Mexico

Highlights The US Climate Prediction Center gives ~ 70% odds another La Niña will form in the August – October interval and will continue through winter 2021-22. This will be a second-year La Niña if it forms, and will raise the odds of a repeat of last winter's cold weather in the Northern Hemisphere.1 Europe's natural-gas inventory build ahead of the coming winter remains erratic, particularly as Russian flows via Ukraine to the EU have been reduced this year. Russia's Nord Stream 2 could be online by November, but inventories will still be low. China, Japan, South Korea and India  – the four top LNG consumers in Asia  – took in 155 Bcf of the fuel in June. A colder-than-normal winter would boost demand. Higher prices are likely in Europe and Asia (Chart of the Week). US storage levels will be lower going into winter, as power generation demand remains stout, and the lingering effects from Hurricane Ida reduce supplies available for inventory injections. Despite spot prices trading ~ $1.30/MMBtu above last winter's highs – currently ~ $4.60/MMBtu – we are going long 1Q22 NYMEX $5.00/MMBtu natgas calls vs short NYMEX $5.50/MMBtu natgas calls expecting even higher prices. Feature Last winter's La Niña was a doozy. It brought extreme cold to Asia, North America and Europe, which pulled natural gas storage levels sharply lower and drove prices sharply higher as the Chart of the Week shows. Natgas storage in the US and Europe will be tight going into this winter (Chart 2). Europe's La Niña lingered a while into Spring, keeping temps low and space-heating demand high, which delayed the start of re-building inventory for the coming winter.  In the US, cold temps in the Midwest hampered production, boosted demand and caused inventory to draw hard. Chart of the WeekA Return Of La Niña Could Boost Global Natgas Prices Chart 2Europe, US Gas Stocks Will Be Tight This Winter Summer in the US also produced strong natgas demand, particularly out West, as power generators eschewed coal in favor of gas to meet stronger air-conditioning demand. This is partly due to the closing of coal-fired units, leaving more of the load to be picked up by gas-fired generation (Chart 3). The EIA estimates natgas consumption in July was up ~ 4 Bcf/d to just under 76 Bcf/d. Hurricane Ida took ~ 1 bcf/d of demand out of the market, which was less than the ~ 2 Bcf/d hit to US Gulf supply resulting from the storm.  As a result, prices were pushed higher at the margin. Chart 3Generators Prefer Gas To Coal US natgas exports (pipeline and LNG) also were strong, at 18.2 Bcf/d in July (Chart 4). We expect US LNG exports, in particular, to resume growth as the world recovers from the COVID-19 pandemic (Chart 5). This strong demand and exports, coupled with slightly lower supply from the Lower 48 states – estimated at ~ 98 Bcf/d by the EIA for July (Chart 6) – pushed prices up by 18% from June to July, "the largest month-on-month percentage change for June to July since 2012, when the price increased 20.3%" according to the EIA. Chart 4US Natgas Exports Remain Strong Chart 5US LNG Exports Will Resume Growth Chart 6US Lower 48 Natgas Production Recovering Elsewhere in the Americas, Brazil has been a strong bid for US LNG – accounting for 32.3 Bcf of demand in  June – as hydroelectric generation flags due to the prolonged drought in the country. In Asia, demand for LNG remains strong, with the four top consumers – China, Japan, South Korea, and India – taking in 155 Bcf in June, according to the EIA. Gas Infrastructure Ex-US Remains Challenged A combination of extreme cold weather in Northeast Asia, and a lack of gas storage infrastructure in Asia generally, along with shipping constraints and supply issues at LNG export facilities, led to the Asian natural gas price spike in mid-January.2 Very cold weather in Northeast Asia, drove up LNG demand during the winter months. In China, LNG imports for the month of January rose by ~ 53% y-o-y (Chart 7).3 The increase in imports from Asia coincided with issues at major export plants in Australia, Norway and Qatar during that period. Chart 7China's US LNG Exports Surged Last Winter, And Remain Stout Over The Summer Substantially higher JKM (Japan-Korea Marker) prices incentivized US exporters to divert LNG cargoes from Europe to Asia last winter. The longer roundtrip times to deliver LNG from the US to Asia – instead of Europe – resulted in a reduction of shipping capacity, which ended up compounding market tightness in Europe. Europe dealt with the switch by drawing ~ 18 bcm more from their storage vs. the previous year, across the November to January period. Countries in Asia - most notably Japan – however, do not have robust natural gas storage facilities, further contributing to price volatility, especially in extreme weather events. These storage constraints remain in place going into the coming winter. In addition, there is a high probability the global weather pattern responsible for the cold spells around the globe that triggered price spikes in key markets globally – i.e., a second La Niña event – will return. A Second-Year La Niña  Event The price spikes and logistical challenges of last winter were the result of atmospheric circulation anomalies that were bolstered by a La Niña event that began in mid-2020.4 The La Niña is characterized by colder sea-surface temperatures that develops over the Pacific equator, which displaces atmospheric and wind circulation and leads to colder temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere (Map 1). Map 1La Niña Raises The Odds Of Colder Temps The IEA notes last winter started off without any exceptional deviations from an average early winter, but as the new year opened "natural gas markets experienced severe supply-demand tensions in the opening weeks of 2021, with extremely cold temperature episodes sending spot prices to record levels."5 In its most recent ENSO update, the US Climate Prediction Center raised the odds of another La Niña event for this winter to 70% this month. If similar conditions to those of the 2020-21 winter emerge, US and European inventories could be stretched even thinner than last year, as space-heating demand competes with industrial and commercial demand resulting from the economic recovery. Global Natgas Supplies Will Stay Tight JKM prices and TTF (Dutch Title Transfer Facility) prices are likely to remain elevated going into winter, as seen in the Chart of the Week. Fundamentals have kept markets tight so far. Uncertain Russian supply to Europe will raise the price of the European gas index (TTF). This, along with strong Asian demand, particularly from China, will keep JKM prices high (Chart 8). The global economic recovery is the main short-term driver of higher natgas demand, with China leading the way. For the longer-term, natural gas is considered as the ideal transition fuel to green energy, as it emits less carbon than other fossil fuels. For this reason, demand is expected to grow by 3.4% per annum until 2035, and reach peak consumption later than other fossil fuels, according to McKinsey.6 Chart 8BCAs Brent Forecast Points To Higher JKM Prices Spillovers from the European natural gas market impact Asian markets, as was demonstrated last winter. Russian supply to Europe – where inventories are at their lowest level in a decade – has dropped over the last few months. This could either be the result of Russia's attempts to support its case for finishing Nord Stream 2 and getting it running as soon as possible, or because it is physically unable to supply natural gas.7 A fire at a condensate plant in Siberia at the beginning of August supports the latter conjecture. The reduced supply from Russia, comes at a time when EU carbon permit prices have been consistently breaking records, making the cost of natural gas competitive compared to more heavy carbon emitting fossil fuels – e.g., coal and oil – despite record breaking prices. With Europe beginning the winter season with significantly lower stock levels vs. previous years, TTF prices will remain volatile. This, and strong demand from China, will support JKM prices. Investment Implications Natural gas prices are elevated, with spot NYMEX futures trading ~ $1.30/MMBtu above last winter's highs – currently ~ $4.60/MMBtu. Our analysis indicates prices are justifiably high, and could – with the slightest unexpected news – move sharply higher. Because natgas is, at the end of the day, a weather market, we favor low-cost/low-risk exposures. In the current market, we recommend going long 1Q22 NYMEX $5.00/MMBtu natgas calls vs short NYMEX $5.50/MMBtu natgas calls expecting even higher prices. This is the trade we recommended on 8 April 2021, at a lower level, which was stopped out on 12 August 2021 with a gain of 188%.   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 Earlier this week, Saudi Aramco lowered its official selling price (OSP) by more than was expected – lowering its premium to the regional benchmark to $1.30/bbl from $1.70/bbl – in what media reports based on interviews with oil traders suggest is an attempt to win back customers electing not to take volumes under long-term contracts. This is a marginal adjustment by Aramco, but still significant, as it shows the company will continue to defend its market share. Pricing to Northwest Europe and the US markets is unchanged. Aramco's majority shareholder, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), is the putative leader of OPEC 2.0 (aka, OPEC+) along with Russia. The producer coalition is in the process of returning 400k b/d to the market every month until it has restored the 5.8mm b/d of production it took off the market to support prices during the COVID-19 pandemic. We expect Brent crude oil prices to average $70/bbl in 2H21, $73/bbl in 2022 and $80/bbl in 2023. Base Metals: Bullish Political uncertainty in Guinea caused aluminum prices to rise to more than a 10-year high this week (Chart 9). A coup in the world’s second largest exporter of bauxite – the main ore source for aluminum – began on Sunday, rattling aluminum markets. While iron ore prices rebounded primarily on the record value of Chinese imports in August, the coup in Guinea – which has the highest level of iron ore reserves – could have also raised questions about supply certainty. This will contribute to iron-ore price volatility. However, we do not believe the coup will impact the supply of commodities as much as markets are factoring, as coup leaders in commodity-exporting countries typically want to keep their source of income intact and functioning. Precious Metals: Bullish Gold settled at a one-month high last Friday, when the US Bureau of Labor Statistics released the August jobs report. The rise in payrolls data was well below analysts’ estimates, and was the lowest gain in seven months. The yellow metal rose on this news as the weak employment data eased fears about Fed tapering, and refocused markets on COVID-19 and the delta variant. Since then, however, the yellow metal has not been able to consolidate gains. After falling to a more than one-month low on Friday, the US dollar rose on Tuesday, weighing on gold prices (Chart 10). Chart 9 Chart 10       Footnotes 1      Please see the US Climate Prediction Center's ENSO: Recent Evolution, Current Status and Predictions report published on September 6, 2021. 2     Please see Asia LNG Price Spike: Perfect Storm or Structural Failure? Published by Oxford Institute for Energy Studies. 3     Since China LNG import data were reported as a combined January and February value in 2020, we halved the combined value to get the January 2020 amount. 4     Please see The 2020/21 Extremely Cold Winter in China Influenced by the Synergistic Effect of La Niña and Warm Arctic by Zheng, F., and Coauthors (2021), published in Advances in Atmospheric Sciences. 5     Please see the IEA's Gas Market Report, Q2-2021 published in April 2021. 6     Please see Global gas outlook to 2050 | McKinsey on February 26, 2021. 7     Please see ICIS Analyst View: Gazprom’s inability to supply or unwillingness to deliver? published on August 13, 2021.   Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2021 Summary of Closed Trades

Highlights The dollar is fighting a tug of war between two diverging forces: an economic slowdown around the world but plunging real interest rates in the US. The litmus test for determining which force will gain the upper hand is if the DXY fails to break above the 93-94 level that marked the March highs. So far that appears to be the case. In the interim, investors can capitalize on a few themes that will ultimately unfold: an end to the China slowdown, a bet on real rates staying low for longer, and a play on the Olympics. The expressions of these themes are long AUD/MXN, long silver and long the yen, respectively. Natural disasters are also rising in frequency globally. Historically, this has coincided with rising currency volatility. Long CHF/NZD positions can be a potent play on this trend. We ultimately expect the dollar lower 9-12 months from now. The best currencies to express this view today are NOK and SEK. Feature We are a month into the second half of year, and it is instructive to revisit the dollar view and our roadmap towards year-end. As a starting point, two key themes are propping the dollar on a tactical basis: The first is a global economic slowdown, one that could be exacerbated by increased infections of the COVID-19 Delta variant. The dollar tends to rise in an environment where global growth is weak. This is especially the case when US growth is relatively resilient, like now (Chart I-1). The second is the resilience of the US equity market, not only due to superior earnings, but also as regulatory crackdowns hit shares in China specifically, and emerging markets in general. Equity inflows into the US were a key reason the dollar did not collapse in 2020. Renewed inflows into US equities will be particularly beneficial for the dollar (Chart I-2). This will especially be the case if technology and healthcare earnings keep surprising to the upside. Chart I-1The Dollar And Relative Economic Momentum Chart I-2The US Is Leading The Earnings ##br##Cycle At the same time, real interest rates in the US are very depressed. In its latest meeting, the Federal Reserve reiterated that it will keep running the economy hot, a thesis central to our bearish dollar view. This puts the dollar in a tug of war between two diverging forces: an economic slowdown around the world but plunging real interest rates in the US. Arbitrating The Tug Of War Historically, unless the world economy experiences a recession, the interest rate story has dominated currency market action. Our report last week showed that real interest rates matter for currencies both short term and longer term. Given our bias that global growth will moderate rather than contract, the future path of interest rates will once again become important for currency market action. In this light, lower real rates are negative for the US dollar. How long the outperformance of US equities will last is a tougher call. What we do know is that in a rising interest rate environment, the US equity market has tended to derate relative to the rest of the world. Our base case is that bond yields will be higher globally on a cyclical horizon, suggesting investors should fade the current outperformance of US equities. Scandinavian Currencies As A Strategic Dollar Play The best currencies to express a cyclically lower dollar are the NOK and SEK, for a few reasons other than the strong correlation with the DXY index (Chart I-3): Chart I-3NOK And SEK Are A Play On DXY Economic momentum in both Norway and Sweden is picking up steam. In Norway, high oil prices will be a cyclical boost to the currency, as has been the case historically. Meanwhile, Sweden is benefiting from a strong manufacturing landscape, especially in autos where pricing has skyrocketed due to shortages. While the Swedish manufacturing PMI has moderated recently, it still sits at 65.8, the highest level since the mid-1990s. Both currencies remain very cheap according to our models. Our favored PPP model shows that NOK and SEK are trading at a discount of 20% and 17% respectively, amongst the cheapest in the G10 (Chart I-4). Chart I-4The Dollar Is Expensive Norway, Sweden and Canada are among the countries whose output gaps are expected to close relatively fast (Chart I-5). In the case of Norway (and Canada), the central bank has been vocal about curtailing monetary accommodation, as market conditions improve. The upside surprise in Swedish GDP this week lowers the odds of more monetary accommodation from the Riksbank. This will boost real rates in these countries, supporting their currencies. Chart I-5Output Gaps Across The G10 In a nutshell, if the dollar heads lower 9-12 months from now, this will benefit most procyclical currencies, with the NOK and SEK as winners. The Yen As An Olympian Chart I-6Currencies And The Olympics We made the case last month that the yen was the most underappreciated G10 currency, and that certainly remains true.  Since then, there has been improvement in the Japanese economy: The vaccination campaign is progressing smoothly, with 27% of the population having been inoculated from almost nil earlier this year. Meanwhile, about 38% have received at least one dose. This should curtail hospitalizations, despite the increase in new cases. Economic momentum remains tepid, but there are green shoots. Real cash earnings are inflecting higher, which is boosting household spending. There was also remarkable improvement in the Eco Watchers Survey, a sign of optimism among small and medium-sized businesses. Global trade remains strong, which is a boost to the Japanese external sector. While this may slow going forward, it will be a benign headwind. Japan is less exposed to China, a key market for exports, compared to its developed market peers like Australia and New Zealand. Meanwhile, China is already easing policy at the margin. The true catalyst for the yen could be the Olympics. Since the 1970s, the median performance of a currency hosting the Olympics is 4% over a year. The performance of the yen today falls well below the 25th percentile of this performance gap (Chart I-6). This year’s games have obviously been unique given the pandemic but given that the yen is the most shorted G10 currency, this is probably already in the price. It also it does raise the prospect that the yen rises from being an underdog to staging a powerful mean reversion rally. While Japan will not get a tourism boost this summer that will buffet discretionary spending, foreigners are likely to return as the pandemic is put behind us. It is remarkable that Japanese shares, even construction and material companies, that should have benefited from the leadup to the Olympics, have massively underperformed (Chart I-7). This suggests that at the margin, many investors have folded hands and sold Japanese equities indiscriminately. Chart I-7Japanese Shares Have Underperformed Finally, real rates in Japan are among the highest in the G10. This will not only prevent Japanese concerns from deploying yen cash on foreign paper, but could also lead to some repatriation of funds, boosting the yen. Low Real Rates: Buy Silver (And Platinum) The case for buying silver has become compelling, at least on a tactical basis. First, the runup in prices from under $12/oz in March to almost $30/oz in August ushered silver into a well-defined wedge formation, with a series of higher lows. We are now sitting close to the lower bound of this wedge. Given our expectation that any DXY rally will be capped at 93-94, this puts a solid floor under silver prices around the $22-$23/oz level (Chart I-8). This makes for an attractive risk/reward since silver could overtake its 2011 highs near $50/oz, once strong resistance at $30/oz is breached. Second, similar to gold, silver benefits from low interest rates, plentiful liquidity, and the incentive for fiat money debasement. But unlike gold or even cryptocurrencies, physical use for silver is quite elevated. Silver fabrication demand benefits from electronic production (whereby there is a shortage, so it is bound to eventually increase), as well as new green industries such as solar power that are dominating the manufacturing landscape (Chart I-9). Meanwhile, our Commodity & Energy Strategists have flagged that the surplus of silver is expected to shrink significantly this year, driven by both industrial and investment demand (Chart I-10). Chart I-8Buy Some Silver Chart I-9Silver Demand Is Picking Up Chart I-10The Silver Surplus Is Shrinking Third, silver is also a more potent play on a lower dollar. This is because the silver market is thinner and more volatile, with futures open interest at about one-third that of gold. Put another way, volatility in silver has always been historically higher than gold, which is why silver tends to outperform gold when the dollar is falling (Chart I-11). Chart I-11Silver Is A More Potent Play On The Dollar It is worth pointing out that the velocity of money between the US and China is slowing again, suggesting growth is likely to start outperforming outside the US, beyond the current slowdown. The US benefits less from a pickup in Chinese growth, compared to other countries. This has generally pushed the dollar lower and set fire under the silver/gold ratio (Chart I-12). Finally, there is also a case to be made for platinum. It has lagged both gold and palladium prices (Chart I-13). Meanwhile, breakthroughs are being made in substituting palladium for platinum in gasoline catalytic converters. Chart I-12Money Velocity And The GSR Chart I-13Platinum And Silver Have Lagged Gold China Slowdown Almost Over: Buy AUD/MXN Soon We highlighted in February that a tactical opportunity had opened to go short the AUD/MXN cross. With the cross down 11% from its recent highs, an opportunity to go long will soon open up. China has started easing policy at the margin. The AUD/MXN cross correlates quite strongly with the Chinese credit cycle, as Australia is economically tied to China while Mexico depends more on the US (Chart I-14). The Australian PMI has remained quite firm, despite a slowdown in the Chinese credit impulse. Strong commodity prices have been a factor, but it also points to endogenous strength in the Aussie economy. Relative terms of trade favor the Aussie. We had expected terms of trade between Australia and Mexico to relapse on the basis of destocking in China, but that has not been the case (Chart I-15). With oil prices structurally challenged by EVs, while metal prices benefit from the buildout of green infrastructure, terms of trade will remain favorable for the cross longer term. Australian stocks have been underperforming the more defensive Mexican bourse (Chart I-16). This should reverse as cyclicals start to regain the upper hand. Chart I-14AUD/MXN Tracks Chinese Credit Chart I-15AUD/MXN And Terms Of Trade Chart I-16AUD/MXN And Relative Equity Prices The timing for a long position is tricky as Chinese economic activity is likely to slow in the coming months, and cyclical equities could remain under pressure. Meanwhile, as value investors, we are also uncomfortable with AUD/MXN valuations. This suggests that in the very near term, short positions still make sense. That said, the 13-14 zone should provide formidable support to go long, an opportunity likely to unfold in the next 3 months (Chart 17).  Chart I-17AUD/MXN And Momentum A Final Thought On Rising Catastrophes We have been watching with obvious trepidation the rising incidence of catastrophes globally. The occurrence of weather events such as droughts, floods, storms, cyclones, and wildfires has been skyrocketing (Chart I-18). Chart I-18Disasters And Volatility The direct play is to buy global construction and machinery stocks that are likely to benefit from increased reconstruction activity. It also favors agricultural futures. As for currency markets, the one observation is rising volatility with the VIX having spiked significantly in the years with numerous weather events.  We are already long CHF/NZD and the yen as a play on rising currency volatility, and we will be exploring this thesis more deeply in future publications.    Chester Ntonifor Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 Data out of the US this week was relatively robust: The Markit manufacturing PMI for July edged up from 62.1 to 63.1. That said, the services PMI fell from 64.6 to 59.8. Durable goods orders were rather weak, rising 0.8% year on year in June, versus a consensus of a 2.2% increase. Admittedly, the core non-defense measure, excluding aircraft and parts, rose by 0.5% from 0.1%. Consumer confidence remains resilient, rising from 127.3 to 129.1 in July, well above expectations. Q2 GDP came in at 6.5% quarter on quarter, versus an 8.4% consensus. The US dollar DXY index fell this week. The Fed meeting highlighted that the authorities are in no rush to tighten monetary policy, despite what has been a robust recovery in labor market conditions and inflation. The aftermath of the meeting saw a drop in US real yields and the dollar. The Fed’s dovish stance has been a central theme to our bearish dollar view. Report Links: Arbitrating Between Dollar Bulls And Bears - March 19, 2021 The Dollar Bull Case Will Soon Fade - March 5, 2021 Are Rising Bond Yields Bullish For The Dollar? - February 19, 2021 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 Data out of the eurozone this week softened: The manufacturing PMI fell to 62.6 in July from 63.4. The services PMI surprisingly improved, rising from 58.3 to 60.4 in July. Economic confidence rose from 117.9 to 119 in July. The German IFO survey was below consensus in July, but the expectations component did rise from 99.6 to 100.4. The euro rose by 1% this week. We went long the euro at 1.18 on expectations that at the margin, monetary policy in the euro area will shift in a more hawkish fashion. Since then, the ECB has adopted a symmetric inflation target, promising to keep interest rates low for longer. The euro’s indifference to this dovish development suggests a strong floor under the currency, and upside should euro area growth beat consensus. Report Links: Relative Growth, The Euro, And The Loonie - April 16, 2021 The Euro Dance: One Step Back, Two Steps Forward - April 2, 2021 On Japanese Inflation And The Yen - January 29, 2021 The Japanese Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Japanese data was rather mixed this week: The Jibun manufacturing PMI eased slightly in July, to 52.2 from 52.4. The services component also fell to 46.4. Department store sales came in at 3.7% year on year in June. We highlighted last week that supermarket sales also remain strong. The yen was up 0.4% against the dollar this week. In the history of the Olympics, the incumbent currency has tended to rise over the course of the year. Given the yen is the most shorted developed-market currency currently, this sets it up for a coiled spring rebound. Report Links: The Case For Japan - June 11, 2021 The Dollar Bull Case Will Soon Fade - March 5, 2021 On Japanese Inflation And The Yen - January 29, 2021 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 There were some mixed data out of the UK this week: Retail sales in the UK were in line with expectations. The measure excluding automobiles and fuel rose by 7.4% year on year in June. The PMIs generally slowed from very strong levels. The manufacturing print for July was 60.4, while the services component came in at 57.8. House price inflation remains strong, with the nationwide measure coming in at 10.5% year on year in July. Mortgage approvals fell slightly in June but remain at a robust 81.3K. The pound rose by 1.5% this week. The big surprise in the UK has been a reversal in the COVID-19 infection rate, despite an economy that is reopening quite briskly. This sets cable up for a volatile few weeks and months, given a poor technical picture (speculations are cutting long positions from very aggressive levels). We like GBP long term but will stand aside for now. Report Links: Why Are UK Interest Rates Still So Low? - March 10, 2021 Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 Thoughts On The British Pound - December 18, 2020 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 The inflation report in Australia was in line with expectations for Q2: Headline CPI rose from 1.1% to 3.8%. The trimmed mean and median measure came in at 1.6% and 1.7% respectively. The AUD was flat this week, the worst performing G10 currency. The dominant story remains the renewed restrictions from a resurgence in COVID-19, particularly in Sydney. That said, weakness in AUD is starting to create an attractive reward/risk profile. Speculators are net short the Australian dollar, and our bias is that there has been spillover pressure from the recent turmoil in Asian/Chinese markets. In the end, this only makes for a coiled spring rebound in the AUD. Report Links: The Dollar Bull Case Will Soon Fade - March 5, 2021 Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 Australia: Regime Change For Bond Yields & The Currency? - January 20, 2021 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 The was scant data out of New Zealand this week: The trade balance came in at NZ$261 million, even with stronger imports in June. The ANZ activity outlook index fell in July, to 26.3 from 31.6. The NZD was up 0.5% this week. The strong rally in NZD after a hawkish RBNZ a fortnight ago continues to fade. This week, we highlighted a new theme, which is the rising incidence of natural disasters. Historically, this has been great for agricultural prices, benefiting NZD. But it has also been accompanied by a tremendous rise in currency volatility, which hurts the NZD vis-à-vis safe-haven currencies. We are currently long CHF/NZD and will be exploring this theme in future publications. Report Links: How High Can The Kiwi Rise? - April 30, 2021 Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 Currencies And The Value-Versus-Growth Debate - July 10, 2020 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 Data out of Canada this week has been mixed: Retail sales fell month on month in May by 2.1% but this was above expectations. Inflation remains robust. Headline CPI was 3.1%, while the core trim, median and common measures came in at 2.6%, 2.4% and 1.7% respectively. The CAD rose by 0.8% this week. The backdrop for the loonie remains positive as the Bank of Canada is leaning against monetary accommodation by tapering asset purchases, and signaling interest rate increases, while the Fed remains on hold. These pin real interest rate differentials in favor of the loonie. Report Links: Relative Growth, The Euro, And The Loonie - April 16, 2021 Will The Canadian Recovery Lead Or Lag The Global Cycle? - February 12, 2021 The Outlook For The Canadian Dollar - October 9, 2020 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 There was scant data out of Switzerland this week: Investor confidence from the Credit Suisse survey fell in July, from 51.3 to 42.8. Total sight deposits were unchanged at CHF 712 bn for the week of July 23. The Swiss franc was up 1.3% this week. Incoming Swiss inflation data next week will dictate whether the SNB steps up the pace of FX intervention. So far, there have been no big moves in the CHF exchange rate to implore central bank attention. A rebound in global bond yields will be a welcome relief since the franc tends to weaken in that environment. For the time being, we believe volatility can continue to rise. As such, the franc will benefit, justifying long CHF/NZD bets. Report Links: An Update On The Swiss Franc - April 9, 2021 Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 The Dollar Conundrum And Protection - November 6, 2020 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 There was scant data out of Norway this week: Retail sales were flat month on month in June. The NOK was up 1% this week. Our limit buy on Scandinavian currencies was triggered a fortnight ago, nudging us in the money with this week’s currency moves. We are not fighting the Norges Bank, which has signaled they will increase interest rates this year, ahead of both the Federal Reserve and the ECB. As such, we are short EUR/NOK and USD/NOK. Report Links: The Norwegian Method - June 4, 2021 Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 Revisiting Our High-Conviction Trades - September 11, 2020 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 Recent data from Sweden have been improving: The PPI for July came in at 9.6%, up from 7.9%. The June trade balance showed a healthy surplus of SEK 10.3 billion. The economic tendency survey for July came in at 122.4 from 119.8. Manufacturing confidence continues to inflect higher, rising from 125.2 to 129.2 in July. The SEK was the strongest performing G10 currency this week, rising 1.5%. Swedish Q2 GDP was a welcome positive surprise, up by 10.5% year on year and 0.9% quarter on quarter. This is paring back expectations of more stimulus from the Riksbank. We have been highlighting that SEK remains one of our most potent plays on a global growth recovery. As such, we are short EUR/SEK and USD/SEK. Report Links: Revisiting Our High-Conviction Trades - September 11, 2020 More On Competitive Devaluations, The CAD And The SEK - May 1, 2020 Sweden Beyond The Pandemic: Poised To Re-leverage - March 19, 2020 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Limit Orders Closed Trades

Highlights Geopolitical risk is trickling back into financial markets. China’s fiscal-and-credit impulse collapsed again. The Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index is ticking back up after the sharp drop from 2020. All of our proprietary GeoRisk Indicators are elevated or rising. Geopolitical risk often rises during bull markets – the Geopolitical Risk Index can even spike without triggering a bear market or recession. Nevertheless a rise in geopolitical risk is positive for the US dollar, which happens to stand at a critical technical point. The macroeconomic backdrop for the dollar is becoming less bearish given China’s impending slowdown. President Biden’s trip to Europe and summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin will underscore a foreign policy of forming a democratic alliance to confront Russia and China, confirming the secular trend of rising geopolitical risk. Shift to a defensive tactical position. Feature Back in March 2017 we wrote a report, “Donald Trump Is Who We Thought He Was,” in which we reaffirmed our 2016 view that President Trump would succeed in steering the US in the direction of fiscal largesse and trade protectionism. Now it is time for us to do the same with President Biden. Our forecast for Biden rested on the same points: the US would pursue fiscal profligacy and mercantilist trade policy. The recognition of a consistent national policy despite extreme partisan divisions is a testament to the usefulness of macro analysis and the geopolitical method. Trump stole the Democrats’ thunder with his anti-austerity and anti-free trade message. Biden stole it back. It was the median voter in the Rust Belt who was calling the shots all along (after all, Biden would still have won the election without Arizona and Georgia). We did make some qualifications, of course. Biden would maintain a hawkish line on China and Russia but he would reject Trump’s aggressive foreign and trade policy when it came to US allies.1 Biden would restore President Obama’s policy on Iran and immigration but not Russia, where there would be no “diplomatic reset.” And Biden’s fiscal profligacy, unlike Trump’s, would come with tax hikes on corporations and the wealthy … even though they would fall far short of offsetting the new spending. This is what brings us to this week’s report: New developments are confirming this view of the Biden administration. Geopolitical Risk And Bull Markets Chart 1Global Geopolitical Risk And The Dollar In recent weeks Biden has adopted a hawkish policy on China, lowered tensions with Europe, and sought to restore President Obama’s policy of détente with Iran. The jury is still out on relations with Russia – Biden will meet with Putin on June 16 – but we do not expect a 2009-style “reset” that increases engagement. Still, it is too soon to declare a “Biden doctrine” of foreign policy because Biden has not yet faced a major foreign crisis. A major test is coming soon. Biden’s decision to double down on hawkish policy toward China will bring ramifications. His possible deal with Iran faces a range of enemies, including within Iran. His reduction in tensions with Russia is not settled yet. While the specific source and timing of his first major foreign policy crisis is impossible predict, structural tensions are rebuilding. An aggregate of our 13 market-based GeoRisk indicators suggests that global political risk is skyrocketing once again. A sharp spike in the indicator, which is happening now, usually correlates with a dollar rally (Chart 1). This indicator is mean-reverting since it measures the deviation of emerging market currencies, or developed market equity markets, from underlying macroeconomic fundamentals. The implication is positive for the dollar, although the correlation is not always positive. Looking at both the DXY’s level and its rate of change shows periods when the global risk indicator fell yet the dollar stayed strong – and vice versa. The big increase in the indicator over the past week stems mostly from Germany, South Korea, Brazil, and Australia, though all 13 of the indicators are now either elevated or rising, including the China/Taiwan indicators. Some of the increase is due to base effects. As global exports recover, currencies and equities that we monitor are staying weaker than one would expect. This causes the relevant BCA GeoRisk indicator to rise. Base effects from the weak economy in June 2020 will fall out in coming weeks. But the aggregate shows that all of the indicators are either high or rising and, on a country by country level, they are now in established uptrends even aside from base effects. Chart 2Global Policy Uncertainty Revives Meanwhile the global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index is recovering across the world after the drop in uncertainty following the COVID-19 crisis (Chart 2). Policy uncertainty is also linked to the dollar and this indicator shows that it is rising on a secular basis. The Geopolitical Risk Index, maintained by Matteo Iacoviello and a group of academics affiliated with the Policy Uncertainty Index, is also in a secular uptrend, although cyclically it has not recovered from the post-COVID drop-off. It is sensitive to traditional, war-linked geopolitical risk as reported in newspapers. By contrast our proprietary indicators are sensitive to market perceptions of any kind of risk, not just political, both domestic and international. A comparison of the Geopolitical Risk Index with the S&P 500 over the past century shows that a geopolitical crisis may occur at the beginning of a business cycle but it may not be linked with a recession or bear market. Risk can rise, even extravagantly, during economic expansions without causing major pullbacks. But a crisis event certainly can trigger a recession or bear market, particularly if it is tied to the global oil supply, as in the early 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s (Chart 3). Chart 3Secular Rise In Geopolitical Risk Soon To Reassert Itself While geopolitical risk is normally positive for the dollar, the macroeconomic backdrop is negative. The dollar’s attempt to recover earlier this year faltered. This underlying cyclical bearish dollar trend is due to global economic recovery – which will continue – and extravagant American monetary expansion and budget deficits. This is why we have preferred gold – it is a hedge against both geopolitical risk and inflation expectations. Tactically this year we have refrained from betting against the dollar except when building up some safe-haven positions like Japanese yen. Over the medium and long term we expect geopolitical risk to put a floor under the greenback. The bottom line is that the US dollar is at a critical technical crossroads where it could break out or break down. Macro factors suggest a breakdown but the recovery of global policy uncertainty and geopolitical risk suggests the opposite. We remain neutral. A final quantitative indicator of the recovery of geopolitical risk is the performance of global aerospace and defense stocks (Chart 4). Defense shares are rising in absolute and relative terms. Chart 4Another Sign Of Geopolitical Risk: Defense Stocks Outperform As Virus Ebbs And Military Spending Surges Can The WWII Peace Be Prolonged? Qualitative assessments of geopolitical risk are necessary to explain why risk is on a secular upswing – why drops in the quantitative indicators are temporary and the troughs keep getting higher. Great nations are returning to aggressive competition after a period of relative peace and prosperity. Over the past two decades Russia and China took advantage of America’s preoccupations with the Middle East, the financial crisis, and domestic partisanship in order to build up their global influence. The result is a world in which authority is contested. The current crisis is not merely about the end of the post-Cold War international order. It is much scarier than that. It is about the decay of the post-WWII international order and the return of the centuries-long struggle for global supremacy among Great Powers. The US and European political establishments fear the collapse of the WWII settlement in the face of eroding legitimacy at home and rising challenges from abroad. The 1945 peace settlement gave rise to both a Cold War and a diplomatic system, including the United Nations Security Council, for resolving differences among the great powers. It also gave rise to European integration and various institutions of American “liberal hegemony.” It is this system of managing great power struggle, and not the post-Cold War system of American domination, that lies in danger of unraveling. This is evident from the following points: American preeminence only lasted fifteen years, or at best until the 2008 Georgia war and global financial crisis. The US has been an incoherent wild card for at least 13 years now, almost as long as it was said to be the global empire. Russian antagonism with the West never really ended. In retrospect the 1990s were a hiatus rather than a conclusion of this conflict. China’s geopolitical rise has thawed the frozen conflicts in Asia from the 1940s-50s – i.e. the Chinese civil war, the Hong Kong and Taiwan Strait predicaments, the Korean conflict, Japanese pacifism, and regional battles for political influence and territory. Europe’s inward focus and difficulty projecting power have been a constant, as has its tendency to act as a constraint on America. Only now is Europe getting closer to full independence (which helped trigger Brexit). Geopolitical pressures will remain historically elevated for the foreseeable future because the underlying problem is whether great power struggle can be contained and major wars can be prevented. Specifically the question is whether the US can accommodate China’s rise – and whether China can continue to channel its domestic ambitions into productive uses (i.e. not attempts to create a Greater Chinese and then East Asian empire). The Great Recession killed off the “East Asia miracle” phase of China’s growth. Potential GDP is declining, which undermines social stability and threatens the Communist Party’s legitimacy. The renminbi is on a downtrend that began with the Xi Jinping era. The sharp rally during the COVID crisis is over, as both domestic and international pressures are rising again (Chart 5). Chart 5Biden Administration Review Of China Policy: More China Bashing While the data for China’s domestic labor protests is limited in extent, we can use it as a proxy for domestic instability in lieu of official statistics that were tellingly discontinued back in 2005. The slowdown in credit growth and the cyclical sectors of the economy suggest that domestic political risk is underrated in the lead up to the 2022 leadership rotation (Chart 6). Chart 6China's Domestic Political Risk Will Rise Chart 7Steer Clear Of Taiwan Strait The increasing focus on China’s access to key industrial and technological inputs, the tensions over the Taiwan Strait, and the formation of a Russo-Chinese bloc that is excluded from the West all suggest that the risk to global stability is grave and historic. It is reminiscent of the global power struggles of the seventeenth through early twentieth centuries. The outperformance of Taiwanese equities from 2019-20 reflects strong global demand for advanced semiconductors but the global response to this geopolitical bottleneck is to boost production at home and replace Taiwan. Therefore Taiwan’s comparative advantage will erode even as geopolitical risk rises (Chart 7). The drop in geopolitical tensions during COVID-19 is over, as highlighted above. With the US, EU, and other countries launching probes into whether the virus emerged from a laboratory leak in China – contrary to what their publics were told last year – it is likely that a period of national recriminations has begun. There is a substantial risk of nationalism, xenophobia, and jingoism emerging along with new sources of instability. An Alliance Of Democracies The Biden administration’s attempt to restore liberal hegemony across the world requires a period of alliance refurbishment with the Europeans. That is the purpose of his current trip to the UK, Belgium, and Switzerland. But diplomacy only goes so far. The structural factor that has changed is the willingness of the West to utilize government in the economic sphere, i.e. fiscal proactivity. Infrastructure spending and industrial policy, at the service of national security as well as demand-side stimulus, are the order of the day. This revolution in economic policy – a return to Big Government in the West – poses a threat to the authoritarian powers, which have benefited in recent decades by using central strategic planning to take advantage of the West’s democratic and laissez-faire governance. If the West restores a degree of central government – and central coordination via NATO and other institutions – then Beijing and Moscow will face greater pressure on their economies and fewer strategic options. About 16 American allies fall short of the 2% of GDP target for annual defense spending – ranging from Italy to Canada to Germany to Japan. However, recent trends show that defense spending did indeed increase during the Trump administration (Chart 8). Chart 8NATO Boosts Defense Spending The European Union as a whole has added $50 billion to the annual total over the past five years. A discernible rise in defense spending is taking place even in Germany (Chart 9). The same point could be made for Japan, which is significantly boosting defense spending (as a share of output) after decades of saying it would do so without following through. A major reason for the American political establishment’s rejection of President Trump was the risk he posed to the trans-Atlantic alliance. A decline in NATO and US-EU ties would dramatically undermine European security and ultimately American security. Hence Biden is adopting the Trump administration’s hawkish approach to trade with China but winding down the trade war with Europe (Chart 10). Chart 9Europe Spending More On Guns Chart 10US Ends Trade War With Europe? A multilateral deal aimed at setting a floor in global corporate taxes rates is intended to prevent the US and Europe from undercutting each other – and to ensure governments have sufficient funding to maintain social spending and reduce income inequality (Chart 11). Inequality is seen as having vitiated sociopolitical stability and trust in government in the democracies. Chart 11‘Global’ Corporate Tax Deal Shows Return Of Big Government, Attempt To Reduce Inequality In The West Risks To Biden’s Diplomacy It is possible that Biden’s attempt to restore US alliances will go nowhere over the course of his four-year term in office. The Europeans may well remain risk averse despite their initial signals of willingness to work with Biden to tackle China’s and Russia’s challenges to the western system. The Germans flatly rejected both Biden and Trump on the Nord Stream II natural gas pipeline linkage with Russia, which is virtually complete and which strengthens the foundation of Russo-German engagement (more on this below). The US’s lack of international reliability – given the potential of another partisan reversal in four years – makes it very hard for countries to make any sacrifices on behalf of US initiatives. The US’s profound domestic divisions have only slightly abated since the crises of 2020 and could easily flare up again. A major outbreak of domestic instability could distract Biden from the foreign policy game.2 However, American incapacity is a risk, not our base case, over the coming years. We expect the US economic stimulus to stabilize the country enough that the internal political crisis will be contained and the US will continue to play a global role. The “Civil War Lite” has mostly concluded, excepting one or two aftershocks, and the US is entering into a “Reconstruction Lite” era. The implication is negative for China and Russia, as they will now have to confront an America that, if not wholly unified, is at least recovering. Congress’s impending passage of the Innovation and Competition Act – notably through regular legislative order and bipartisan compromise – is case in point. The Senate has already passed this approximately $250 billion smorgasbord of industrial policy, supply chain resilience, and alliance refurbishment. It will allot around $50 billion to the domestic semiconductor industry almost immediately as well as $17 billion to DARPA, $81 billion for federal research and development through the National Science Foundation, which includes $29 billion for education in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, and other initiatives (Table 1). Table 1Peak Polarization: US Congress Passes Bipartisan ‘Innovation And Competition Act’ To Counter China With the combination of foreign competition, the political establishment’s need to distract from domestic divisions, and the benefit of debt monetization courtesy of the Federal Reserve, the US is likely to achieve some notable successes in pushing back against China and Russia. On the diplomatic front, the US will meet with some success because the European and Asian allies do not wish to see the US embrace nationalism and isolationism. They have their own interests in deterring Russia and China. Lack Of Engagement With Russia Russian leadership has dealt with the country’s structural weaknesses by adopting aggressive foreign policy. At some point either the weaknesses or the foreign policy will create a crisis that will undermine the current regime – after all, Russia has greatly lagged the West in economic development and quality of life (Chart 12). But President Putin has been successful at improving the country’s wealth and status from its miserably low base in the 1990s and this has preserved sociopolitical stability so far. Chart 12Russia's Domestic Political Risk It is debatable whether US policy toward Russia ever really changed under President Trump, but there has certainly not been a change in strategy from Russia. Thus investors should expect US-Russia antagonism to continue after Biden’s summit with Putin even if there is an ostensible improvement. The fundamental purpose of Putin’s strategy has been to salvage the Russian empire after the Soviet collapse, ensure that all world powers recognize Russia’s veto power over major global policies and initiatives, and establish a strong strategic position for the coming decades as Russia’s demographic decline takes its toll. A key component of the strategy has been to increase economic self-sufficiency and reduce exposure to US sanctions. Since the invasion of Ukraine in 2014, Putin has rapidly increased Russia’s foreign exchange reserves so as to buffer against shocks (Chart 13). Chart 13Russia Fortified Against US Sanctions Putin has also reduced Russia’s reliance on the US dollar to about 22% (Chart 14), primarily by substituting the euro and gold. Russia will not be willing or able to purge US dollars from its system entirely but it has been able to limit America’s ability to hurt Russia by constricting access to dollars and the dollar-based global financial architecture. Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov highlighted this process ahead of the Biden-Putin summit by declaring that the National Wealth Fund will divest of its remaining $40 billion of its US dollar holdings. Chart 14Russia Diversifies From USD In general this year, Russia is highlighting its various advantages: its resilience against US sanctions, its ability to re-invade Ukraine, its ability to escalate its military presence in Belarus and the Black Sea, and its ability to conduct or condone cyberattacks on vital American food and fuel supplies (Chart 15). Meanwhile the US is suffering from deep political divisions at home and strategic incoherence abroad and these are only starting to be mended by domestic economic stimulus and alliance refurbishment. Chart 15Cyber Security Stocks Recover Europe’s risk-aversion when it comes to strategic confrontation with Russia, and the lack of stability in US-Russia relations, means that investors should not chase Russian currency or financial assets amid the cyclical commodity rally. Investors should also expect risk premiums to remain high in developing European economies relative to their developed counterparts. This is true despite the fact that developed market Europe’s outperformance relative to emerging Europe recently peaked and rolled over. From a technical perspective this outperformance looks to subside but geopolitical tensions can easily escalate in the near term, particularly in advance of the Russian and German elections in September (Chart 16). Chart 16Developed Markets In Europe Will Outperform Emerging Europe Unless Russian Geopolitical Risk Abates Developed Europe trades in line with EUR-RUB and these pair trades all correspond closely to geopolitical tensions with Russia (Chart 17). A notable exception is the UK, whose stock market looks attractive relative to eastern Europe and is much more secure from any geopolitical crisis in this region (Chart 17, bottom panel). The pound is particularly attractive against the Czech koruna, as Russo-Czech tensions have heated up in advance of October’s legislative election there (Chart 18). Chart 17Long UK Versus Eastern Europe Chart 18Long GBP Versus CZK Meanwhile Russia and China have grown closer together out of strategic necessity. Germany’s Election And Stance Toward Russia Germany’s position on Russia is now critical. The decision to complete the Nord Stream II pipeline against American wishes either means that the Biden administration can be safely ignored – since it prizes multilateralism and alliances above all things and is therefore toothless when opposed – or it means that German will aim to compensate the Americans in some other area of strategic concern. Washington is clearly attempting to rally the Germans to its side with regard to putting pressure on China over its trade practices and human rights. This could be the avenue for the US and Germany to tighten their bond despite the new milestone in German-Russia relations. The US may call on Germany to stand up for eastern Europe against Russian aggression but on that front Berlin will continue to disappoint. It has no desire to be drawn into a new Cold War given that the last one resulted in the partition of Germany. The implication is negative for China on one hand and eastern Europe on the other. Germany’s federal election on September 26 will be important because it will determine who will succeed Chancellor Angela Merkel, both in Germany and on the European and global stage. The ruling Christian Democratic Union (CDU) is hoping to ride Merkel’s coattails to another term in charge of the government. But they are likely to rule alongside the Greens, who have surged in opinion polls in recent years. The state election in Saxony-Anhalt over the weekend saw the CDU win 37% of the popular vote, better than any recent result, while Germany’s second major party, the Social Democrats, continued their decline (Table 2). The far-right Alternative for Germany won 21% of the vote, a downshift from 2016, while the Greens won 6% of the vote, a slight improvement from 2016. All parties underperformed opinion polling except the CDU (Chart 19). Table 2Saxony-Anhalt Election Results Chart 19Germany: Conservatives Outperform In Final State Election Before Federal Vote, But Face Challenges Chart 20Germany: Greens Will Outperform in 2021 Vote The implication is still not excellent for the CDU. Saxony-Anhalt is a middling German state, a CDU stronghold, and a state with a popular CDU leader. So it is not representative of the national campaign ahead of September. The latest nationwide opinion polling puts the CDU at around 25% support. They are neck-and-neck with the Greens. The country’s left- and right-leaning ideological blocs are also evenly balanced in opinion polls (Chart 20). A potential concern for the CDU is that the Free Democratic Party is ticking up in national polls, which gives them the potential to steal conservative votes. Betting markets are manifestly underrating the chance that Annalena Baerbock and the Greens take over the chancellorship (Charts 21A and 21B). We still give a subjective 35% chance that the Greens will lead the next German government without the CDU, a 30% that the Greens will lead with the CDU, and a 25% chance that the CDU retains power but forms a coalition with the Greens. A coalition government would moderate the Greens’ ambitious agenda of raising taxes on carbon emissions, wealth, the financial sector, and Big Tech. The CDU has already shifted in a pro-environmental, fiscally proactive direction. Chart 21AGerman Greens Will Recover Chart 21BGerman Greens Still Underrated No matter what the German election will support fiscal spending and European solidarity, which is positive for the euro and regional equities over the next 12 to 24 months. However, the Greens would pursue a more confrontational stance toward Russia, a petro-state whose special relations with the German establishment have impeded the transition to carbon neutrality. Latin America’s Troubles A final aspect of Biden’s agenda deserves some attention: immigration and the Mexican border. Obviously this one of the areas where Biden starkly differs from Trump, unlike on Europe and China, as mentioned above. Vice President Kamala Harris recently came back from a trip to Guatemala and Mexico that received negative media attention. Harris has been put in charge of managing the border crisis, the surge in immigrant arrivals over 2020-21, both to give her some foreign policy experience and to manage the public outcry. Despite telling immigrants explicitly “Do not come,” Harris has no power to deter the influx at a time when the US economy is fired up on historic economic stimulus and the Democratic Party has cut back on all manner of border and immigration enforcement. From a macro perspective the real story is the collapse of political and geopolitical risk in Mexico. From 2016-20 Mexico faced a protectionist onslaught from the Trump administration and then a left-wing supermajority in Congress. But these structural risks have dissipated with the USMCA trade deal and the inability of President Andrés Manuel López Obrador to follow through with anti-market reforms, as we highlighted in reports in October and April. The midterm election deprived the ruling MORENA party of its single-party majority in the Chamber of Deputies, the lower house of the legislature (Chart 22). AMLO is now politically constrained – he will not be able to revive state control over the energy and power sectors. Chart 22Mexican Midterm Election Constrained Left-Wing Populism, Political Risk Chart 23Buy Mexico (And Canada) On US Stimulus American monetary and fiscal stimulus, and the supply-chain shift away from China, also provide tailwinds for Mexico. In short, the Mexican election adds the final piece to one of our key themes stemming from the Biden administration, US populism, and US-China tensions: favor Mexico and Canada (Chart 23). A further implication is that Mexico should outperform Brazil in the equity space. Brazil is closely linked to China’s credit cycle and metals prices, which are slated to turn down as a result of Chinese policy tightening. Mexico is linked to the US economy and oil prices (Chart 24). While our trade stopped out at -5% last week we still favor the underlying view. Brazilian political risk and unsustainable debt dynamics will continue to weigh on the currency and equities until political change is cemented in the 2022 election and the new government is then forced by financial market riots into undertaking structural reforms. Chart 24Brazil's Troubles Not Truly Over - Mexico Will Outperform Elsewhere in Latin America, the rise of a militant left-wing populist to the presidency in a contested election in Peru, and the ongoing social unrest in Colombia and Chile, are less significant than the abrupt slowdown in China’s credit growth (Charts 25A and 25B). According to our COVID-19 Social Stability Index, investors should favor Mexico. Turkey, the Philippines, South Africa, Colombia, and Brazil are the most likely to see substantial social instability according to this ranking system (Table 3). Chart 25AMexico To Outperform Latin America Chart 25BChina’s Slowdown Will Hit South America Table 3Post-COVID Emerging Market Social Unrest Only Just Beginning Investment Takeaways Close long emerging markets relative to developed markets for a loss of 6.8% – this is a strategic trade that we will revisit but it faces challenges in the near term due to China’s slowdown (Chart 26). Go long Mexican equities relative to emerging markets on a strategic time frame. Our long Mexico / short Brazil trade hit the stop loss at 5% but the technical profile and investment thesis are still sound over the short and medium term. Chart 26China Slowdown, Geopolitical Risk Will Weigh On Emerging Markets Chart 27Relative Uncertainty And Safe Havens China’s sharp fiscal-and-credit slowdown suggests that investors should reduce risk exposure, take a defensive tactical positioning, and wait for China’s policy tightening to be priced before buying risky assets. Our geopolitical method suggests the dollar will rise, while macro fundamentals are becoming less dollar-bearish due to China. We are neutral for now and will reassess for our third quarter forecast later this month. If US policy uncertainty falls relative to global uncertainty then the EUR-USD will also fall and safe-haven assets like Swiss bonds will gain a bid (Chart 27). Gold is an excellent haven amid medium-term geopolitical and inflation risks but we recommend closing our long silver trade for a gain of 4.5%. Disfavor emerging Europe relative to developed Europe, where heavy discounts can persist due to geopolitical risk premiums. We will reassess after the Russian Duma election in September. Go long GBP-CZK. Close the Euro “laggards” trade. Go long an equal-weighted basket of euros and US dollars relative to the Chinese renminbi. Short the TWD-USD on a strategic basis. Prefer South Korea to Taiwan – while the semiconductor splurge favors Taiwan, investors should diversify away from the island that lies at the epicenter of global geopolitical risk. Close long defense relative to cyber stocks for a gain of 9.8%. This was a geopolitical “back to work” trade but the cyber rebound is now significant enough to warrant closing this trade.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Trump’s policy toward Russia is an excellent example of geopolitical constraints. Despite any personal preferences in favor of closer ties with Russia, Trump and his administration ultimately reaffirmed Article 5 of NATO, authorized the sale of lethal weapons to Ukraine, and deployed US troops to Poland and the Czech Republic. 2 As just one example, given the controversial and contested US election of 2020, it is possible that a major terrorist attack could occur. Neither wing of America’s ideological fringes has a monopoly on fanaticism and violence. Meanwhile foreign powers stand to benefit from US civil strife. A truly disruptive sequence of events in the US in the coming years could lead to greater political instability in the US and a period in which global powers would be able to do what they want without having to deal with Biden’s attempt to regroup with Europe and restore some semblance of a global police force. The US would fall behind in foreign affairs, leaving power vacuums in various regions that would see new sources of political and geopolitical risk crop up. Then the US would struggle to catch up, with another set of destabilizing consequences.

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

ハイライト いくつかの産業における寡占および独占の蔓延と、ハードおよびソフトインフラへの投資不足が、メキシコの生産性成長の低迷の根本原因となっている。これは一人当たり所得の成長を抑制してきた。 中国からの製造業競争や引き締められた財政・金融政策といったメキシコの成長の逆風は、現在追い風へと転じつつある。 米国経済全体、特に製造業のブームはメキシコに有利に働く見込みだ。 国内面では、メキシコはより包摂的な成長モデルを採用する必要がある。これには、独占・寡占の解体、中小企業の促進、ビジネスコストの削減、職業訓練および大学教育への大幅な支出増、ならびに暴力の減少が求められる。 メキシコの金融市場は、米国の好調な成長に最もレバレッジが効いており、中国の減速へのエクスポージャーが最も小さいため、他の新興市場をアウトパフォームする可能性がある。 投資家は今後数週間／数か月の潜在的な調整をメキシコ資産を絶対的に買う機会として活用すべきである。 特集 チャート 1 メキシコ市場はテクニカル抵抗線に直面している メキシコにとって追い風が吹いている メキシコにとって追い風が吹いている 国内外の要因が整い、今後数年間にわたってメキシコの経済と金融市場のアウトパフォーマンスの時期が到来しつつある。 メキシコの株式、ペソ、ローカル債およびソブリン・クレジットは新興市場の同業他社を上回ると予想する。さらに、米ドル建てのメキシコ株価とペソは最終的に主要なテクニカル抵抗線を上抜けするだろう（チャート 1）。 成長診断 メキシコの経済不振を左派大統領アンドレス・マヌエル・ロペス・オブラドール（通称 AMLO）の選出のせいにするのは魅力的だ。しかし、経済はAMLOが2019年に就任するはるか前から既に低迷していた。チャート 2は、メキシコの生産性が2000年以降停滞していることを示している。生産性成長の劣後が、メキシコの構造的な成長停滞を説明する重要な要因である。 ハードおよびソフトインフラへの投資不足が生産性成長の停滞の根本原因である。チャート 3の上段が示すように、メキシコの資本支出は2014年以降減少している。 チャート 2 メキシコ：過去20年、生産性は停滞している... メキシコにとって星が揃いつつある メキシコにとって星が揃いつつある チャート 3 ...投資不足が原因である メキシコに追い風が吹いている メキシコに追い風が吹いている   第一に、メキシコへの純FDI流入は2008年の米国クレジット危機以降停滞している（チャート 3、下段）。多国籍企業は米国消費者に供給するための生産能力の拡大に消極的だった。加えて、中国やベトナムはメキシコよりも多国籍企業にとってより魅力的な投資先となっていた。 さらに、中国の製造企業の世界貿易におけるシェア上昇と、生産をメキシコよりアジアで調達する傾向も、メキシコのマキラドーラ（maquiladora）セクターへのFDI流入の弱さに一因となっている。 中国の生産者と異なり、メキシコの製造業者はグローバルな製造競争力を十分に向上させてこなかった。簡潔に言えば、多国籍企業からメキシコの現地企業へ製造ノウハウが十分に「リーク」していない。 第二に、資本支出の干ばつはサービス業を含む国内産業にも打撃を与えた。高いビジネスコスト、中小企業向けの手頃な資金調達の欠如、高い参入障壁が企業の創出とイノベーションを阻み、最終的に生産性成長を損なっている。 特に中小企業（SMEs）にとっての創業および事業運営コストの高さは、新規投資、雇用、所得の成長を抑止する。メキシコの中小企業はOECDの中でも借入コストが非常に高く、ブラジルに次いで高水準である（チャート 4）。これは銀行セクターが高度に寡占的であるためだ。 チャート 4 メキシコの中小企業は高い借入コストに直面している… The Stars Are Aligning For Mexico The Stars Are Aligning For Mexico メキシコの上位3行は商業銀行資産の半分以上を支配している。したがって、これらの銀行は異常に高い手数料と金利マージンを享受する価格決定力を持っている（チャート 5）。その結果、銀行は過剰な利益を得る一方で、融資、すなわち貸出創出の量を制限している。これは結果的に国内需要全般、特に投資を抑制する。 チャート 5 …部分的には銀行の広い利ザヤが原因である The Stars Are Aligning For Mexico The Stars Are Aligning For Mexico チャート 6 特定のコストは米国よりメキシコの方が高い The Stars Are Aligning For Mexico The Stars Are Aligning For Mexico 投資と新規ビジネス創出を妨げるもう一つの問題は高い運営コストだ。米国と比較して、メキシコの消費者は電力、ガソリン、インターネットの価格が高い。チャート 6は米ドル換算でのメキシコと米国のガスおよび電気料金を示している。この大きな差の主な要因は、メキシコにおける非競争的で国家主導のエネルギー市場である。 総じて、メキシコの主要産業における独占と寡占の蔓延が資本支出を押し下げてきた。独占企業や寡占企業は販売量の拡大に関心がなく、価格引き上げで適正な利益成長と資本収益を確保しようとする。これが他の要因と相まって生産性成長を抑え、より競争的な経済であればより低かったであろう水準よりもインフレを高めている。 第三に、停滞する資本支出は2015年の原油価格暴落とそれに続く財政引き締めによってさらに強化された。公的固定資本形成は2008年のGDP比6.6%から現在は3%へと急落している。 2018年のトランプ大統領による対メキシコ輸入品への関税の脅しや、左派のAMLOの選出は企業信頼感を低下させ、ペソの大幅な売りを招いた。通貨下落は中央銀行（Banxico）をして2015年12月から2019年7月までに利上げを525ベーシスポイント実施させた。 驚くべきことに、AMLOは前任者よりもさらに引き締まった財政政策を追求してきた。これにより、AMLO政権の最初の2年間は基礎的財政黒字を達成した。 また、大企業や外資（特に石油・ガス部門）に対する大統領の反新自由主義的な言辞は無視されていない。企業の信頼感は2018年以降急落している。 結論：メキシコにおける資本支出の構造的な低下が生産性成長を抑えている。この構造的な停滞は、2014–15年の原油価格暴落、トランプの二国間貿易制限の脅し、投資家・企業信頼の崩壊、極めてタイトな財政・金融政策、そして最近のパンデミックといった複数の負のショックによって補強されてきた。 しかし、これらの逆風は既に緩和し始めているか、今後逆転する見込みである。 星が整い始めている チャート 7 メキシコ・ペソは割安である The Stars Are Aligning For Mexico The Stars Are Aligning For Mexico 為替レート：労働単位コストに基づく実効実質為替レートで見ると、メキシコ・ペソは割安である（チャート 7）。後者は賃金と生産性の両方を取り込むため、通貨の評価指標として最も適切であり、労働コスト駆動の競争力を正しく測る指標である。 ペソはまた、正統的な金融・財政政策から恩恵を受けるだろう。コンセンサスとは異なり、AMLOは非常に倹約的な大統領であることが証明されている。1 彼は世界で最も保守的な財政運営の一つを行ってきた。 最後に、メキシコは現在大きな貿易・経常収支の黒字を計上している（チャート 8）。 今後、メキシコ・ペソは米国向けの輸出の好調、米国からの堅調な送金（チャート 8、下段）、および多国籍企業による新規能力の追加や中国からメキシコへの能力移転によるFDI流入によって支えられるだろう。 金融緩和：ネガティブな信頼ショックの影響を受けた非常にタイトな財政・金融政策は、消費者物価の抑制をもたらしている（チャート 9）。 チャート 8 メキシコ：過去最高の経常収支黒字 The Stars Are Aligning For Mexico The Stars Are Aligning For Mexico チャート 9 メキシコ：サービス分野のインフレは低い The Stars Are Aligning For Mexico The Stars Are Aligning For Mexico   さらに、プライム貸出金利は依然として4.8%と比較的高い。一方で、個人向けおよび企業向けのクレジットは縮小している（チャート 10）。これらの状況はBanxicoがさらなる利下げを行う理由を支持する。 貸出金利の低下は投資と消費を刺激するだろう（チャート 11）。 チャート 10 メキシコ：ローンは縮小している メキシコにとって星が揃いつつある メキシコにとって星が揃いつつある チャート 11 金融緩和は需要を押し上げるはずだ メキシコにとって星が整いつつある メキシコにとって星が整いつつある 財政緊縮の緩和：財政政策は過去2年に比べて緩和する見込みである。2021年の基礎的財政収支と統合ベースの財政収支の目標はそれぞれ対GDP比で0%と-2.9%である（チャート 12、上段）。 多くの他の新興国と対照的に、循環調整済み基礎的財政収支の変化である財政の後押し（fiscal thrust）は、2021年のメキシコではわずかにマイナスに留まる（チャート 12、下段）。その理由は、メキシコは2020年のパンデミック時に経済への財政支援が小幅（GDPの約3%）だったため、多くの他の新興国が直面している財政の崖に直面していないからである。 重要なのは、国家予算の石油収入への依存度が大幅に低下している点である。現在の石油収入は政府歳入の約12%を占め、2012年の40%に比べて大幅に減少している。 さらに、公的債務負担は対GDP比で依然低く40%にとどまる。ペメックスやその他の国営企業の債務を政府債務に含めても、比率は依然としてGDP比50%未満である2（チャート 13）。 チャート 12 AMLOは非常に倹約的である メキシコに追い風が吹いている メキシコに追い風が吹いている チャート 13 メキシコの公的債務は懸念材料ではない メキシコに星が整いつつある メキシコに星が整いつつある グローバルなサプライチェーンの再構築：外部要因として、米国によるグローバル製造サプライチェーンのリショアリングや北隣国との良好な貿易・外交関係から、メキシコは大きな恩恵を受ける可能性がある。 メキシコ、特にそのmaquiladora産業は3、北米およびラテンアメリカ市場にサービスを提供する計画のある世界的製造業の増加分を引き付けるために非常に有利な位置にある。米国との近接性と貿易協定、増加する労働力、セクターへの政府支援により、リショアリングの最適候補となる。 チャート 14 マキラドーラ・セクターはブームを迎える準備ができている メキシコに追い風が吹いている メキシコに追い風が吹いている Maquiladoraの収益は国民総生産の25%以上を占める。さらに、2009–2015年の大幅な縮小後、過去5年間でmaquiladoraの数は着実に増加している（チャート 14、上段）。maquilaセクターにおける雇用シェアも過去10年間で着実に上昇している（チャート 14、下段）。 今後数年間でmaquiladora製造業が再びブームを迎え、グローバルなサプライチェーンのリショアリングから恩恵を受ける理由はいくつかある。 地理的近接性と米国・カナダとの有利な貿易協定。米国、カナダ、メキシコの間で新たに批准されたUSMCA貿易協定は米国内で超党派の支持を得ている。さらに、ジョー・バイデンの選出により、トランプの予測不能な行動による投資・貿易リスクは軽減されるだろう。バイデンはメキシコとの関係を対立ではなく協力に基づくものにすると述べている。 メキシコは多くの他の新興国に比べて競争力のあるコスト優位を提供する。 賃金面では、米ドル建てで見たメキシコの製造賃金は中国より低い（チャート 15）。 多国籍企業が世界中の工場に同じまたは類似の技術と工程を導入することを考えると、全工場での労働者の生産性は同等となる。要するに、メキシコは単位労働コストと輸送コストの面で中国より安価である。 メキシコは外国工場の流入を支える有利な人口動態を持っている。 中国やベトナムでは生産年齢人口（15～64歳）の比率が頭打ちになっている一方、メキシコでは依然として上昇している（チャート 16）。 チャート 15 メキシコの賃金は中国より低い メキシコにとって好機が到来している メキシコにとって好機が到来している チャート 16 メキシコは人口動態の追い風を享受している メキシコにとって追い風が吹いている メキシコにとって追い風が吹いている 米国需要と製造業のブーム：メキシコは、より高い送金と米国の産業復興を通じて米国の好況から利益を得る立場にある。 米国の産業部門は、一般的な財政刺激、とりわけインフラ刺激、および国内生産者を優遇する産業政策により今後数年でブームを迎えるだろう。この産業ブームはメキシコのmaquiladoraセクターに恩恵をもたらす。 米国との良好な関係は、メキシコのCOVID-19対策にも寄与している。米国は国境を越える経済・外交関係と人の移動を考慮し、余剰ワクチンの寄贈で近隣諸国を優先してきた。メキシコは既に米国からアストラゼネカ製ワクチン270万回分を受け取り、米国が全成人接種を完了すればさらに数百万回分を受け取る予定である。メキシコが既に購入したワクチンと国内でのアストラゼネカ製ワクチン生産契約と相まって、メキシコ経済はラテンアメリカの他国よりもかなり早く完全に再開する態勢が整いつつある。 結論：メキシコの成長の逆風、すなわち中国／アジアからの製造業競争やタイトな財政・金融政策は、概ね追い風へと転じつつある。 メキシコはより包摂的な成長を必要としている メキシコの景気循環の見通しは明るいように見える一方で、構造的な状況は不確かである。当局は租税回避と銀行集中の改革を進めてきたが、寡占勢力や暴力への対策は不十分なままである。 寡占 寡占は、電気通信、銀行、石油・ガス、電力、パン・製粉、酒類、エンターテインメントなど、メキシコの多数の産業を支配している。 寡占は実体経済に悪影響を及ぼす。既得企業は価格決定力を持ち、市場支配力を用いて過度の利潤を抽出できる。 他の条件が等しければ、独占や寡占が蔓延している経済では、より競争的な産業構造を持つ経済よりもインフレ率が高くなる。結果として、上昇したインフレは、寡占や独占以外の経済主体が耐えうる水準よりも高い金利を維持させる。 寡占的・独占的な産業構造のもう一つの結果は不均衡な所得分配である。国内産業における寡占・独占の蔓延により、メキシコの国民所得は歴史的に労働所得を犠牲にして企業利益へと偏ってきた。 チャート 17 米国よりもメキシコで労働の立場ははるかに弱い メキシコに追い風が吹いている メキシコに追い風が吹いている チャート 17の上段は、企業の営業利益が国民所得の64%を占める一方で賃金・給与は30%にとどまることを示している。比較すると、過去数十年で企業利益の比率が上昇し労働の取り分が減少した米国では、前者が25%、後者が54%を占めている（チャート 17、下段）。 要するに、メキシコの企業の稼ぐ力は従業員を上回っており、その結果、かなりの所得格差が生じている。さらに、潤沢な現金を持つ既存企業は新規参入者の参入を阻む力を行使する。結果として供給側が遅れ、生産性、効率性、潜在成長率に悪影響を与えている。 AMLOの寡占に対する姿勢は一貫していない。一方で、彼は大手国内外企業への増税を主張し（過度の利潤を削減する手段として）、民間産業での競争促進を訴えてきた。他方で、石油・ガスおよび電力セクターの国営企業への依存を強めている。 民間セクターにおいては、AMLOは大企業の租税回避に対して強硬に対処してきた。これは企業界から過度に厳しいと見なされることもあったが、税収の観点ではプラスの成果を上げている：所得税はこの取り組みにより対GDP比で2.4%増加した。この数値は、景気後退が税収の対GDP比を押し下げる傾向にあることを考慮すると、実際の進展を過小評価している可能性がある。 さらに、中央銀行と政府は銀行システムのアクセス性拡大と競争導入の必要性で一致しており、これにより高額な銀行金利と手数料を低下させることが期待される（上記のチャート 5 AMLOは自身を小規模事業の守護者として位置づけているが、中小企業の政府に対する感情はまちまちである。パンデミック期間のロックダウン中に政府が中小企業に提供した唯一の財政支援は、一度限りの2万5千ペソの融資（当時の換算で約1,000米ドル）だった。さらに、昨年は中小企業数が実質で10%減少した。 良い点として、政府は今年、新規事業の立ち上げおよび許認可手続きを大幅に簡素化し、中小企業向けの税制を簡素化する計画を発表している。 知識経済 知識ベース経済への移行に不可欠な教育水準はほとんど改善していない。高等教育と職業訓練への在学率は停滞している（チャート 18、上段・中段）。教育への政府支出は対GDP比で急落している（チャート 18、下段）。 長期的な生産性向上のためには、在学者数の大幅な増加と職業訓練および大学教育の質の改善が必要である。 チャート 18 メキシコは教育への投資を強化する必要がある メキシコに星が揃いつつある メキシコに星が揃いつつある チャート 19 メキシコの暴力は依然として高い メキシコにとって、星が整いつつある メキシコにとって、星が整いつつある 暴力 AMLOのもう一つの選挙公約は麻薬カルテルによる暴力の抑制だった。殺人件数は過去2年で横ばいである。しかし、暴力のレベルは非常に高いため、以前の水準を維持するだけでは国民にとって容認できない（チャート 19）。 したがって、AMLOは暴力を減少させるという選挙公約をまだ果たしていない。公平を期すならば、AMLOの犯罪・ギャング対策の目玉政策は、トランプ政権が中米からの移民をメキシコ経由で米国に入れないよう抑制するよう圧力をかけたため一時停止された。政府は2019年に新設された国民警備隊を移動させ、南部国境での移民流入を食い止めるために再配置せざるを得なかった。これはトランプがメキシコに対して関税で脅したことが背景にある。 バイデン政権からそのような圧力がない現在、国民警備隊は本来の目的で展開されるだろう。我々はこの問題についてAMLOに対して今後12か月の猶予を与える必要があると感じている。 結論：メキシコは生産性を高め、より包摂的な成長モデルを採用する必要がある。これには独占・寡占の抑制と解体、零細企業および中小企業の促進、ビジネスコストの削減、職業訓練および大学教育の在学者数と質の大幅な改善、さらには暴力の削減が求められる。 これらの改革が実行されれば、総国民所得が増えるだけでなく所得分配もより公正なものになるだろう。賃金や零細企業に割り当てられる所得の比率が上昇すれば、家計支出も増加する。 投資に関する推奨 今後6～9か月の主要なグローバル経済テーマは、米国の景気ブームと中国の景気減速である。したがって、メキシコとその金融市場は恩恵を受け、新興市場の同業他社をアウトパフォームする見込みである。メキシコ経済は米国成長に最もレバレッジが効いており、新興市場の中で中国へのエクスポージャーが最も小さい。 別の観点では、メキシコの政治的安定性と経済見通しは他のラテンアメリカ諸国（特にブラジル）と対照的であり、地域の投資家はメキシコの金融市場へ資金を再配分するだろう。 投資家は今後数週間または数か月の潜在的な調整をメキシコ資産を絶対的に買う機会として活用すべきである。 株式：メキシコ株の新興市場株式指数に対するパフォーマンスの低迷は既に長引いている。我々はこの市場のオーバーウェイトを早期に取っていたため時期尚早だったが、オーバーウェイトのスタンスを改めて繰り返す。 メキシコ株は金融緩和、改善する国内需要、および妥当なバリュエーションから恩恵を受ける（チャート 20）。メキシコのローカル債利回りは新興市場の総合債利回りに対して低下しており、これはメキシコ株の同業他社に対するアウトパフォーマンスを予告している（チャート 21）。 チャート 20 メキシコ株は魅力的なバリュエーションにある メキシコに追い風が吹いている メキシコに追い風が吹いている チャート 21 メキシコ株は新興市場ベンチマークをアウトパフォームするだろう メキシコにとって星が揃いつつある メキシコにとって星が揃いつつある さらに、メキシコの証券取引所はTMT銘柄へのエクスポージャーがない。TMT銘柄が我々の予想どおりに低迷する場合、メキシコ株式市場はTMT比率が高い新興市場のベンチマークを上回るだろう。 為替レート：メキシコ・ペソは割安である（上記チャート 7）ため、投資家は新興国通貨の中でペソを選好すべきである。 フィクスト・インカム市場：正統的な財政・金融政策および公的債務のプロファイルは、ローカル通貨建て債券とソブリン・クレジットのポートフォリオにおいてメキシコへのオーバーウェイト配分を継続して推奨する理由となる。 我々はまた、投資家にメキシコで10年物スワップ金利の受け取りを継続することを推奨する。クレジット投資家については、短期のメキシコCDS売り／ブラジルおよび南アフリカCDSの買いを改めて推奨する。   フアン・エガーニャ リサーチ・アナリスト juane@bcaresearch.com アーサー・ブダギャン チーフ・エマージング・マーケッツ・ストラテジスト arthurb@bcaresearch.com   脚注 1我々は2018年6月28日以来、AMLOが財政的に無謀な大統領にはならないと主張してきた。 2このトピックについては過去のレポートで詳述している。 3マキラドーラ（maquiladoras）はメキシコで操業する外資系の製造業者で、主に北部国境沿いの自治体に多い。他の国内事業と区別されるのは、輸出製造品の生産を目的として特別に設立されている点である。見返りとして、輸入原材料や設備に関する関税が免除され、労働者福利への補助や低い税率の恩恵を受ける。

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