously cited chronic private-sector financial surpluses as evidence of a “global savings glut.” The concept of a savings glut is closely related to the concept of demand-side secular stagnation, an idea popularized by Larry Summers prior to his heel-turn towards stimulus skeptic. When the private sector is unable to find enough worthy investment projects to make use of all available savings, the economy will struggle to attain full employment, even in the presence of very low interest rates. The concept of a savings glut is also related to another, less well known, concept: a safe asset shortage. If the private sector earns more than it spends, it must, by definition, accumulate assets. In principle, governments can satiate the demand for safe assets by issuing more bonds. In practice, governments have often been reluctant to run persistently large budget deficits for fear that this could undermine their credibility. Faced with a shortage of safe assets, the private sector has stepped in to fill the void, often with disastrous consequences. Most notably, in the lead-up to the Global Financial Crisis, banks sliced and diced portfolios of risky mortgages with the goal of creating safe assets that could be sold into the market. Most financial crashes occur when investors conclude that the assets they once thought were safe are not so safe after all. This was precisely what happened to mortgage-backed securities during the 2008 mortgage meltdown. The exact same pattern repeated itself two years later when investors finally came around to the seemingly obvious conclusion that Greek government bonds were not as safe as say, German bunds. The Safe Asset Shortage In A Post-Pandemic World This brings us to the present day. After falling from 7% of GDP in 2009 to 3% of GDP in the lead-up to the pandemic, the global private-sector financial balance surged to 11% of GDP in 2020. The IMF expects the global private-sector balance to average 9% of GDP in 2021 before trending lower over the coming years. Arithmetically, the private-sector financial balance must equal the sum of the fiscal deficit and the current account balance.1 By running large budget deficits during the pandemic, governments endowed the private sector with income they otherwise would not have had. This income consisted of transfers (stimulus checks, expanded unemployment benefits, business subsidies, etc.) as well as income generated from direct government spending on goods and services. As of the end of March, we estimate that US households had accumulated about $2.2 trillion (10.5% of GDP) in savings over and above what they would have had in the absence of the pandemic. About 40% of those “excess savings” stemmed from fiscal policy with the remainder reflecting decreased consumption (Chart 3). Chart 3Lower Spending And Higher Income Have Led To Mounting Savings Chart 4Government Largesse Boosted Savings And Fattened Bank Deposits As the private sector’s financial balance increased, so did its asset holdings. Unlike in normal fiscal expansions where governments fund budget deficits by selling debt to the public, this time around, governments largely sold the debt to central banks. The money that governments received from central banks in return was then pumped into the economy, leading to a surge in bank deposits (Chart 4).   The Nature Of Stock Market “Flows” What happened to the money after it reached people’s bank accounts? A popular narrative is that some of it flowed into the stock market. While this description is technically true, it is somewhat misleading in that it conveys the false impression that there was a net inflow of money into stocks. The reality is more nuanced. When I buy some stock, I gain some shares but lose some cash. Conversely, whoever sold me the stock gains some cash and loses some shares. In aggregate, there is no change in either the number of shares or the amount of cash that investors hold. What does change is the value of the shares in relation to the cash that investors hold. My purchase must lift the share price by enough to persuade someone else to part with their shares. If the seller does not want to hold the additional cash, he or she may try to place an order to purchase a different stock that appears more attractively priced. This game of hot potato will only end when the value of the stock market rises by enough that all investors are happy with how much stock they own in relation to how much cash they hold. Rethinking The 60/40 Split The standard investment mantra is that investors should hold 60% of their portfolios in stock and the rest in cash, bonds, and other financial assets. The discussion above casts doubt on this simple rule of thumb. Suppose that Melanie holds $600 in stock and $400 in cash, and that cash earns a real interest rate of 2%. Let us also assume that Melanie requires a 4% equity risk premium. Hence, the equity earnings yield must be 6% (i.e., her $600 in stock must correspond to $36 in earnings).2 Now let us suppose that the central bank cuts the policy rate, so that the real interest rate falls to zero. In order to maintain a 4% equity risk premium, the earnings yield must decline to 4%, which implies that the value of the stock must rise to $900 ($36/0.04=$900). Thus, we have gone from a position where Melanie holds 60% of her portfolio in stock to one where she holds about 69% ($900/$1300) in stock. In other words, even though the equity risk premium did not change at all, the desired ratio of stock-to-cash rose from $600/$400=1.5 to $900/$400=2.25. Let us continue the thought experiment and imagine a scenario where the government sends Melanie and everyone else a stimulus check of $100. Now she has $500 in cash and $900 in stock. If she wants to maintain a stock-to-cash ratio of 2.25, she would need to use some of her cash to buy stock. However, since everyone else is also looking to purchase stock with their stimulus checks, before Melanie has a chance to enter a buy order, she finds that the stock in her portfolio has appreciated to $1125. Since $1125/$500 is equal to 2.25, Melanie cancels her buy order, content with the knowledge that she holds as much stock as she wants. Notice that in this simple example, neither interest rate cuts nor stimulus checks did anything to boost corporate profits. All that happened is that stock prices rose, causing the equity earnings yield to first fall from 6% to 4% after the central bank cut rates, and then fall again from 4% to 3.2% ($36/$1125) after the stimulus checks were sent out. If all of this sounds a bit familiar, it should. The sequence of events described above is precisely what has happened over the past 12 months. And not just to stock prices. As interest rates fell and cash balances swelled, other risky assets such as cryptocurrencies went to the proverbial moon. Is The Party Over? Given that fiscal stimulus has peaked and interest rates cannot be cut any further in the major economies, are stocks set to fall? Not necessarily! The amount of stock that investors choose to hold in relation to their cash balances is a function of animal spirits. While US consumer confidence rebounded in March to the highest level in a year, it still remains well below pre-pandemic levels (Chart 5). The percentage of households in The Conference Board’s survey who expect stock prices to rise over the next 12 months is still around its long-term average (Chart 6). Chart 5Stocks Could Rise Further As Confidence Recovers Chart 6The Percentage Of Households Who Expect Stock Prices To Rise Over The Next 12 Months Is Still Around Its Long-Term Average Fortunately, the US is on target to provide a vaccine shot to everyone who wants one by the end of April.3 As the economy continues to reopen, confidence will rise further. Rising confidence, in turn, may prompt investors to increase their equity holdings. Our US equity strategists expect share buybacks to exceed share issuance over the next 12 months. Thus, the value of equity portfolios will only be able to rise if share prices go up. Outside the US and the UK and a few other smaller economies, the vaccination campaign has gotten off to a rocky start. However, the pace of inoculations is set to accelerate rapidly in the second quarter, which should pave the way to faster global growth. Global equities usually outperform bonds when growth is on the upswing (Chart 7). Chart 7Stocks Usually Outperform Bonds When Economic Growth Is Strong While equity allocations have risen, they are below the level reached in 2000 (Chart 8). Back then, the global equity earnings yield was on par with the real bond yield. Today, the earnings yield is about six percentage points above the bond yield, a similar gap to what prevailed in late-2009 (Chart 9). Chart 8Stock Allocations Have Rebounded, But Remain Below Their 2000 Peak Chart 9The Equity Risk Premium Is At Levels Similar To Late-2009 Granted, today’s high equity risk premium largely reflects the exceptionally low level of bond yields. If bond yields were to move up, the equity risk premium would shrink. While we do think that bond yields will rise by more than expected in the long run, the path to higher yields is likely to be a slow one. Rate expectations 2-to-3 years out tend to move closely in line with the 10-year yield (Chart 10). Already, there is a large gap between market expectations and the Fed dots. Whereas the market expects the Fed to start lifting rates late next year, the median Fed “dot” continues to signal no rate hike at least until 2024 (Chart 11). It is unlikely that market expectations will shift towards an even more aggressive path of rate tightening unless the Fed’s dovish rhetoric turns hawkish. As we discussed in our recently published Second Quarter Strategy Outlook, we do not expect this to happen anytime soon. Thus, with monetary policy still very loose, stocks can continue to grind higher. Chart 10Bond Yields Are Unlikely To Rise Much Unless The Market Lifts Its Estimate Of Where The Fed Funds Rate Will Be 2-To-3 Years Out   Chart 11A Wide Gap Has Opened Up Between Market Expectations And The Fed Dots Regionally, we favour stock markets outside the US. Not only will overseas markets benefit from a rotation in growth from the US to the rest of the world in the second half of this year, but US corporate tax rates are almost certain to rise. We will be exploring the tax issue over the coming weeks.   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist pberezin@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Just as the private-sector financial balance is the difference between what the private sector earns and spends, the fiscal balance is the difference between what the government earns and spends. If the fiscal balance is negative, the government runs a deficit. If the fiscal balance is positive, the government runs a surplus. Thus, added together, the private-sector financial balance and the fiscal balance simply equals the difference between what the country as a whole earns and spends which, by definition, is equal to the current account balance. One can also see this point by rewriting the equation Y=C+I+G+X-M as (Y-T)-(C+I)=(G-T)+(X-M) where T is tax revenue, Y-T is private-sector earnings, C+I is what the private sector spends on consumption and capital goods, G-T is the fiscal deficit, and X-M is the current account balance, broadly defined to include not only the trade balance but also net income from abroad. 2 The relative attractiveness of stocks can also be inferred by subtracting the real bond yield from the earnings yield on stocks in order to get an implied equity risk premium (ERP). It is necessary to subtract the real bond yield, rather than the nominal bond yield, from the earnings yield because the earnings yield provides an estimate of the real total expected return to shareholders. For further discussion on this, please see Appendix A of the Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “TINA To The Rescue?” dated August 23, 2019. 3 Mia Sato, “The US is about to reach a surprise milestone: too many vaccines, not enough takers,” MIT Technology Review, March 22, 2021. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores

Highlights Continued upgrades to global economic growth – most recently by the IMF this week –will support higher natgas prices.  In our estimation, gas for delivery at Henry Hub, LA, in the coming withdrawal season (November – March) is undervalued at current levels at ~ $2.90/MMBtu. Inventory demand will remain strong during the current April-October injection season, following the blast of colder-than-normal weather in 1Q21 that pulled inventories lower in the US, Europe and Northeast Asia. The odds the US will succeed in halting completion of the final leg of the Russian Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline into Germany are higher than the consensus expectation.  Our odds the pipeline will not be completed this year stand at 50%, which translates into higher upside risk for natural gas prices.  We are getting long 1Q22 calls on CME/NYMEX Henry Hub-delivered natgas futures struck at $3.50/MMBtu vs. short 1Q22 $3.75/MMBtu calls at tonight's close.  The probability of Nord Stream 2 cancellation is underpriced, which means European TTF and Asian JKM prices will have to move higher to attract LNG cargoes next winter from the US, if the pipeline is cancelled (Chart of the Week). Feature As major forecasting agencies continue to upgrade global growth prospects, expectations for industrial-commodity demand – energy, bulks, and base metals – also are moving higher. This week, the IMF raised its growth expectations for this year and next to 6% and 4.4%, respectively, nearly a full percentage-point increase versus its January forecast update for 2021.1 This upgrade follows a similar move by the OECD last month.2 In the US, the EIA is expecting industrial demand for natural gas to rise 1.35 Bcf/d this year to 23.9 Bcf/d; versus 2019 levels, industrial demand will be 0.84 Bcf/d higher in 2021. For 2022, industrial demand is expected to be 24.2 Bcf/d. US industrial demand likely will recover faster than the EU's, given the expectation of a stronger recovery on the back of massive fiscal and monetary stimulus. Overall natgas demand in the US likely will move lower this year, given higher natgas prices expected this year and next will incentivize electricity generators to switch to coal at the margin, according to the EIA. Total demand is expected to be 82.9 Bcf/d in the US this year vs. 83.3 Bcf/d last year, owing to lower generator demand. Pipeline-quality gas output in the US – known as dry gas, since its liquids have been removed for other uses – is expected to average 91.4 Bcf/d this year, essentially unchanged. Lower consumption by the generators and flat production will allow US gas inventories to return to their five-year average levels of 3.7 Tcf by the end of October, in the EIA's estimation (Chart 2). Chart of the WeekUS-Russia Geopolitical Risk Underpriced Chart 2US Natgas Inventories Return To Five-Year Average US Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) exports are likely to expand, as Asian and European demand grows (Chart 3). Prior to the boost in US LNG demand from colder weather, exports set monthly records of 9.4 Bcf/d and 9.8 Bcf/d in November and December of last year, respectively, with Asia accounting for the largest share of exports (Chart 4). This also marked the first time LNG exports exceeded US pipeline exports to Mexico and Canada. The EIA is forecasting US LNG exports will be 8.5 bcf/d and 9.2 Bcf/d this year and next, versus pipeline exports of 8.8 Bcf/d and 8.9 Bcf/d in 2021 and 2022, respectively. Chart 3US LNG Exports Continue Growing Chart 4US LNG Exports Set Records In November And December 2020 US LNG exports – and export potential given the size of the resource base at just over 500 Tcf – now are of a sufficient magnitude to be a formidable force in global markets, particularly in Europe. This puts it in direct conflict with Russia, which has targeted Europe as a key market for its pipeline natural gas exports. US-Russia Standoff Looming Over Nord Stream 2 Given the size and distribution of global oil and gas production and consumption, it comes as no surprise national interests can, at times, become as important to pricing these commodities as supply-demand fundamentals. This is particularly true in oil, and increasingly is becoming the case in natural gas. That the same dramatis personae – the US and Russia – should feature in geopolitical contests in oil and gas markets also should not come as a surprise. In an attempt to circumvent transporting its natural gas through Ukraine, Russia is building a 1,230 km underwater pipeline from Narva Bay in the Kingisepp district of the Leningrad region of Russia to Lubmin, near Greifswald, in Germany (Map 1). The Biden administration, like the Trump administration and US Congress, is officially attempting to halt the final leg of the pipeline from being built, although Biden has not yet put America’s full weight into stopping it. Biden claims it will be up to the Europeans to decide what to do. At the same time, any major Russian or Russian-backed military operation in Ukraine could trigger an American action to halt the pipeline in retaliation. Map 1Nord Stream 2 Route In our estimation, there is a 50% chance that the Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline will not be completed this year or go into operation as planned given substantial geopolitical risks. The $11 billion pipeline would connect Russia directly to Germany with a capacity of about 55 billion cubic meters, which, combined with the existing Nord Stream One pipeline, would equal 110 BCM in offshore capacity, or 55% of Russia's natural gas exports to Europe in 2019. The pipeline’s construction is 94% complete, with the Russian ship Akademik Cherskiy entering Danish waters in late March to begin laying pipes to finish the final 138-kilometer stretch, according to Reuters. The pipeline could be finished in early August at the pace of 1 kilometer per day.3 The Russian and German governments are speeding up the project to finish it before US-Russia tensions, or the German elections in September, interrupt the construction process again. It is not too late for the US to try to halt the pipeline through sanctions. But for the Americans to succeed, the Biden administration would have to make an aggressive effort. Notably the Biden administration took office with a desire to sharpen US policy toward Russia.4 While Biden seeks Russian engagement on arms reduction treaties and the Iranian nuclear negotiations, he mainly aims to counter Russia, expand sanctions, provide weapons to Ukraine, and promote democracy in Russia’s sphere of influence. The result will almost inevitably be a new US-Russia confrontation, which is already taking shape over Russia’s buildup of troops on the border with Ukraine, where US and Russian meddling could cause civil war to reignite (Map 2). Map 2Russia’s Military Tensions With The West Escalate In Wake Of Biden’s Election And Ukraine’s Renewed Bid To Join NATO Tensions in Ukraine are directly tied to US military cooperation with Ukraine and any possibility that Ukraine will join the NATO military alliance, a red line for Putin. Nord Stream 2 is Russia’s way of bypassing Ukraine but a new US-Russia conflict, especially a Russian attack on Ukraine, would halt the pipeline. The pipeline’s completion would improve Russo-German strategic relations, undercut US liquefied natural gas exports to Germany and the EU, and reduce the US’s and eastern Europe’s leverage over Russia (and Germany). Biden says his administration is planning to impose new sanctions on firms that oversee, construct, or insure the pipeline, and such sanctions are required under American law.5 Yet Biden also wants a strong alliance with Germany, which favors the pipeline and does not want to escalate the conflict with Russia. The American laws against Nord Stream have big loopholes and give the president discretion regarding the use of sanctions, which means Biden would have to make a deliberate decision to override Germany and impose maximum sanctions if he truly wanted to halt construction.6 This would most likely occur if Russia committed a major new act of aggression in Ukraine or against other European democracies. The German policy, under the current ruling coalition led by Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union, is to finish the pipeline despite Russia’s conflicts with the West and political repression at home. Russia provides more than a third of Germany’s natural gas imports and this pipeline would bypass eastern Europe’s pipeline network and thus secure Germany’s (and Austria’s and the EU’s) natural gas supply whenever Russia cuts off the flow to Ukraine (through which roughly 40% of Russian natural gas still must pass to reach Europe). Germany's Election And Natgas Politics Germany wants to use natural gas as a bridge while it phases out nuclear energy and coal. Natural gas has grown 2.2 percentage points as a share of Germany’s total energy mix since the Fukushima disaster of 2011, and renewable energy has grown 7.7ppt, while coal has fallen 7.3ppt and nuclear has fallen 2.5ppt (Chart 5). The German federal election on September 26 complicates matters because Merkel and the Christian Democrats are likely to underperform their opinion polls and could even fall from power. They do not want to suffer a major foreign policy humiliation at the hands of the Americans or a strategic crisis with Russia right before the election. They will insist that Biden leave the pipeline alone and will offer other forms of cooperation against Russia in compensation. Therefore, the current German government could push through the pipeline and complete the project even in the face of US objections. But this outcome is not guaranteed. The German Greens are likely to gain influence in the Bundestag after the elections and could even lead the German government for the first time – and they are opposed to a new fossil fuel pipeline that increases Russia’s influence. Chart 5Germany Sees Nord Stream 2 Gas As Bridge To Low-Carbon Economy Hence there is a fair chance that the pipeline does not become operational: either Americans halt it out of strategic interest, or the German Greens halt it out of environmental and strategic interest, or both. True, there is a roughly equal chance that Merkel’s policy status quo survives in Germany, which would result in an operational pipeline. The best case for Germany might be that the current government completes the pipeline physically but the next government has optionality on whether to make it operational. But 50/50 odds of cancellation is a much higher risk than the consensus holds. The Russian policy is to finish Nord Stream 2 while also making an aggressive military stance against the West’s and NATO’s influence in Ukraine. This would expand Russian commodity and energy exports and undercut Ukraine’s natgas transit income. It would also increase Russian leverage over Germany – and it would divide Germany from the eastern Europeans and Americans. A preemptive American intervention would elicit Russian retaliation. The Russians could respond in the strategic sphere or the economic sphere. Economically they could react by cutting off natural gas to Europe, but that would undermine their diplomatic goals, so they would more likely respond by increasing production of natural gas or crude oil to steal American market share. In any scenario Russian retaliation would likely cause global price volatility in one or more energy markets, in addition to whatever volatility is induced by the cancellation of Nord Stream 2 itself. US-Russia tensions are likely to escalate but only Ukraine and Nord Stream 2, or the separate Iranian negotiations, have a direct impact on global energy supply. If Germany goes forward with the pipeline, then Russia would need to be countered by other means. The Americans, not the Germans, would provide these “other means,” such as military support to ensure the integrity of Ukraine and other nations’ borders. The Russians may gain a victory for their energy export strategy but they will never compromise on Ukraine and they will still need to focus on the broader global shift to renewable energy, which threatens their economic model and hence ultimately their regime stability. So, the risk of a market-moving US-Russia conflict can be delayed but probably not prevented (Chart 6). Chart 6US-Russia Conflit Likely Bottom Line: The Nord Stream 2 pipeline is not guaranteed to be completed this year as planned. The US is more likely to force a halt to the Nord Stream 2 pipeline than the consensus holds, especially if Russia attacks Ukraine. If the US fails to do so, then the German election will become the next signpost for whether the pipeline will become operational. If the Americans halt the pipeline, then US-Russian conflict either already erupted or will occur sooner rather than later and will likely impact global oil or natural gas prices. Investment Implications Our subjective assessment of 50% odds the US will succeed in halting completion of the final leg of Nord Stream 2 are higher than the consensus expectation. This translates directly into higher upside risk for natural gas prices in the US and Europe later this year and next. Given our view, we are getting long 1Q22 calls on CME/NYMEX Henry Hub-delivered natgas futures struck at $3.50/MMBtu vs. short 1Q22 $3.75/MMBtu calls at tonight's close. The probability of Nord Stream 2 cancellation is underpriced, which means the odds of higher prices in the LNG market are underpriced (Chart 7). The immediate implication of our view is European TTF prices will have to move higher to attract LNG cargoes next winter from the US, if the Nord Stream 2 pipeline's final leg is cancelled. This also would tighten the Asian markets, causing the JKM to move higher as well (Chart 8). Any indication of colder-than-normal weather in the US, Europe or Asian markets would mean a sharper move higher. Chart 7Natgas Tails Are Too Narrow For Next Winter Chart 8Nord Stream 2 Cancellation Would Boost JKM Prices   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish The US and Iran began indirect talks earlier this week in Vienna aimed at restoring the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), otherwise known as the "Iran nuclear deal." All of the other parties of the deal – Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia – are in favor of restoring the deal. BCA Research believes this is most likely to occur prior to the inauguration of a new president who is expected to be a hardliner willing to escalate Iran’s demands. US President Biden can unilaterally ease sanctions and bring the US into compliance with the deal, and Iran could then reciprocate. If a deal is not reached by August it could take years to resolve US-Iran tensions. China could offer to cooperate on sanctions and help to broker negotiations following the signing of its 25-year trade deal with Iran last week. Russia likely would demand the US not pressure its allies to cancel the Nord Stream 2 deal, in return for its assistance in brokering a deal. Base Metals: Bullish Iron ore prices continue to be supported by record steel prices in China, trading at more than $173/MT earlier this week. Even though steel production reportedly is falling in the top steel-producer in China, Tangshan, as a result of anti-pollution measures, for iron ore remains stout. As we have previously noted, we use steel prices as a leading indicator for copper prices. We remain long Dec21 copper and will be looking for a sell-off to get long Sep21 copper vs. short Sep21 copper if the market trades below $4/lb on the CME/COMEX futures market (Chart 9). Precious Metals: Bullish Gold held support ~ $1,680/oz at the end of March, following an earlier test in the month. We remain long the yellow metal, despite coming close to being stopped out last week (Chart 10). The earlier sell-off appeared to be caused by a need to raise liquidity to us. We continue to expect the Fed to hold firm to its stated intent to wait for actual inflation to become manifest before raising rates, and, therefore, continue to expect real rates to weaken. This will be supportive of gold and commodities generally (Chart 10). Ags/Softs: Neutral Corn continues to be well supported above $5.50/bu, following last week's USDA report showing farmers intend to increase acreage planted to just over 91mm acres, which is less than 1% above last year's level. Chart 9 Chart 10       Footnotes 1     Please see the Fund's April 2021 forecast Managing Divergent Recoveries. 2     We noted last week these higher growth expectations generally are bullish for industrial commodities – energy, metals, and bulks.  Please see Fundamentals Support Oil, Bulks, And Metals, which we published 1 April 2021.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3    For the rate of construction see Margarita Assenova, “Clouds Darkening Over Nord Stream Two Pipeline,” Eurasia Daily Monitor 18: 17 (February 1, 2021), Jamestown Foundation, jamestown.org. For the current status, see Robin Emmott, “At NATO, Blinken warns Germany over Nord Stream 2 pipeline,” Reuters, March 23, 2021, reuters.com. 4    The Democratic Party blames Russia for what it sees as a campaign to undermine the democratic West and recreate the Soviet sphere of influence. See for example the 2008 invasion of Georgia, the failure of the Obama administration’s 2009-11 diplomatic “reset,” the Edward Snowden affair, the seizure of Crimea and civil war in Ukraine, the survival of Syria’s dictator, and Russian interference in US elections in 2016 and 2020. 5    The Countering Russian Influence in Europe and Eurasia Act of 2017, and the Protecting Europe’s Energy Security Act of 2019/2020, contain provisions requiring sanctions on firms that have contributed in any way a minimum of $1 million to the project, or provide pipe-laying services or insurance. There are exceptions for services provided by the governments of the EU member states, Norway, Switzerland, or the UK. The president has discretion over the implementation of sanctions as usual. 6    The German state of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern is creating a shell foundation to enable the completion of the pipeline. It can shield companies from American sanctions aimed at private companies, not sovereigns.    Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Summary of Closed Trades

Highlights Q1/2021 Performance Breakdown: Our recommended model bond portfolio outperformed the custom benchmark index by +55bps during the first quarter of the year. Winners & Losers: The government bond side of the portfolio outperformed by +68bps, led overwhelmingly by our underweight to US Treasuries (+63bps). Spread product allocations underperformed by -11bps, primarily due to an overweight on UK corporates (-8bps). Portfolio Positioning For The Next Six Months: We are sticking with an overall below-benchmark portfolio duration stance, given accelerating global growth momentum, expanding vaccinations and a highly stimulative fiscal/monetary policy mix. We are maintaining a moderate overweight to global spread product versus government debt, concentrated on an overweight to US high-yield given more stretched valuations in other credit sectors. On the margin, we are making the following changes to the portfolio allocations: downgrading both UK Gilts and UK investment grade corporates to neutral, while cutting the overall allocation to EM USD credit to neutral. Feature The first quarter of 2021 saw a sharp sell-off in global bond markets on the back of rising growth expectations, fueled by US fiscal stimulus and vaccine optimism. The US was near the front of the pack, with 10-year Treasuries having their biggest first quarter sell-off since 1994. Accommodative financial conditions, fueled by a highly stimulative mix of monetary and fiscal policies and improving sentiment, have lit a fire under a global economy set to reopen from pandemic lockdowns. Going forward, we expect US growth to continue leading the way, with implications for the dollar, commodity prices, and the expected path of policy rates. With that in mind, this week we are reviewing the performance of the BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) model bond portfolio during the first quarter of 2021. We also present our recommended positioning for the portfolio for the next six months (Table 1), as well as portfolio return expectations for our base case and alternative investment scenarios. Table 1GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning For The Next Six Months As a reminder to existing readers (and to new clients), the model portfolio is a part of our service that complements the usual macro analysis of global fixed income markets. The portfolio is how we communicate our opinion on the relative attractiveness between government bond and spread product sectors. We do this by applying actual percentage weightings to each of our recommendations within a fully invested hypothetical bond portfolio. Q1/2021 Model Portfolio Performance Breakdown: Steering Clear Of Duration Chart 1Q1/2021 Performance: Bearish UST Bets Pay Off The total return for the GFIS model portfolio (hedged into US dollars) in the first quarter was -1.83%, dramatically outperforming the custom benchmark index by +55bps (Chart 1).1 This follows modest outperformance in 2020 which was driven largely by overweights on spread product initiated after the pandemic shock to markets. In terms of the specific breakdown between the government bond and spread product allocations in our model portfolio, the former generated +68bps of outperformance versus our custom benchmark index while the latter underperformed by -11bps. Our allocations to inflation-linked bonds in the US, Canada and Europe - which were a source of outperformance in 2020 - modestly underperformed this quarter (-2bps) as global real yields finally began to pick up. Our outperformance this quarter was driven overwhelmingly by our decision to go significantly underweight US Treasuries, and to position for a bearish steepening of the Treasury curve, ahead of last November’s US presidential election (Table 2). That resulted in the US Treasury allocation generating a massive +63bps of excess return in Q1/2022 as longer-term US yields surged higher. Table 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2021 Overall Return Attribution The size of the US underweight was unusually large as we maintained only a neutral exposure to the other “high beta” markets that are typically positively correlated to US yield moves, Canada and Australia. Although the returns for those two government bond markets were very similar to that of US Treasuries in Q1, so the choice to stay neutral even with a bearish directional view on US yields did not impact the overall portfolio performance. Overweights to the more defensive “low beta” markets of Germany, France and Japan contributed a combined +4bps. We did see some losses on nominal government bonds in peripheral Europe (Italy: -0.6bps; Spain: -1.9bps), however, with the narrowing in spreads thrown off by a botched vaccine rollout. In spread product, underperformance came from overweights to UK investment grade corporates (-8bps), US CMBS (-4bps), and EM USD-denominated corporates (-2bps). This was despite the fact that spreads for UK corporates remained flat while US CMBS spreads actually narrowed. These losses were slightly offset by the overweight to lower-rated US high-yield (+3bps) and underweight to US agency MBS (+2bps). Our spread product losses, in total return terms, highlight the importance of considering duration risk when making a call on spread product, especially at a time when sovereign yields are rising and spreads offer little “cushion”. Duration also played a big part in nominal government bond outperformance, with a whopping +43bps of our total +55bps outperformance concentrated in just US Treasuries with a maturity greater than 10 years. In other words, overweighting overall global spread product and underweighting government bonds still generated major portfolio outperformance, even if there was a more mixed bag of returns within that credit overweight. The bar charts showing the total and relative returns for each individual government bond market and spread product sector are presented in Charts 2 & 3. Chart 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2021 Government Bond Performance Attribution Chart 3GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2021 Spread Product Performance Attribution By Sector Biggest Outperformers: Underweight US Treasuries with a maturity greater than 10 years (+43bps), maturity between 7 and 10 years (+11bps), and with a maturity between 5 and 7 years (+7bps) Overweight US high-yield (+3bps) Underweight US agency MBS (+2bps) Overweight Italian inflation-indexed BTPs (+2bps) Biggest Underperformers: Overweight UK investment grade corporates (-8bps) Overweight US agency CMBS (-4bps) Overweight Spanish government bonds (-2bps) Chart 4 presents the ranked benchmark index returns of the individual countries and spread product sectors in the GFIS model bond portfolio for Q1/2021. Returns are hedged into US dollars (we do not take active currency risk in this portfolio) and adjusted to reflect duration differences between each country/sector and the overall custom benchmark index for the model portfolio. We have also color coded the bars in each chart to reflect our recommended investment stance for each market during Q1 (red for underweight, dark green for overweight, gray for neutral). Chart 4Ranking The Winners & Losers From The GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Universe In Q1/2021 Ideally, we would look to see more green bars on the left side of the chart where market returns are highest, and more red bars on the right side of the chart were returns are lowest. On that front, our portfolio allocations performed exceptionally well in Q1. In total return terms, the global bond market sell-off was a disaster for both government bonds and spread product. US high-yield, one of our longer-standing overweights, was the only sector to emerge unscathed, delivering a positive return of +42bps. Within our government bond allocation, the “defensive” markets—Japan (-44bps), Germany, (-261bps) and France (-371bps)—were nevertheless shaken by rising yields. On the other hand, we limited our downside by maintaining a neutral stance on the higher beta markets such as Canada (-406bps), New Zealand (-415bps), and the UK (-1389bps). Gilts sold off especially sharply as the UK outperformed global peers on COVID-19 vaccinations while inflation expectations continued to pick up. Our two underweights, US Treasuries (-426bps) and European high-yield (-426bps), were prescient. The latter market was one we chose to underweight given that spreads didn’t offer nearly enough compensation on a default-adjusted and breakeven basis. Bottom Line: Our model bond portfolio outperformed its benchmark index in the first quarter of the year by +55bps – a positive result driven by our underweight allocation to the US Treasury market and overall below-benchmark global duration stance. Future Drivers Of Portfolio Returns & Scenario Analysis Chart 5More Growth-Driven Upside For Global Yields Ahead Looking ahead, the performance of the model bond portfolio will continue to be driven predominantly by the future moves of global government bond yields, most notably US Treasuries. Our most favored leading indicators for global bond yields continue to signal more upside over at least the next six months (Chart 5). Our Global Duration Indicator, comprised of measures of future economic sentiment and momentum, remains at an elevated level. The ongoing climb in the global manufacturing PMI, which typically leads global real bond yields by around six months, suggests that the recent uptick in real yields can continue into the second half of 2021. We are still maintaining a bias towards bearish yield curve steepening across all the countries in the model bond portfolio. It is still far too soon to see bearish flattening of yield curves given the dovish bias of global central banks, many of which are actively targeting an overshoot of their own inflation targets. The US will be the first central bank to see any bearish flattening pressure, as the market more aggressively pulls forward the liftoff date of the next Fed tightening cycle in response to strong US growth, but that is an outcome we do not expect until well into the second half of 2021. With regards to country allocations within the government bond segment of the model bond portfolio, we continue to focus our maximum underweight on the US, while limiting exposure to the markets that are more sensitive to changes in US interest rates (Chart 6). Those “lower yield beta” markets (Germany, France and Japan) will continue to outperform the higher beta markets (Canada, Australia) over the latter half of 2021. We currently have Canada on “downgrade watch”, as economic momentum is accelerating and the housing bubble looks to be reflating, both of which will make the Bank of Canada turn more hawkish shortly after the Fed does. We are more comfortable keeping Australia at neutral, as Australian inflation is likely to remain too underwhelming for the Reserve Bank of Australia to turn less dovish and risk a surge in the Australian dollar. UK Gilts are a more difficult case, atypically acting like a lower beta market over the past few years. As we discussed in a Special Report published last month, we attribute the declining Gilt yield beta to the rolling shocks the UK has suffered over the past thirteen years – the 2008 global financial crisis, the 2012 euro area debt crisis, Brexit and, now, COVID-19 – that have hamstrung the Bank of England’s ability to try even modest interest rate hikes.2 With the impact of those shocks on UK growth now diminishing, we see the central bank under greater pressure to begin normalizing UK monetary policy over the couple of years. We downgraded our cyclical stance on UK Gilts and UK investment grade corporates to neutral from overweight in that Special Report and, this week, we are making the same reduction in UK weightings in our model bond portfolio (see the portfolio tables on pages 20-21). After that change, the overall duration of the model bond portfolio remains below that of the custom benchmark index, now by -0.75 years (Chart 7). Chart 6Low-Beta Markets Will Continue To Outperform USTs Chart 7Overall Portfolio Duration: Stay Below Benchmark We continue to see the dovish bias of global central bankers as being conducive to the outperformance of inflation-linked bonds versus nominal government debt (Chart 8). Yes, the “easy money” has been made betting on a recovery of inflation expectations from the bombed-out levels seen after the COVID-19 recession in 2020. However, within the major developed economies with inflation-linked bond markets, 10-year breakevens have already climbed beyond the pre-pandemic levels of early 2020 (Chart 9). The next targets are the previous cyclical highs seen in 2018 (and 2019 for the UK). Chart 8Dovish Central Banks Still Positive For Inflation-Linked Bonds Chart 9Inflation Breakevens Returning To Past Cyclical Peaks Chart 10Still A Supportive Backdrop For Global Corporates The 10-year US TIPS breakeven is already past that 2018 peak of 2.18%, and with the Fed showing no sign of concern about US growth and inflation accelerating, the 10-year US breakeven should end up moving into the high end of our expected 2.3-2.5% target range before the Fed begins to turn less dovish. Thus, we are maintaining a core allocation to linkers in the portfolio, focused on US TIPS and inflation-linked bonds in Italy, France and Canada. The same aggressive easing of global monetary policy that has been good for relative inflation-linked bond performance continues to benefit global corporate bonds. The annual rate of growth of the combined balance sheets of the Fed, ECB, Bank of Japan and Bank of England remains an excellent leading indicator of the excess returns of both global investment grade and high-yield corporates over the past decade (Chart 10). With the combined balance sheet now expanding at a 55% pace, corporate bonds are still likely to continue to outperform government debt over the remainder of 2021. Much of that expected return outperformance of corporates will come via carry rather than spread compression, though. Our preferred measure of the attractiveness of credit spreads, the historical percentile ranking of 12-month breakeven spreads, shows that only US high-yield spreads are above the bottom quartile of their history among the credit sectors in our model portfolio (Chart 11). Given the absence of spread cushion in those other markets, we are maintaining an overweight stance on US high-yield in the model bond portfolio – especially versus euro area high-yield where we are underweight - while staying neutral investment grade credit in the US and Europe. Chart 11US High-Yield: The Last Bastion Of Attractive Spreads Within the euro area, we continue to prefer owning Italian government bonds over investment grade corporates, given the European Central Bank’s more explicit support for the former through quantitative easing (Chart 12). We expect Italian yields and spreads to converge down to Spanish levels, likely within the next 6-12 months, while there is limited downside for euro area investment grade spreads given tight valuations. Chart 12Favor Italian BTPs Over Euro Area IG We are not only looking at relative valuation considerations in developed market credit. Emerging market (EM) USD-denominated credit has benefited from a bullish combination of global policy stimulus, a weakening US dollar and rising commodity prices. We have positioned for that in our model portfolio through an overall overweight stance on EM USD credit, but one that favors investment grade corporates over sovereigns. Now, with the Chinese credit impulse likely to slow in the latter half of 2021 as Chinese policymakers look to rein in stimulus, a slower pace of Chinese economic growth represents a risk to EM credit (Chart 13). The same can be said for the US dollar, which is no longer depreciating with US bond yields rising and the markets questioning the Fed’s dovish forward guidance on future rate hikes (Chart 14). A strong US dollar would also be a risk to the commodity price rally that has supported EM financial assets. Chart 13Global Policy Mix Becoming Less Supportive For EM Chart 14A Stronger USD Is A Risk For EM Corporates Vs Sovereigns Chart 15A Moderate Overweight To Spread Product Vs Government Debt In response to these growing risks to the bullish EM backdrop, we are downgrading our overall EM USD credit exposure in the model bond portfolio to neutral from overweight. We are maintaining our relative preference for EM investment grade corporates over sovereigns, however, within that overall neutral allocation. Summing it all up, we are sticking with a moderately overweight stance on global spread product versus government debt in the model portfolio, equal to four percentage points (Chart 15). That overweight comes entirely from the US high-yield allocation. After the changes made to our UK and EM positions, the tracking error of the portfolio, or its expected volatility versus that of the benchmark index, is quite low at 41bps (Chart 16). This is an unsurprising outcome given that the current positioning is focused so heavily on the US (Treasury underweight, high-yield overweight), with much of the other positioning close to neutral. That will change as 2021 progresses but, for now, our highest conviction views are in US fixed income. One final point – the relatively concentrated positioning leaves the portfolio “flat carry”, with a yield roughly equal to that of the benchmark index (Chart 17). Chart 16Limited Use Of Portfolio 'Tracking Error' Chart 17Model Portfolio Yield Close To Benchmark Scenario Analysis & Return Forecasts After making the shifts to our model bond portfolio allocations in the UK and EM, we now turn to scenario analysis to determine the return expectations for the portfolio for the next six months. On the credit side of the portfolio, we use risk-factor-based regression models to forecast future yield changes for global spread product sectors as a function of four major factors - the VIX, oil prices, the US dollar and the fed funds rate (Table 2A). For the government bond side of the portfolio, we avoid using regression models and instead use a yield-beta driven framework, taking forecasts for changes in US Treasury yields and translating those in changes in non-US bond yields by applying a historical yield beta (Table 2B). For our scenario analysis over the next six months, we use a base case scenario plus two alternate “tail risk” scenarios, based on the following descriptions and inputs: Table 2AFactor Regressions Used To Estimate Spread Product Yield Changes Table 2BEstimated Government Bond Yield Betas To US Treasuries Base case: Ongoing global vaccinations lead to more of the global economy reopening over the summer, with excess savings built up during the pandemic – augmented by ongoing fiscal support – starting to be spent. US economic growth will be most robust out of the major economies, given the additional boost from fiscal stimulus, while China implements actions to slow credit growth and the euro area lags on vaccinations. The Fed stands its ground and maintains no rate hikes until at least 2023, and US TIPS breakevens climb to levels consistent with the Fed’s 2% inflation mandate (2.3-2.5%). The US Treasury curve continues to bear-steepen, with the 10-year US yield rising to 2%. The VIX falls to 15, the US dollar is flat, the Brent oil price rises +5%, and the fed funds rate is unchanged at 0%. Optimistic case: A rapid pace of global vaccinations leads to booming growth led by the US but including a reopening euro area. Chinese policymakers tighten credit by less than expected. Markets begin to pull forward the timing and pace of future central bank interest rate hikes, most notably in the US but also in the other countries like Canada and the UK. Real bond yields continue to climb globally, but inflation breakevens stay elevated. The steepening trend of the US Treasury curve ends, and mild bear flattening begins with the 10-year reaching 2.2% and the 2-year yield climbing to 0.4%. The VIX stays unchanged at 18, the US dollar rises +5%, the Brent oil price climbs +2.5% and the fed funds rate stays unchanged. Pessimistic case: Setbacks on the pandemic, either from struggles with vaccine distribution or a surge in variant cases, lead to a slower pace of global growth momentum. Europe cannot reopen, China tightens credit policy faster than expected, and US households hold onto to excess savings amid lingering virus uncertainty. Diminished economic optimism leads to a pullback in global equity values and wider global credit spreads. The US Treasury curve bull flattens as longer-maturity yields fall in a risk-off move, with the 10-year yield moving back down to 1.5%. The VIX rises to 25, the US dollar falls -2.5% and the fed funds rate stays at 0%. The inputs into the scenario analysis are shown in Chart 18 (for the USD, VIX, oil and the fed funds rate), while the US Treasury yield scenarios are in Chart 19. The excess return scenarios for the model bond portfolio, using the above inputs in our simple quantitative return forecast framework, are shown in Table 3A (the scenarios for the changes in US Treasury yields are shown in Table 3B). Chart 18Risk Factor Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis Chart 19US Treasury Yield Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis Table 3AGFIS Model Bond Portfolio Scenario Analysis For The Next Six Months Table 3BUS Treasury Yield Assumptions For The 6-Month Forward Scenario Analysis The model bond portfolio is expected to deliver an excess return over the next six months of +46bps in the base case and +54bps in the optimistic scenario, but is only projected to underperform by -27bps in the pessimistic scenario. Bottom Line: We are sticking with an overall below-benchmark portfolio duration stance, given accelerating global growth momentum, expanding vaccinations and a highly stimulative fiscal/monetary policy mix. We are maintaining a moderate overweight to global spread product versus government debt, concentrated on an overweight to US high-yield given more stretched valuations in other credit sectors. On the margin, we are making the following changes to the portfolio allocations: downgrading both UK Gilts and UK investment grade corporates to neutral, while cutting the overall allocation to EM USD credit to neutral.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com   Shakti Sharma Research Associate ShaktiS@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The GFIS model bond portfolio custom benchmark index is the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Index, but with allocations to global high-yield corporate debt replacing very high quality spread product (i.e. AA-rated). We believe this to be more indicative of the typical internal benchmark used by global multi-sector fixed income managers. 2 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy/Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, "Why Are UK Interest Rates Still So Low?", dated March 10, 2021, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

特別レポート

Highlights The Eurozone economy and assets remain beholden to the global manufacturing cycle. This sensitivity reflects the large share of output generated by capex and exports. Yet, the second half of 2021 and first half of 2022 could see euro area growth follow the beat of its own drum. This is a consequence of the unique role of consumption in the COVID-19 recession. European growth will therefore outperform expectations, even if economic momentum slows outside of Europe. Consequently, the euro and Eurozone equities will outperform for the coming 12 to 18 months. Feature For the past 20 years, investors have used a simple rule of thumb to understand European growth and markets. Europe is a derivative of global growth because of its large manufacturing sector and torpid domestic economy. A reductionist approach would even argue that China’s economy is what matters most for Europe. Is this model still valid to analyze Europe? In general, this approach still holds up well. However, the nature of the 2020 COVID-19 recession suggests that the European economy could still accelerate in the second half of the year, despite a small slowdown in the Chinese economy and global manufacturing sector. The Origin Of The Pro-Cyclicality Narrative Investors in European markets have long understood that Eurozone equities outperform when the global manufacturing cycle accelerates. This pro-cyclicality of European stocks is a consequence of their heavy weighting toward cyclical and value stocks, such as industrials, consumer discretionary and financials. Chart 1German/US Spreads: Global Manufacturing Cycle Historically, European yields have also moved in a very pro-cyclical fashion. Over the past 30 years, periods when German 10-year yields rose relative to that of US Treasury Notes have coincided with an improvement in the global manufacturing sector as approximated by the ISM Manufacturing survey (Chart 1). Investors also understand that the euro is a pro-cyclical currency. Some of this behavior reflects the counter-cyclicality of the US dollar. However, if German yields rise more than US ones when global growth improves and European equities outperform under similar conditions, the euro naturally attracts inflows when the global manufacturing sector strengthens. Chart 2China Is A Key Determinant Of European Activity Ultimately, the responsiveness of the euro and European assets to global growth is rooted in the nature of the European economy. Trade and manufacturing account for nearly 40% and 14% of GDP, respectively, compared to 26% and 11% for the US. This economic specialization has made Europe extremely sensitive to the gyrations of the Chinese economy, the largest contributor to fluctuation in the global demand for capital goods. As Chart 2 highlights, European IP and PMI outperform the US when China’s marginal propensity to consume (as approximated by the growth in M1 relative to M2) picks up. Is The Pro-Cyclical Narrative Still Valid? Despite the euro area debt crisis and the slow health and fiscal policy response of European authorities to COVID-19, evidence suggests that the Eurozone’s pro-cyclicality is only increasing. Chart 3Europe Is Becoming More Sensitive To The Rest Of The World Europe Is Becoming More Sensitive To The Rest Of The World A simple statistical analysis confirms this hypothesis. A look at the beta of European GDP growth against the Global PMI reveals that the sensitivity of Eurozone growth and German growth to the Global PMI has steadily increased over the past 20 years (Chart 3, top panel). Moreover, the beta of euro area growth to the global PMI is now higher than that of the US, despite a considerably lower potential GDP growth, which means that a greater proportion of the Eurozone’s GDP growth is affected by globally-driven fluctuations. The bottom panel of Chart 3 shows a more volatile but similar relationship with Chinese economic activity. Correlation analysis confirms that Europe remains very sensitive to global factors. Currently, the rolling correlation of a regression of Eurozone GDP growth versus that of China stands near 0.7, which is comparable to levels that prevailed between 2005 and 2012. The correlation between German and Chinese GDP growth is now higher than at any point during the past two decades. Chart 4The Declining Role Of Consumption The increasing influence of global economic variables on the European economy reflects the evolution of the composition of the Eurozone’s GDP. Over the past 11 years, the share of consumption within GDP has decreased from 57% to 52%. For comparison’s sake, consumption accounts for 71% of US GDP. The two sectors that have taken the primacy away from consumption are capex and net exports, whose combined share has grown from 22% to 26% of GDP (Chart 4). This shift in the composition of GDP echoes the structural forces facing the Eurozone. An ageing population, a banking system focused on rebuilding its balance sheet, and the tackling of the competitiveness problems of peripheral economies have hurt wage growth, consumption and imports. Meanwhile, exports have remained on a stable trend, thanks to both the comparative vigor of the euro area’s trading partners and a cheap euro. Therefore, net exports expanded. Capex benefited from the strength in European exports. A Granger causality test reveals that consumption has little impact on fixed-capital formation in the euro area. However, the same method shows that fluctuations in export growth cause changes in investment. This makes sense. The variance in exports is an important contributor to the variability of Eurozone profits (Chart 5). Thus, rising exports incentivize the European corporate sector to expand its capital stock to fulfill foreign demand. The expanding share of output created by exports and capex along with the role of exports as a driver of capex explains why Europe economic activity is bound to remain so sensitive to the fluctuations in global trade and manufacturing activity. Moreover, the capex/exports interplay even affects consumption. As Chart 6 shows, the growth of euro area personal expenditures often bottoms after the annual rate of change of the new orders of capital goods has troughed, which reflects the role of exports as a driver of European income. Chart 5Profits And Exports Chart 6Consumption Doesn't Move In A Vacuum Bottom Line: European economic activity remains a high beta play on global and Chinese growth. The decrease in consumption to the benefit of exports and capex explains why this reality will not change anytime soon. 2021, An Idiosyncratic Year? In 2021, consumption will be the key input to the European economic performance, despite the long-term relationship between European GDP and foreign economic activity. This will allow European growth to narrow some of its gap with the US and the rest of the world in the second half of this year and the first half of 2022, even if the global manufacturing sector comes off its boil soon. The 2020 recession was unique. In a normal recession, capex, real estate investment, spending on durable goods and the manufacturing sector are the main contributors to the decline in GDP. This time, consumption and the service sector generated most of the contraction in output. These two sectors also caused the second dip in GDP following the tightening of lockdown measures across Europe last winter. Once the more recent wave of lockdowns is behind us, consumption will most likely slingshot to higher levels. More than the US, where the economy has been partially open for months now, Europe remains replete with significant pent-up demand. Obviously, fulfilling this demand will require further progress in the European vaccination campaign, something we recently discussed. Chart 7The Money Supply Forecasts A Rapid Recovery The surge in M1 also points to a sharp rebound in consumption once governments lift the current lockdowns (Chart 7). M1 is a much more reliable predictor of economic activity in Europe than in the US, because disintermediation is not as prevalent in the Eurozone, where banks account for 72% and 88% of corporate and household credit, respectively, compared to 32% and 29% in the US. We cannot dismiss the explosion in the money supply as only a function of the ECB’s actions. European banks are in much better shape today than they were 10 years ago. Non-performing loans have been steadily decreasing. A rise in delinquencies is likely in the coming quarters due to the pandemic; however, the EUR3 trillion in credit guarantees by governments will limit the damages to the private sector’s and banking system’s balance sheets. Moreover, the Tier-1 capital ratio of the banking system ranges between 14% for Spain and 17% for Germany, well above the 10.5% threshold set by Basel-III (Chart 8). In this context, the pick-up in money supply mirrored credit flows. Thus, even if some of that credit reflects precautionary demand, the likelihood is high that a significant proportion of the built-up cash balances will find its way into the economy. Another positive sign for consumption comes from European confidence surveys. Despite tighter lockdown measures, consumer confidence has sharply rebounded, which historically heralds stronger consumption. Moreover, according to the ECB’s loan survey, stronger consumer confidence is causing an improvement in credit demand, which foreshadows a decline in savings intentions, especially now that wage growth is stabilizing (Chart 9). Nonetheless, there is still a risk that the advance in wages peters off. The recent wage agreement reached by Germany’s IG Metall union in North Rhine Westphalia was a paltry 1.3% annual pay raise, and once the Kurzarbeit programs end, the true level of labor market slack will become evident. However, for consumption to grow, all that we need to see now is stable wage growth, even if at a low rate.  Chart 8European Banks Are Feeling Better Chart 9Confidence Points To Stronger Consumption Beyond consumption, Europe’s fiscal policy will be positive compared to the US next year. The NGEU plan will add roughly 1% to GDP in both 2021 and 2022. As a result, the Eurozone’s net fiscal drag should be no greater than 1% of GDP next year. This compares to a fiscal thrust of -7% in the US in 2022, even after factoring in the new “American Jobs Act” proposed by the Biden Administration last week, according to our US Political Strategy team. Bottom Line: The revival in European consumption in the second half of 2021 and the first half of 2022 will allow the gap between European and global growth to narrow. This dynamic will be reinforced next year, when the fiscal drag will be lower in Europe than in the US. These forces will create a rare occasion when European growth will improve despite a deceleration (albeit a modest one) in global manufacturing activity. Investment Conclusions The continued sensitivity of the euro area economy to the global industrial and trade cycle indicates that over the long-term, European assets will remain beholden to the gyrations of global growth. In other words, the euro and European stocks will outperform in periods of accelerating global manufacturing activity, as they have done over the past 30 years. The next 12 to 18 month may nonetheless defy this bigger picture, allowing European assets to generate alpha for global investors. Chart 10The Euro Will Like Idiosyncratic European Growth First, the gap between US and euro area growth will narrow over the coming 12 to 18 months, thus the euro will remain well bid, even if the maximum acceleration in global industrial activity lies behind. As investors re-assess their view of European economic activity and the current period of maximum relative pessimism passes, inflows into the euro area will accelerate and the euro will appreciate (Chart 10). Hence, we continue to see the recent phase of weakness in EUR/USD as transitory. Second, European equities have scope to outperform US ones over that window. Some of that anticipated outperformance reflects our positive stance on the euro. However, a consumption-driven economic bounce will be positive for European financials as well. Such a recovery will let investors ratchet down their estimates of credit losses in the financial system. Moreover, banks are well capitalized, thus the ECB will permit the resumption of dividend payments. Under these circumstances, European banks have scope to outperform US ones temporarily, especially since Eurozone banks trade at a 56% discount to their transatlantic rivals on a price-to-book basis. An outperformance of financials will be key for Europe’s performance. Chart 11German/US Spreads Near Equilibrium? Finally, we could enter a period of stability in US/German yield spreads over the coming months. The ECB remains steadfast at limiting the upside in European risk-free rates, as Christine Lagarde reiterated last week. However, BCA’s US bond strategist, Ryan Swift, believes US yields will enter a temporary plateau, as the Federal Reserve will not adjust rates until well after the US economy has reached full employment. Hence, the Fed is unlikely to let the OIS curve bring forward the date of the first hike currently priced in for August 2022 on a durable basis, which also limits the upside to US yields. Thus, looking at core CPI and policy rate differences, US yields have reached a temporary equilibrium relative to Germany (Chart 11).   Mathieu Savary, Chief European Investment Strategist Mathieu@bcaresearch.com

Highlights Global manufacturing activity will soon peak due to growing costs and China’s policy tightening. This process will allow the dollar’s rebound to continue. EUR/USD’s correction will run further. This pullback in the euro is creating an attractive buying opportunity for investors with a 12- to 24-month investment horizon. Eurozone banks will continue to trade in unison with the euro. Feature The correction in the euro has further to run. The dollar currently benefits from widening real interest differentials, but a growing list of headwinds will cause a temporary setback for the global manufacturing sector, which will fuel the greenback rally further. Nonetheless, EUR/USD will stabilize between 1.15 and 1.12, after which it will begin a new major up-leg. Consequently, investors with a 12- to 24-month investment horizon should use the current softness to allocate more funds to the common currency. A Hiccup In Global Industrial Activity Global manufacturing activity is set to decelerate on a sequential basis and the Global Manufacturing PMI will soon peak. The first problem for the global manufacturing sector is the emergence of financial headwinds. The sharp rebound in growth in the second half of 2020 and the optimism created by last year’s vaccine breakthrough as well as the rising tide of US fiscal stimulus have pushed US bond yields and oil prices up sharply. These financial market moves are creating a “growth tax” that will bite soon. Mounting US interest rates have lifted global borrowing costs while the doubling in Brent prices has increased the costs of production and created a small squeeze on oil consumers. Thus, even if the dollar remains well below its March 2020 peak, our Growth Tax Indicator (which incorporates yields, oil prices and the US dollar) warns of an imminent top in the US ISM Manufacturing and the Global Manufacturing PMI (Chart 1). Already, the BCA Global Leading Economic Indicator diffusion index has dipped below the 50% line, which usually ushers in downshifts in global growth. A deceleration in China’s economy constitutes another problem for the global manufacturing cycle. Last year’s reflation-fueled rebound in Chinese economic activity was an important catalyst to the global trade and manufacturing recovery. However, according to BCA Research’s Emerging Market Strategy service, Beijing is now tightening policy, concerned by a build-up in debt and excesses in the real estate sector. Already, the PBoC’s liquidity withdrawals are resulting in a decline of commercial bank excess reserves, which foreshadows a slowing of China’s credit impulse (Chart 2). Chart 1The Global Growth Tax Will Bite Chart 2Chinese Credit Will Slow In addition to liquidity withdrawals, Chinese policymakers are also tightening the regulatory environment to tackle excessive debt buildups and real estate speculation. The crackdown on property developers and house purchases will cause construction activity to shrink in the second half of 2021. Meanwhile, tougher rules for both non-bank lenders and the asset management divisions of banks will further harm credit creation. BCA’s Chief EM strategist, Arthur Budaghyan, notes that consumer credit is already slowing. Chinese fiscal policy is unlikely to create a counterweight to the deteriorating credit impulse. China’s fiscal impulse will be slightly negative next year. Chinese financial markets are factoring in these headwinds, and on-shore small cap equities are trying to break down while Chinese equities are significantly underperforming global benchmarks. Chart 3Deteriorating Surprises Bottom Line: The combined assault from the rising “growth tax” and China’s policy tightening is leaving its mark. Economic surprises in the US, the Eurozone, EM and China have all decelerated markedly (Chart 3), which the currency market echoes. Some of the most pro-cyclical currencies in the G-10 are suffering, with the SEK falling relative to the EUR and the NZD and AUD both experiencing varying degrees of weakness. The Euro Correction Will Run Further… Until now, the euro’s decline mostly reflects the rise in US interest rate differentials; however, the coming hiccup in the global manufacturing cycle is causing a second down leg for the euro. First, the global economic environment remains consistent with more near-term dollar upside, due to: Chart 4Commodities Are Vulnerable A commodity correction that will feed the dollar’s rebound. Aggregate speculator positioning and our Composite Technical Indicator show that commodity prices are technically overextended (Chart 4). With this backdrop, the coming deceleration in Chinese economic activity is likely to catalyze a significant pullback in natural resources, which will hurt rates of returns outside the US and therefore, flatter the dollar. The dollar’s counter-cyclicality. The expected pullback in the Global Manufacturing PMI is consistent with a stronger greenback (Chart 5). The dollar’s momentum behavior. Among G-10 FX, the dollar responds most strongly to the momentum factor (Chart 6). Thus, the likelihood is high that the dollar’s recent rebound will persist, especially because our FX team’s Dollar Capitulation Index has only recovered to neutral from oversold levels and normally peaks in overbought territory.  Chart 5The Greenback's Counter-Cyclicality Chart 6The Dollar Is A High Momentum Currency Second, the euro’s specific dynamics remain negative for now. Based on our short-term valuation model, the fair value of EUR/USD has downshifted back to 1.1, which leaves the euro 7% overvalued (Chart 7). Until now, real interest rate differentials and the steepening of the US yield curve relative to Germany’s have driven the decline in the fair value estimate. However, the deceleration in global growth also hurts the euro’s fair value because the US is less exposed than the Eurozone to the global manufacturing cycle. Chart 7The Euro's Short-Term Fair Value Is At 1.1 Chart 8Speculators Have Not Capitulated The euro is also technically vulnerable, similar to commodities. Speculators are still massively net long EUR/USD and the large pool of long bets in the euro suggests that a capitulation has yet to take place (Chart 8). The euro responds very negatively to a weak Chinese economy. The Eurozone has deeper economic ties with China than the US. Exports to China account for 1.7% of the euro area’s GDP, and 2.8% of Germany’s compared to US exports to China at 0.5% of GDP. Indirect financial links are also larger. Credit to EM accounts for 45% of the Eurozone’s GDP compared to 5% for the US. Thus, the negative impact of a Chinese slowdown on EM growth has greater spillovers on European than on US ones rates of returns. A weak CNY and sagging Chinese capital markets harm the euro. The euro’s rebound from 1.064 on March 23 2020 to 1.178 did not reflect sudden inflows into European fixed-income markets. Instead, the money that previously sought higher interest rates in the US left that country for EM bonds and China’s on-shore fixed-income markets, the last major economies with attractive yields. These outflows from the US to China and EM pushed the dollar down, which arithmetically helped the euro. Thus, the recent EUR/USD correlates closely with Sino/US interest rate and with the yuan because the euro’s strength reflects the dollar demise (Chart 9). Consequently, a decelerating Chinese economy will also hurt EUR/USD via fixed-income market linkages. Finally, the euro will depreciate further if global cyclical stocks correct relative to defensive equities. Deep cyclicals (financials, consumer discretionary, energy, materials and industrials) represent 59% of the Eurozone MSCI benchmark versus 36% of the US index. Cyclical equities are exceptionally overbought and expensive relative to defensive names. They are also very levered to the global business cycle and Chinese imports. In this context, the expected deterioration in both China’s economic activity and the Global Manufacturing PMI could cause a temporary but meaningful pullback in the cyclicals-to-defensives ratio and precipitate equity outflows from Europe into the US (Chart 10). Chart 9EUR/USD And Chinese Rates Chart 10EUR/USD Will Follow Cyclicals/Defensives Bottom Line: A peak in the global manufacturing PMI will hurt the euro, especially because China will meaningfully contribute to this deceleration in global industrial activity. Thus, the euro’s pullback has further to run. An important resistance stands at 1.15. A failure to hold will invite a rapid decline to EUR/USD 1.12. Nonetheless, the euro’s depreciation constitutes nothing more than a temporary pullback. … But The Long-Term Bull Market Is Intact We recommend buying EUR/USD on its current dip because the underpinnings of its cyclical bull market are intact. Chart 11Investors Structurally Underweight Europe First, investors are positioned for a long-term economic underperformance of the euro area relative to the US. The depressed level of portfolio inflows into Europe relative to the US indicates that investors already underweight European assets (Chart 11). This pre-existing positioning limits the negative impact on the euro of the current decrease in European growth expectations (Chart 11, bottom panel). Second, as we wrote last week, European growth is set to accelerate significantly this summer. Considering the absence of ebullient investor expectations toward the euro, this process can easily create upside economic surprises later this year, especially when compared to the US. Moreover, the deceleration in Chinese and global growth will most likely be temporary, which will limit the duration of their negative impact on Europe. Third, the US stimulus measure will create negative distortions for the US dollar. The addition of another long-term stimulus package of $2 trillion to $4 trillion to the $7 trillion already spent by Washington during the crisis implies that the US government deficit will not narrow as quickly as US private savings will decline. Therefore, the US current account deficit will widen from its current level of 3.5% of GDP. As a corollary, the US twin deficit will remain large. Meanwhile, the Fed is unlikely to increase real interest rates meaningfully in the coming two years because it believes any surge in inflation this year will be temporary. Furthermore, the FOMC aims to achieve inclusive growth (i.e. an overheated labor market). This policy combination forcefully points toward greater dollar weakness. The US policy mix looks particularly dollar bearish when compared to that of the Eurozone. To begin with, the balance of payment dynamics make the euro more resilient. The euro area benefits from the underpinning of a current account surplus of 1.9% of GDP. Moreover, the European basic balance of payments stands at 1.5% of GDP compared to a 3.6% deficit for the US. Additionally, FDI into Europe are rising relative to the US. The divergence in the FDI trends will continue due to the high probability that the Biden administration will soon increase corporate taxes. Chart 12The DEM In The 70s The combination of faster vaccine penetration and much larger fiscal stimulus means that the US economy will overheat faster than Europe’s. Because the Fed seems willing to tolerate higher inflation readings, US CPI will rise relative to the Eurozone. In the 1970s, too-easy policy in Washington meant that the gap between US and German inflation rose. Despite the widening of interest rate and growth differentials in favor of the USD or the rise in German relative unemployment, the higher US inflation dominated currency fluctuations and the deutschemark appreciated (Chart 12). A similar scenario is afoot in the coming years, especially in light of the euro bullish relative balance of payments. Fourth, valuations constitute an additional buttress behind the long-term performance of the euro. Our FX strategy team Purchasing Power Parity model adjusts for the different composition of price indices in the US and the euro area. Based on this metric, the euro is trading at a significant 13% discount from its long-term fair value, with the latter being on an upward trend (Chart 13).  Furthermore, BCA’s Behavioral Exchange Rate Model for the trade-weighted euro is also pointing up, which historically augurs well for the common currency. Lastly, even if the ECB’s broad trade-weighted index stands near an all-time high, European financial conditions remain very easy. This bifurcation suggests that the euro is not yet a major hurdle for the continent and can enjoy more upside (Chart 14). Chart 13EUR/USD Trades Well Below Long-Term Fair Value Chart 14Easy European Financial ##br##Conditions Chart 15Make Room For the Euro! Finally, the euro will remain a beneficiary from reserve diversification away from the USD. The dollar’s status as the premier reserve currency is unchallenged. However, its share of global reserves has scope to decline while the euro’s proportion could move back to the levels enjoyed by legacy European currencies in the early 1990s (Chart 15). Large reserve holders will continue to move away from the dollar. BCA Research’s Geopolitical Strategy team argues that US tensions with China transcend the Trump presidency.  Meanwhile, the current administration’s relationship with Russia and Saudi Arabia will be cold. For now, their main alternative to the dollar is the euro because of its liquidity. Moreover, the NGEU stimulus program creates an embryonic mechanism to share fiscal risk within the euro area. The Eurozone is therefore finally trying to evolve away from a monetary union bereft of a fiscal union. This process points toward a lower probability of a break up, which makes the euro more attractive to reserve managers. Bottom Line: Despite potent near-term headwinds, the euro’s long-term outlook remains bright. Global investors already underweight European assets, yet balance of payment and policy dynamics point toward a higher euro. Moreover, valuations and geopolitical developments reinforce the cyclical tailwinds behind EUR/USD. Thus, investors with a 12- to 24-month investment horizon should use the current euro correction to gain exposure to the European currencies. Any move in EUR/USD below 1.15 will generate a strong buy signal. Sector Focus: European Banks And The Istanbul Shake The recent decline in euro area bank stocks coincides with the 14% increase in USD/TRY and the 17% decline in the TUR Turkish equities ETF following the sacking of Naci Ağbal, the CBRT governor. President Erdogan is prioritizing growth over economic stability because his AKP party is polling poorly ahead of the 2023 election. The Turkish economy is already overheating, and the lack of independence of the CBRT under the leadership of Şahap Kavcıoğlu promises a substantial increase in Turkish inflation, which already stands at 16%. Hence, foreign investors will flee this market, creating further downward pressures on the lira and Turkish assets. European banks have a meaningful exposure to Turkey. Turkish assets account for 3% of Spanish bank assets or 28% of Tier-1 capital. For France, this exposure amounts to 0.7% and 5% respectively, and for the UK, it reaches 0.3% and 2%. As a comparison, claims on Turkey only represent 0.3% and 0.5% of the assets and Tier-1 capital of US banks. Unsurprisingly, fluctuations in the Turkish lira have had a significant impact one the share prices of European banks in recent years, even after controlling for EPS and domestic yield fluctuations (Table 1). Table 1TRY Is Important To European Banks… Nonetheless, today’s TRY fluctuations are unlikely to have the same lasting impact on European banks share prices as they did from 2017 to 2019 because European banks have already shed significant amounts of Turkish assets (Chart 16).  This does not mean that European banks are out of the woods yet. The level of European yields remains a key determinant of the profitability of Eurozone’s banks, and thus, of their share prices (Chart 17, top panel). Moreover, the euro still tightly correlates with European bank stocks as well (Chart 17, bottom panel). As a result, our view that the global manufacturing cycle will experience a temporary downshift and the consequent downside in EUR/USD both warn of further underperformance of European banks. Chart 16… But Less Than It ##br##Once Was Chart 17Higher Yields And A stronger Euro, These Are Few Of My Favorite Things These same views also suggest that this decline in bank prices is creating a buying opportunity. Ultimately, we remain cyclically bullish on the euro and the transitory nature of the manufacturing slowdown implies that global yields will resume their ascent. The cheap valuations of European banks, which trade at 0.6-times book value, make them option-like vehicles to bet on these trends, even if the banking sectors long-term prospects are murky. Moreover, they are a play on Europe’s domestic recovery this summer. We will explore banks in greater detail in future reports.   Mathieu Savary, Chief European Investment Strategist Mathieu@bcaresearch.com

Highlights The Biden administration is combining Trumpian nationalism with a renewed push for US innovation in a major infrastructure bill that is highly likely to become law. Populism and Great Power struggle with China and Russia are structural forces that give enormous momentum to this effort. Don’t bet against it. President Biden’s $2.4 trillion infrastructure and green energy plan has a subjective 80% chance of passing into law by the end of the year, as infrastructure is popular and Democrats control Congress. The net deficit increase will range from $700 billion to $1.3 trillion depending on the size of corporate tax hikes in the final bill. The second part of Biden’s plan, the roughly $2 trillion American Families Plan, has a much lower chance of passage – at best 50/50 – as the 2022 midterm elections will loom and fiscal fatigue will set in. While the US infrastructure package is a positive cyclical catalyst, it was largely expected, and the Biden administration still faces early stress-tests on China/Taiwan, Russia, Iran, and even North Korea. Game theory helps explain why financial markets cannot ignore the 60% chance of a crisis in the Taiwan Strait. A full-fledged war is still low-probability but Taiwan remains the world’s preeminent geopolitical risk. In emerging markets, stay short Russian and Brazilian currency and assets – and continue favoring Indian stocks over Chinese. Feature The “arsenal of democracy” is a phrase that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt used to describe the full might of US government, industry, and labor in assisting the western allies in World War II. The US is reviving this combination of productive forces today, with President Joe Biden’s $4 trillion-plus American Jobs and Families Plan unveiled in Pittsburgh on March 31. The context is once again a global struggle among the Great Powers, albeit not world war (at least not yet … more on that below). The US is reviving its post-WWII pursuit of global liberal hegemony – symbolized by its role, growing once again, as the world’s chief consumer and chief warrior (Chart 1). Biden promoted his plan to build up the US’s infrastructure and social safety net explicitly as a historic and strategic investment – “in 50 years, people are going to look back and say this was the moment that American won the future.”1 It is critical for investors to realize that they are not witnessing another round of COVID-19 fiscal relief. That task is already completed with the Republican spending of 2020 and Biden’s own $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), which together with the vaccine rollout are delivering a jolt to growth (Chart 2). Chart 1America Pursues Hegemony Anew Chart 2Consensus Expects 6.5% US GDP Growth After American Rescue Plan Our own back-of-the-envelope estimates of growth suggest that there is considerable upside risk even under current law (Chart 3). The output gap is also guesstimated here, and it will tighten faster than expected, especially as the service sector revives on economic reopening. Chart 3Back-Of-Envelope: US GDP And Output Gap Show Upside Risk After American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) A growth overshoot is even more likely considering that the first part of Biden’s proposal, the $2.4 trillion American Jobs Plan consisting mostly of infrastructure and green energy, is highly likely to pass Congress (by July at earliest and December at latest, most likely late fall). Our revised estimates for the US budget deficit show that this bill will add considerably to the deficit in the coming years, peaking in three or four years, thus averting the “fiscal cliff” in 2022-23 and adding to aggregate demand in the years after the short-term COVID-era cash handouts dry up (Chart 4). The net deficit increase will be $700 billion if Biden gets all of his tax hikes and $1.3 trillion if he only gets half of them, according to our sister US Political Strategy. Chart 4US Budget Deficit Will Remain Fat In Coming Years We give Biden’s $2.4 trillion American Jobs Plan an 80% chance of passing through Congress by the end of the year. Infrastructure is broadly popular – as President Trump’s own $2 trillion infrastructure campaign proposal revealed – and Democrats have just enough votes to push it through the Senate via budget reconciliation, which requires zero votes from Republicans. Biden’s political capital is still strong given that his approval rating will stay above 50% as long as Trump is the obvious alternative and the Republicans are deeply divided over their own future (Chart 5).2 The second part of his plan, the $1.95 trillion American Families Plan, is much less likely to pass before the 2022 midterm elections – we would say 50/50 odds at best, if the infrastructure deal passes quickly. Chart 5Biden’s Political Capital Is Sufficient To Pass Another Major Law Of course there are very important differences between Biden’s $2.4 trillion infrastructure plan and the similarly sized proposal that Trump would have unveiled this month had he been re-elected: Biden’s proposal is probably heavier on innovation and research and development, and certainly heavier on unionization and labor regulation, than Trump’s would have been. Biden’s plan integrates infrastructure with sustainability, renewable energy, and climate change initiatives that will help the US catch up with Europe and China on the green front. The plan will consist of direct government spending – rather than government seed money to promote private investment. It will be partially offset by repealing the corporate tax cuts in Trump’s signature Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Most importantly – from a geopolitical point of view – Biden is making a bid for the US to resume its post-WWII quest for global liberal hegemony. He argued that the US stands at the crossroads of a global choice between “democracies and autocracies” and that rebuilding US infrastructure is ultimately about proving that democracies can create consensus and “deliver for their people.” Autocratic regimes, fairly or not, routinely call attention to the divisiveness of modern party politics in the West and the resulting policy gridlock which produces bad outcomes for many citizens, resulting in greater domestic dysfunction and “chaos.” It is important to note that this bid for hegemony will be more, not less, destabilizing for global politics as it will make the US economy more self-sufficient and insulated from the world. It will intensify the US-China and US-Russia strategic competition while making it more difficult for Biden to conduct bilateral diplomacy with these states given their differences in moral values and frequent human rights violations. What is happening now is the culmination of political shifts that pre-date the pandemic, but were galvanized by the pandemic, and it is of global, geopolitical significance for the coming decade and beyond.3 Biden and the establishment Democrats – embattled by populism on their right and left flanks – are shamelessly coopting President Trump’s “Make America Great Again” nationalism with a larger-than-life, infrastructure-and-manufacturing initiative that emphasizes productivity as well as “Buy American” protectionism. Biden explicitly argued that Americans need to boost innovation to “put us in a position to win the global competition with China in the upcoming years.” At Biden’s first press conference on March 25, he made a similar point about China: So I see stiff competition with China. China has an overall goal, and I don’t criticize them for the goal, but they have an overall goal to become the leading country in the world, the wealthiest country in the world, and the most powerful country in the world. That’s not going to happen on my watch because the United States are going to continue to grow and expand.4 The US trade deficit is set to widen a lot further under this massive domestic buildout. It aims to be the largest government investment program since Dwight Eisenhower’s building of the highways or the Kennedy-Johnson-Nixon space race. But it explicitly aims to diminish China’s role as a supplier of US goods and materials and the US trade deficit already shows evidence of economic divorce (Chart 6). The US is bound to have a larger trade deficit due to its own savings-and-investment imbalances but it has a powerful interest in redistributing this trade deficit to its allies and reducing over-dependency on China, which is itself pursuing strategic self-sufficiency and military modernization in anticipation of an ongoing rivalry this century. Chart 6Biden's Coopts Trump's Trade And Manufacturing Agenda Bottom Line: Biden’s $2.4 trillion American Jobs Plan has an 80% chance of passing Congress later this year with a net increase to the fiscal thrust of between $700 billion and $1.3 trillion, depending on how many and how high the corporate tax hikes. The other $2 trillion social spending part of Biden’s plan has only a 50/50 chance of passage. The infrastructure and green energy rebuild should be understood as a return of Big Government motivated by populism and Great Power competition – it is a geopolitical theme with enormous momentum. The result will be faster US growth and higher inflation expectations, with the upside risk of a productivity boom (or boomlet) from the combination of public and private sector innovation. Investors should not bet against the cyclical bull market even though any increase in long-term potential GDP is speculative. A Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis And The Cuban Missile Crisis Biden’s American Jobs Plan reserves $50 billion for US semiconductor manufacturing, a vast sum, larger than expectations and far larger than the relatively small public investments that helped revolutionize the US chip industry in the 1980s. But it will take a long time for these investments to pay off in the form of secure and redundant supply chains, while a semiconductor shortage is raging today that is already entangled with the US-China rivalry and tensions over the Taiwan Strait. The risk of a diplomatic or military incident is urgent because the chip shortage exacerbates China’s vulnerabilities at a time when the Biden administration is about to make critical decisions regarding the tightness of new export controls that cut off China’s access to US semiconductor chips, equipment, and parts. If the Biden administration appears to pursue a full-fledged tech blockade, as the Trump administration seemed bent on doing, then China will retaliate economically or militarily. Before going further we should point out that there are still areas of potential US-China cooperation under the Biden administration that could reduce tensions this year (though not over the long run). Biden and Xi Jinping might meet virtually as early as this month to discuss carbon emission reduction targets. Meanwhile China is positioning itself to serve as power-broker on two major foreign policy challenges – Iran and North Korea. Biden expressly seeks Chinese and Russian assistance based on the mutual interest in nuclear non-proliferation. Notably, Beijing’s renewed strategic dealings with Iran over the past month highlight its confidence that Biden does not have the appetite to stick with Trump’s “maximum pressure” but rather will seek to reduce sanctions and restore the 2015 nuclear deal. Hence China will seek to parlay influence over Tehran in exchange for reduced US pressure on its trade and economy (Chart 7). Beijing is making a similar offer on North Korea. Chart 7China Holds The Key To Iran, As With North Korea? Ironically both Iranian and North Korean geopolitical tensions should skyrocket in the short term since high-stakes negotiations are beginning, even though they are ultimately more manageable risks than the mega-risk of US-China conflict over Taiwan. China cannot gain the advanced technology it needs to achieve a strategic breakthrough if the US should impose a total tech blockade, e.g. draconian export controls enforced on US allies. Yet it is highly unlikely to gain the tech by seizing Taiwan, since war would likely destroy the computer chip fabrication plants and provoke global sanctions that would crush its economy. The result is that China is launching a massive campaign of domestic production and indigenous innovation while circumventing US restrictions through cyber and other means. Still, a dangerous strategic asymmetry is looming because the US will retain access to the most advanced computer chips via its alliances and on-shoring, whereas China will remain vulnerable to a tech blockade via Taiwan. This brings us to our chief global geopolitical risk: a US-China showdown in the Taiwan Strait. Highlighting the urgency of the risk, Admiral John Aquilino, the nominee for Commander of the US Indo-Pacific Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that China might not wait six years to attack Taiwan: “My opinion is that this problem is much closer to us than most think and we have to take this on.”5 To illustrate the calculus of such a showdown – and our reasons for maintaining an alarmist tone and building up market hedges and safe-haven investments – we turn to game theory. Game theory is not a substitute for empirical analysis but a tool to formalize complex international systems with multiple decision-makers. An obvious yet fair analogy to a US-China-Taiwan crisis is the Cuban missile crisis of 1962.6 The standard construction of the Cuban missile crisis in game theory goes as follows: if the US maintains a blockade and the Soviets withdraw their missiles a compromise is achieved and war is averted; if the US conducts air strikes and the Soviets maintain or use their missiles then war ensues. The payouts to each player are shown in the matrix in Diagram 1. Diagram 1Cuban Missile Crisis, 1962 One concern about this construction is that the payouts may underestimate the costs of war since nuclear arms could be used. We insert a comment into the diagram highlighting that the payouts could be altered to account for nuclear war. Note that this alteration does not change the final outcome: the equilibrium scenario is still US blockade and Soviet withdrawal, which is what happened in reality. If we model a US-China-Taiwan conflict along similar lines, the US takes the role of the Soviet Union while China stands where the US stood in 1962 (Diagram 2). This is a theoretical scenario in which the US offers Taiwan a decisive improvement in its security or offensive military capabilities. However, because of the unique circumstances of the Chinese civil war, in which the victors established the People’s Republic of China in Beijing in 1949 and the defeated forces retreated to Taiwan, China’s regime legitimacy is at stake in any showdown over Taiwan. If Beijing suffered a defeat that secured Taiwan’s independence while degrading Beijing’s regime legitimacy and security, the Chinese regime might not survive the domestic blowback.7 Diagram 2Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis – What Happens If The US Offers Game-Changing Military Support To Taiwan? Thus we reduce the Chinese payout in the case of American victory. In the top right cell of Diagram 2, the row player’s payout falls from two points (2ppt) in the first diagram to one point (1ppt) in this diagram. This seemingly slight change entirely alters the outcome of the game. Beijing now faces equally bad outcomes in the event of defeat, whereas victory remains preferable to a tie. Therefore as long as China believes that the US will not resort to nuclear weapons to defend Taiwan (a reasonable assessment) then it may make the mistake of opting for military force to ensure victory. Fortunately for global investors the US is not providing Taiwan with game-changing military capabilities, although it is ultimately up to China to decide what threatens its security and the US is in the process of upgrading Taiwan’s defense in an effort to deter Beijing from forceful reunification. Thus the exercise demonstrates why we do not expect immediate war – no game-changer yet – but at the same time it shows why war is much likelier than the consensus holds if the military or political status quo changes in a way that China deems strategically unacceptable. A lower-degree Taiwan crisis should be expected – i.e. one in which the US maintains tech restrictions, offers arms sales or military training that do not upend the military balance, or signs free trade agreements or other significant upgrades to the US-Taiwan relationship.8 We would give a 60% probability to some kind of crisis over the next 12-24 months. The global equity market could at least suffer a 10% correction in a standard geopolitical crisis and it could easily fall 20% if US-China war appears more likely. What would trigger a full-fledged Taiwan war? We would grow even more alarmed if we saw one of three major developments: Chinese internal instability giving rise to a still more aggressive regime; the US providing Taiwan with offensive military capabilities; or Taiwan seeking formal political independence. The first is fairly likely, the second lends itself to miscalculation, and the third is unlikely. But it would only take one or two of these to increase the war risk dramatically. Bottom Line: The Taiwan Strait is still the critical geopolitical risk and Biden’s policy on China is still unclear. Iranian and North Korean tensions will escalate in the short run but the fundamental crisis lies in Taiwan. Since some kind of showdown is likely and war cannot be ruled out we advise clients to accumulate safe-haven assets like the Japanese yen and otherwise not to bet headlong against the US dollar until it loses momentum. Emerging Markets Round-Up In this section we will briefly update some important emerging market themes and views: Chart 8Favor USMCA Over Putin's Russia Russia: US-Russia tensions are escalating in the face of Biden’s reassertion of the US bid for liberal hegemony, which poses a direct threat to Russia’s influence in eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Ukraine is expected to see a renewed conflict this spring. The top US and Russian military commanders spoke on the phone for the second time this year after Ukrainian military reports indicated that Russia is amassing forces on the border. We also assign a 50/50 chance that the US will use sanctions to prevent the completion of the NordStream II pipeline from Russia to Germany, an event that would shake up the German election as well as provoke a Russian backlash. The Russian ruble has suffered a long slide since Putin’s invasion of Georgia in 2008 and Crimea in 2014 and the country’s currency and equities have not staged much of a comeback amid the global cyclical upswing and commodity price rally post-COVID. We recommend investors favor the Canadian dollar and Mexican peso as oil plays in the context of American stimulus and persistent Russian geopolitical risk (Chart 8). We also favor developed market European stocks over emerging Europe, which will suffer from renewed US-Russia tensions. Brazil: Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro’s domestic political troubles are metastasizing as expected – the rally-around-the-flag effect in the face of COVID-19 has faded and his popular approval rating now looks dangerously like President Trump’s did, relative to previous presidents, which is an ominous warning for the “Trump of the South,” who faces an election in October 2022 (Chart 9). The COVID-19 deaths are skyrocketing, with intensive care units reaching critical levels across the country. The president has reshuffling his cabinet, including all three heads of the military in an unprecedented disruption that compounds fears about his willingness to politicize the military.9 Meanwhile the judicial system looks likely (but not certain) to clear former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva to run against Bolsonaro for the presidency, a potent threat (Chart 10). Bolsonaro’s three pillars of political viability have cracked under the pandemic: the country remains disorderly, the systemic corruption and the “Car Wash” scandal under the former ruling party are no longer at the center of public focus, and fiscal stimulus has replaced structural reform. Chart 9Brazil: Will ‘Trump Of The South’ Face Trump’s Fate? Our Brazilian GeoRisk Indicator has reached a peak with Bolsonaro’s crisis – and likely breaking of the fiscal spending growth cap put in place at the height of the political crisis in 2016 – while Brazilian equities relative to emerging markets have hit a triple bottom (Chart 11). It is too soon for investors to buy into Brazil given that the political upheaval can get worse before it gets better and a Lula administration is no cure for Brazil’s public debt crisis, though a short-term technical rally is at hand. Chart 10Brazil’s Lula Looks To Be A Contender In 2022? Chart 11Brazil: Policy Risk Peaks, Equities Hit Triple-Bottom Versus EM India: A lot has happened since we last updated our views on India, South Asia, and the broader Indian Ocean basin. Farmer protests broke out in India, forcing Prime Minister Narendra Modi to temporarily suspend his much-needed structural reforms to the agricultural sector, while China-backed military coup broke out in Myanmar, and the US election set up a return to negotiations with Iran and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Perhaps the biggest surprise was the Indo-Pakistani ceasefire, despite boiling tensions over India’s decision to make Jammu and Kashmir a federal union territory. The ceasefire is temporary but it does highlight a changing geopolitical dynamic in the region. India and Pakistan ceased fire along the Line of Control where they have fought many times. The ceasefire does not resolve core problems – Pakistan will not stop supporting militant proxies and India will not grant Kashmir autonomy – but it does show their continued ability to manage the intensity of disputes while dealing with the global pandemic. An earlier sign of coordination occurred after the exchange of air strikes in early 2019, which preceded the Indian election and suggested that India and Pakistan had the ability to control their military encounters. India’s move to revoke the autonomy of Jammu and Kashmir in August 2019, along with various militant operations, created the basis for another major conflict this year. After all, the Kargil war in 1999 followed nuclear weaponization, while the 2008 conflict followed the Mumbai attack. But instead India and Pakistan have agreed to a temporary truce. A major India-Pakistan conflict would be a “black swan” as nobody is expecting it at this point. Not coincidentally, India and China also reduced tensions after the flare-up in their Himalayan territorial disputes in 2020. China may be reducing tensions now that it no longer has to distract its population from Trump and the US election. China is shifting its focus to the Myanmar coup, another area where it hopes to parlay its influence with a Biden administration preoccupied with democracy and human rights. Sino-Indian tensions will resume later, especially as China continues its infrastructure construction at the farthest reaches of its territory for the sake of economic stimulus, internal control, and military logistics. The Biden administration is adopting the Trump administration’s efforts to draw India into a democratic alliance. But more urgently it is trying to withdraw from Afghanistan and cut a deal with Iran, which means it will need Indian and Pakistani cooperation and will want India to play a supportive role. Typically India eschews alliances and it will disapprove of Biden’s paternalism. For both China and Pakistan, making a temporary truce with India discourages it from synching up relations with the US immediately. Still, we expect India to cooperate more closely with the US over time, both on economic and security matters. This includes a beefed up “Quad” (Quadrilateral Security Dialogue) with Japan and Australia, which already have strong economic ties with India. Biden’s attempt to frame US foreign policy as a global restoration of democracy and liberalism will not go very far if he alienates the largest democracy in the world and in Asia. Nor will his attempt to diversify the US economy away from China or counter China’s regional assertiveness. Therefore Biden will have to take a supportive role on US-India ties. We are sticking with our contrarian long India / short China equity trade (Chart 12). India cannot achieve its geopolitical goals without reforming its economy and for that very reason it will redouble its structural reform drive, which is supported by changing voting patterns in favor of accelerating nationwide economic development. India will also receive a tailwind from the US and its allies as they seek to diversify production sources and reduce supply chain dependency on China, at least for health, defense, and tech. Meanwhile China’s government is pursing import substitution, deleveraging, and conflict with its neighbors and the United States. While Chinese equities are much cheaper than Indian equities on a P/E basis, they are not as pricey on a P/B and P/S basis (Chart 13) – and valuation trends can continue under the current macro and geopolitical backdrop. Indian equities are more volatile but from a long-term and geopolitical point of view, India’s moment has arrived. Chart 12Contrarian Trade: Stick To Long India / Short China Bottom Line: Stay long Indian equities relative to Chinese and stay short Russian and Brazilian currencies and assets. These views are based on political and geopolitical themes that will remain relevant over the long run but are also seeing short-term confirmation. Chart 13Indian Stocks Not As Over-Priced On Price-To-Book, Price-To-Sales Investment Takeaways To conclude we want to highlight two investment takeaways. First, while the market has rallied in expectation of the US stimulus package, Biden must now get the package passed. This roller coaster process, combined with the inevitable European recovery once the vaccine rollout gets on its feet (Chart 14), will power an additional rally in cyclicals, value stocks, and commodities. This is true as long as China does not tighten monetary and fiscal policy too abruptly, a risk we have highlighted in previous reports. Chart 14Europe's Vaccination Problem While the US is pursuing “Buy American” provisions within its stimulus package, its growing trade deficit shows that it will be forced to import goods and services to meet its surging demand. This is beneficial for its nearest trade partners, Canada and Mexico, and Europe – as well as China substitutes further afield in some cases. Our European Investment Strategist Mathieu Savary has pointed out the opportunities lurking in Europe at a time when vaccine troubles and lockdowns are clouding the medium-term economic view, which is brightening. He recommends going long the “laggard” sectors and sub-sectors that have not benefited much relative to “leaders” that rallied sharply in the wake of last year’s stimulus, vaccine discovery, and defeat of President Trump (Chart 15). The laggard sectors are primed to outperform on rising US interest rates and decelerating Chinese economy as well (Chart 16). Therefore we recommend going long his basket of Euro Area laggards and short the leaders. Chart 15Europe’s Laggards And Leaders Chart 16Macro Forces Favor The Laggards over the Leaders Chart 17Will OPEC 2.0 Maintain Production Discipline To Keep Oil Supplies Tight? Commodities – especially base metals – will continue to benefit from the global and European reopening as well as the US infrastructure buildout, assuming that China does not shoot its economy in the foot. Our Commodity & Energy Strategy highlights that global oil prices should remain in a $60-$80 per barrel range over the coming years on the back of tight supply/demand balances and ongoing OPEC 2.0 production management (Chart 17). We continue to see upside oil price risks in the first half of the year but downside risks in the second half. The US pursuit of a deal with Iran may trigger sparks initially – i.e. unplanned supply outages – but this will be followed by increased supply from Iran and/or OPEC 2.0 as a deal becomes evident.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 White House, "Remarks by President Biden on the American Jobs Plan," Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, March 31, 2021, whitehouse.gov. 2 A bipartisan bill is conceivably, barely, since Republicans face pressure to join with such a popular bill, but they cannot accept the corporate tax hikes, unionization, or green boondoggles that will inevitably occur. 3 The pandemic and President Trump’s hands-off attitude toward it helped galvanize this revival of Big Government, but the revival was already well on its way prior to the pandemic. 4 White House, "Remarks by President Biden in Press Conference," March 25, 2021, whitehouse.gov. 5 Again, "the most dangerous concern is that of a military force against Taiwan," though he implied that Beijing would wait until after the February 2022 Winter Olympics before taking action. He requested that the US urgently increase regional military defense. See Senate Armed Services Committee, "Nomination – Aquilino," March 23, 2021, armed-services.senate.gov. 6 At that time the Soviet Union stationed nuclear missiles in Cuba that threatened the US homeland directly and sent a convoy to make the missile installation permanent. The US imposed a blockade. A showdown ensued, at great risk of war, until the Soviets withdrew and the Americans made some compromises regarding missiles in Turkey. 7 Note that this was not the case for the US in 1962: Cuba did not have special significance for the legitimacy of the American republic and the American regime would have survived a defeat in the showdown, although its security would have been greatly compromised. 8 Taiwan is proposing to buy a missile segment enhancement for its Patriot Advanced Capability-3 missile defense system for delivery in 2025, though this is not yet confirmed by the Biden administration. See for example Yimou Lee, "Taiwan To Buy New U.S. Air Defence Missiles To Guard Against China," Reuters, March 31, 2021, reuters.com. 9 See Monica Gugliano, "I Will Intervene! The Day Bolsonaro Decided To Send Troops To The Supreme Court," Folha de São Paulo, August 2020, piaui.folha.uol.com.br.

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