Commodities & Energy Sector

Highlights Markets largely ignored the uproar at the US Capitol on January 6 because the transfer of power was not in question. Democratic control over the Senate, after two upsets in the Georgia runoff, is the bigger signal. US fiscal policy will become more expansive yet the Federal Reserve will not start hiking rates anytime soon. This is a powerful tailwind for risk assets over the short and medium run. Politics and geopolitics affect markets through the policy setting, rather than through discrete events, which tend to have fleeting market impacts. The current setting, in the US and abroad, is negative for the US dollar. The implication is positive for emerging market stocks and value plays. Go long global stocks ex-US, long emerging markets over developed markets, and long value over growth. Cut losses on short CNY-USD. Feature Chart 1Market's Muted Response To US Turmoil Scenes of mayhem unfolded in the US Capitol on January 6 as protesters and rioters flooded the building and temporarily interrupted the joint session of Congress convened to count the Electoral College votes. Congress reconvened later and finished the tally. President-elect Joe Biden will take office at noon on January 20. Financial markets were unperturbed, with stocks up and volatility down, though safe havens did perk up a bit (Chart 1). The incident supports our thesis that the US election cycle of 2020 was a sort of “Civil War Lite” and that the country is witnessing “Peak Polarization,” with polarization likely to fall over the coming five years. The incident was the culmination of the past year of pandemic-fueled unrest and President Trump’s refusal to concede to the Electoral College verdict. Trump made a show of force by rallying his supporters, and apparently refrained from cracking down on those that overran Congress, but then he backed down and promised an orderly transfer of power. The immediate political result was to isolate him. Fewer Republicans than expected contested the electoral votes in the ensuing joint session; one Republican is openly calling for Trump to be forced into resignation via the 25th amendment procedure for those unfit to serve. The electoral votes were promptly certified. Vice President Mike Pence and other actors performed their constitutional duties. Pence reportedly gave the order to bring out the National Guard to restore order – hence it is possible that Pence and Trump’s cabinet could activate the 25th amendment, but that is unlikely unless Trump foments rebellion going forward. Vandals and criminals will be prosecuted and there could also be legal ramifications for Trump and some government officials. Do Politics And Geopolitics Affect Markets? The market’s lack of concern raises the question of whether investors need trouble themselves with politics at all. Philosopher and market guru Nassim Nicholas Taleb tweeted the following: If someone, a year ago, described January 6, 2021 (and events attending it) & asked you to guess the stock market behavior, admit you would have gotten it wrong. Just so you understand that news do not help you understand markets.1 This is a valid point. Investors should not (and do not) invest based on the daily news. Of course, many observers foresaw social unrest surrounding the 2020 election, including Professor Peter Turchin.2 Social instability was rising in the data, as we have long shown. When you combined this likelihood with the Fed’s pause on rate hikes, and a measurable rise in geopolitical tensions between the US and other countries, the implication was that gold would appreciate. So if someone had told you a year ago that the US would have a pandemic, that governments would unleash a 10.2% of global GDP fiscal stimulus, that the Fed would start average inflation targeting, that a vaccine would be produced, and that the US would have a contested election on top of it all, would you have expected gold to rise? Absolutely – and it has done so, both in keeping with the fall in real interest rates plus some safe-haven bonus, which is observable (Chart 2). Chart 2Gold Price In Excess Of Fall In Real Rates Implies Geopolitical Risk The takeaway is that policy matters for markets while politics may only matter briefly at best. Which brings us back to the implications of the Trump rebellion. What Will Be The Impact Of The Trump Rebellion? We have highlighted that this election was a controversial rather than contested election – meaning that the outcome was not in question after late November when the court cases, vote counts, and recounts were certified. This was doubly true after the Electoral College voted on December 14. The protests and riots yesterday never seriously called this result into question. Whatever Trump’s intentions, there was no military coup or imposition of martial law, as some observers feared. In fact the scandal arose from the President’s hesitation to call out the National Guard rather than his use of security forces to prevent the transfer of power, as occurs during a coup. This partially explains why the market traded on the contested election in December 2000 but not in 2020 – the result was largely settled. The Biden administration now has more political capital than otherwise, which is market-positive because it implies more proactive fiscal policy to support the economic recovery. Trump’s refusal to concede gave Democrats both seats in the Georgia Senate runoffs, yielding control of Congress. Household and business sentiment will revive with the vaccine distribution and economic recovery, while the passage of larger fiscal stimulus is highly probable. US fiscal policy will almost certainly avoid the mistake of tightening fiscal policy too soon. Taken with the Fed’s aversion to raising rates, greater fiscal stimulus will create a powerful tailwind for risk assets over the next 12 months. The primary consequence of combined fiscal and monetary dovishness is a falling dollar. The greenback is a counter-cyclical and momentum-driven currency that broadly responds inversely to global growth trends. But policy decisions are clearly legible in the global growth path and the dollar’s path over the past two decades. Japanese and European QE, Chinese devaluation, the global oil crash, Trump’s tax cuts, the US-China trade war, and COVID-19 lockdowns all drove the dollar to fresh highs – all policy decisions (Chart 3). Policy decisions also ensured the euro’s survival, marking the dollar’s bottom against the euro in 2011, and ensuring that the euro could take over from the dollar once the dollar became overbought. Today, the US’s stimulus response to COVID-19 – combined with the Fed’s strategic review and the Democratic sweep of government – marked the peak and continued drop-off in the dollar. Chart 3Euro Survival, US Peak Polarization, Set Stage For Rotation From USD To EUR Chart 4China's Yuan Says Geopolitics Matters The Chinese renminbi is heavily manipulated by the People’s Bank and is not freely exchangeable. The massive stimulus cycle that began in 2015, in reaction to financial turmoil, combined with the central bank’s decision to defend the currency marked a bottom in the yuan’s path. China’s draconian response to the pandemic this year, and massive stimulus, made China the only major country to contribute positively to global growth in 2020 and ensured a surge in the currency. The combination of US and Chinese policy decisions has clearly favored the renminbi more than would be the case from the general economic backdrop (Chart 4). Getting the policy setting right is necessary for investors. This is true even though discrete political events – including major political and geopolitical crises – have fleeting impacts on markets. What About Biden’s Trade Policy? Trump was never going to control monetary or fiscal policy – that was up to the Fed and Congress. His impact lay mostly in trade and foreign policy. Specifically his defeat reduces the risk of sweeping unilateral tariffs. It makes sense that global economic policy uncertainty has plummeted, especially relative to the United States (Chart 5). If US policy facilitates a global economic and trade recovery, then it also makes sense that global equities would rise faster than American equities, which benefited from the previous period of a strong dollar and erratic or aggressive US fiscal and trade policy. Trump’s last 14 days could see a few executive orders that rattle stocks. There is a very near-term downside risk to European and especially Chinese stocks from punitive measures, or to Emirati stocks in the event of another military exchange with Iran (Chart 6). But Trump will be disobeyed if he orders any highly disruptive actions, especially if they contravene national interests. Beyond Trump’s term we are constructive on all these bourses, though we expect politics and geopolitics to remain a headwind for Chinese equities. Chart 5Big Drop In Global Policy Uncertainty US tensions with China will escalate again soon – and in a way that negatively impacts US and Chinese companies exposed to each other. Chart 6Geopolitical Implications Of Biden's Election The cold war between these two is an unavoidable geopolitical trend as China threatens to surpass the US in economic size and improves its technological prowess. Presidents Xi and Trump were merely catalysts. But there are two policy trends that will override this rivalry for at least the first half of the year. First, global trade is recovering– as shown here by the Shanghai freight index and South Korean exports and equity prices (Chart 7). The global recovery will boost Korean stocks but geopolitical tensions will continue to brood over more expensive Taiwanese stocks due to the US-China conflict. This has motivated our longstanding long Korea / short Taiwan recommendation. Chart 7Global Economy Speaks Louder Than North Korea Chart 8China Wary Of Over-Tightening Policy Chart 9Global Stock-Bond Ratio Registers Good News Second, China’s 2020 stimulus will have lingering effects and it is wary of over-tightening monetary and fiscal policy, lest it undo its domestic economic recovery. The tenor of China’s Central Economic Work Conference in December has reinforced this view. Chart 8 illustrates the expectations of our China Investment Strategy regarding China’s credit growth and local government bond issuance. They suggest that there will not be a sharp withdrawal of fiscal or quasi-fiscal support in 2021. Stability is especially important in the lead up to the critical leadership rotation in 2022.3 This policy backdrop will be positive for global/EM equities despite the political crackdown on General Secretary Xi Jinping’s opponents will occur despite this supportive policy backdrop. The global stock-to-bond ratio has surged in clear recognition of these positive policy trends (Chart 9). Government bonds were deeply overbought and it will take several years before central banks begin tightening policy. What About Biden’s Foreign Policy? Chart 10OPEC 2.0 Cartel Continues (For Now) Iran poses a genuine geopolitical risk this year – first in the form of an oil supply risk, should conflict emerge in the Persian Gulf, Iraq, or elsewhere in the region. This would inject a risk premium into the oil price. Later the risk is the opposite as a deal with the Biden administration would create the prospect for Iran to attract foreign investment and begin pumping oil, while putting pressure on the OPEC 2.0 coalition to abandon its current, tentative, production discipline in pursuit of market share (Chart 10). Biden has the executive authority to restore the 2015 nuclear deal (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action). He is in favor of doing so in order to (1) prevent the Middle East from generating a crisis that consumes his foreign policy; (2) execute an American grand strategy of reviving its Asia Pacific influence; (3) cement the Obama administration’s legacy. The Iranian President Hassan Rouhani also has a clear interest in returning to the deal before the country’s presidential election in June. This would salvage his legacy and support his “reformist” faction. The Supreme Leader also has a chance to pin the negative aspects of the deal on a lame duck president while benefiting from it economically as he prepares for his all-important succession. The problem is that extreme levels of distrust will require some brinkmanship early in Biden’s term. Iran is building up leverage ahead of negotiations, which will mean higher levels of uranium enrichment and demonstrating the range of its regional capabilities, including the Strait of Hormuz, and its ability to impose economic pain via oil prices. Biden will need to establish a credible threat if Iran misbehaves. Hence the geopolitical setting is positive for oil prices at the moment. Beyond Iran, there is a clear basis for policy uncertainty to decline for Europe and the UK while it remains elevated for China and Russia (Chart 11). Chart 11Relative Policy Uncertainty Favors Europe and UK Over Russia And China The US international image has suffered from the Trump era and the Biden administration’s main priorities will lie in solidifying alliances and partnerships and stabilizing the US role in the world, rather than pursuing showdown and confrontation. However, it will not be long before scrutiny returns to the authoritarian states, which have been able to focus on domestic recovery and expanding their spheres of influence amid the US’s tumultuous election year. Chart 12GeoRisk Indicators Say Risks Underrated For These Bourses The US will not seek a “diplomatic reset” with Russia, aside from renegotiating the New START treaty. The Democrats will seek to retaliate for Russia’s extensive cyberattack in 2021 as well as for election interference and psychological warfare in the United States. And while there probably will be a reset with China, it will be short-lived, as outlined above. This situation contrasts with that of the Atlantic sphere. The Biden administration is a crystal clear positive, relative to a second Trump term, for the European Union. The EU and the UK have just agreed to a trade deal, as expected, to conclude the Brexit process, which means that the US-UK “special relationship” will not be marred by disagreements over Ireland. European solidarity has also strengthened as a result of the pandemic, which highlighted the need for collective policy responses, including fiscal. Thus the geopolitical risks of the new administration are most relevant for China/Taiwan and Russia. Comparing our GeoRisk Indicators, which are market-based, with the relative equity performance of these bourses, Taiwanese stocks are the most vulnerable because markets are increasingly pricing the geopolitical risk yet the relative stock performance is toppy (Chart 12). The limited recovery in Russian equities is also at risk for the same reason. Only in China’s case has the market priced lower geopolitical risk, not least because of the positive change in US administration. We expect Biden and Xi Jinping to be friendly at first but for strategic distrust to reemerge by the second half of the year. This will be a rude awakening for Chinese stocks – or China-exposed US stocks, especially in the tech sector. Investment Takeaways Chart 13Global Policy Shifts Drive Big Investment Reversals The US is politically divided. Civil unrest and aftershocks of the controversial election will persist but markets will ignore it unless it has a systemic impact. The policy consequence is a more proactive fiscal policy, resulting in virtual fiscal-monetary coordination that is positive both for global demand and risk assets, while negative for the US dollar. The Biden administration will succeed in partially repealing the Trump tax cuts, but the impact on corporate profit margins will be discounted fairly mechanically and quickly by market participants, while the impact on economic growth will be more than offset by huge new spending. Sentiment will improve after the pandemic – and Biden has not yet shown an inclination to take an anti-business tone. The past decade has been marked by a dollar bull market and the outperformance of developed markets over emerging markets and growth stocks like technology over value stocks like financials. Cyclical sectors have traded in a range. Going forward, a secular rise in geopolitical Great Power competition is likely to persist but the macro backdrop has shifted with the decline of the dollar. Cyclical sectors are now poised to outperform while a bottom is forming in value stocks and emerging markets (Chart 13). We recommend investors go strategically long emerging markets relative to developed. We are also going long global value over growth stocks. We are not yet ready to close our gold trade given that the two supports, populist fiscal turn and great power struggle, will continue to be priced by markets in the near term. We are throwing in the towel on our short CNY-USD trade after the latest upleg in the renminbi, though our view continues to be that geopolitical fundamentals will catch yuan investors by surprise when they reassert themselves. We also recommend preferring global equities to US equities, given the above-mentioned global trends plus looming tax hikes.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 January 6, 2020, twitter.com. 2 See Turchin and Andrey Korotayev, "The 2010 Structural-Demographic Forecast for the 2010-2020 Decade: A Retrospective Assessment," PLoS ONE 15:8 (2020), journals.plos.org. 3 Not to mention that 2021 is the Communist Party’s 100th anniversary – not a time to make an unforced policy error with an already wobbly economy.

Highlights OPEC 2.0 output will fall 850k b/d, following a surprise production cut of 1mm b/d by Saudi Arabia announced after two days of OPEC 2.0 meetings.   Russia and Kazakhstan will be allowed to increase production by 75k b/d. More than 70% of producers in the Permian Basin are using an average WTI price of $44/bbl in capex planning, which, if maintained, will restrain US oil output. On the demand side, rising COVID-19 infection, hospitalization and death rates are prompting lockdowns that will restrain oil consumption (Chart of the Week).  However, fiscal support for households will keep consumer spending from collapsing. USD weakness will continue, in line with our expectations, and will support the rally in oil prices. We believe the balance of price risks remains to the upside:  Vaccination rates will increase.  Despite rising COVID-19-induced demand destruction in DM economies, consumption in Asia will continue to recover in 1H21.  OPEC 2.0 will continue to match output to consumption.  Our average Brent forecast for 2021 remains at $63/bbl. The average return on open and closed commodity recommendations at the end of 2020 was -48%, bringing our average return over the past five years to +32%.  Feature The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) surprised markets earlier this week with its announcement it will unilaterally cut 1mm b/d of its production in February and March, allowing Russia and Kazakhstan to lift output by 75k b/d in February and by another 75k b/d in March. This will take KSA’s production to ~ 8.1mm b/d, and reduce OPEC 2.0’s production by 850k b/d by March. Prior to Tuesday’s announcement, markets were concerned the inability of KSA and Russia, OPEC 2.0’s putative leaders, to quickly agree production levels against a backdrop of rising COVID-19 infection, hospitalization and death rates signaled the coalition was once again fraying, as it did briefly last year. In March 2020, when the extent of the demand destruction the COVID-19 pandemic could cause was emerging, Russia announced it would not agree to an extension of production cuts then in place at an OPEC 2.0 meeting in Vienna. While the ultimate target of this strategy likely was US shale-oil producers, the declaration prompted KSA to flood oil markets by surging its production and drawing inventories. This exacerbated the COVID-19-induced price collapse in Brent and the KSA and Russian benchmark-crude differentials – Saudi Light and Urals –swelled inventories globally (Chart 2). Chart Of The WeekCOVID-19 Infections, Deaths Will Continue To Hamper Demand Chart 2OPEC 2.0 Unity Is Key To Our View OPEC 2.0 Fraying? Our maintained global oil-supply hypothesis is underpinned by the cohesion of OPEC 2.0’s production discipline. Challenges to OPEC 2.0’s shared sense of purpose in the form of disarray within the coalition undermine our supply assumptions, and, perforce, our price forecast. However, an ancillary feature of this hypothesis is supported by apparent disarray within OPEC 2.0: Reminding global oil markets member states are eager to monetize production being held in reserve – i.e., some 7mm b/d of spare capacity, and millions of barrels of low-cost reserves that can quickly be brought to market – serves the coalition’s interest in disincentivizing capital markets from funding production outside the borders of member states. In our view, OPEC 2.0 is targeting an oil-price level – $65/bbl for Brent on average over the next five years – to rebuild member states’ fiscal accounts, and to fund the diversification away from oil-export revenue dependence (Chart 3). It will use current production, spare capacity and inventories to meet increasing demand before producers outside the coalition – chiefly US shale producers – are able to, and keep prices in a range that meets its price target (Chart 4). Chart 3OPEC 2.0 Is Targeting Brent Above USD60 Per Barrel Over 2021-25 Chart 4OPEC 2.0 Production Will Respond Quickly To Demand Changes The ultimate goal is to maintain the rate of growth in production below that of consumption globally, producing physical deficits (Chart 5). This will force inventories to draw to cover these deficits (Chart 6), which, in turn, will backwardate forward oil-price curves (Chart 7). Chart 5OPEC 2.0 Will Keep Production Below Consumption... Chart 6...To Draw Down Inventories... Chart 7...And Backwardate Oil Forward Curves US Producers’ Capex Reflects Lower WTI Assumptions By backwardating forward curves, OPEC 2.0 member states will realize higher prices on oil sold into spot markets, while producers outside the coalition hedging production revenues forward will realize lower prices, which will limit the volumes they can bring to market. Ultimately, this will increase OPEC 2.0’s market share, and give it control of global oil-pricing dynamics. Chart 8US Shale Capex Decisions Reflect Lower WTI Price Assumptions US oil producers already are using a lower price deck than implied by the WTI forward curve – $44/bbl, according to the Dallas Fed’s year-end 2020 survey of producers and oil-service companies operating in its district, which includes the prolific Permian Basin (Chart 8). This may reflect the lower willingness of banks to fund their drilling operations, and the evolving backwardation in the WTI market, where the marginal shale-oil producer hedges. If this lower price deck is maintained, we would expect Exploration + Production activities to remain anemic in the US shales. Renewed Lockdowns Could Delay Demand Recovery Health officials in the US, UK, Germany and Japan are renewing lockdowns as COVID-19 infections, hospitalizations and death soar, which likely will reduce oil demand in the short-term until vaccine distribution and inoculation rates increase. In our base case, we see EM oil demand, proxied by non-OECD consumption, recovering to pre-COVID-19 levels by the end of this year with DM demand remaining subdued (Chart 9). Continued USD weakness will continue to support commodity demand, particularly in EM economies (Chart 10). Chart 9Demand Recovery Could Be Delayed By Renewed Lockdowns Chart 10Weaker USD Will Support Demand We will be updating our demand and supply estimates in a couple of weeks, as new data becomes available from the leading energy statistics providers. It is important to note that OPEC 2.0 has been consistently reducing output as realized and anticipated demand has been lowered over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. We expect this supply-side response to weakening demand to continue. Indeed, KSA’s surprise production cut supports our dominant-supplier hypothesis targeting a price level by adjusting output to meet demand. 2020 Recommendations Down 48% Our failure to close out oil positions in 1Q20 dependent on continued OPEC 2.0 production discipline and improving demand cost us dearly. Our crude oil backwardation trades, in particular, suffered from this and dragged returns on our overall recommendations sharply lower at the beginning of the year (see trade summaries on p.11). On the plus side, our open trades at the end of 2020 continue to perform well, and closed the year up 23%. This can be attributed to OPEC 2.0 production discipline, improving oil demand and the global economic recovery – particularly in Asia’s EM economies, led by China, which lifted oil and metals prices. Net, the average return of our closed and open positions at year-end was -48%. This brings the average five-year return to +32%. The key take-away from this experience is this: Stop-losses are critical on positions that are working, as is strict discipline to cut positions that are not working based on hard stop-losses. Bottom Line: We continue to expect Brent prices to average $63/bbl this year, as OPEC 2.0 continues to calibrate production to demand – both on the downside and the upside. We are expecting DM lockdowns to further reduce realized and expected demand over the short term, which will be countered by lower output from OPEC 2.0. We continue to expect US shale production to fall in 1H21, and to slowly recover. However, that recovery could be delayed if OPEC 2.0 is successful in disincentivizing investment in non-coalition production.   Robert P. Ryan  Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com     Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish Brent prices reached a multi-month high on Tuesday following news Saudi Arabia pledged to reduce its production by an additional 1mm b/d in February and March while most other OPEC 2.0 producers keep producing at current quotas. KSA’s cuts come on the back of rapidly rising COVID-19 cases globally and intensifying lockdowns in various regions. OPEC 2.0 is reacting to changes in global oil demand and will continue performing a careful balancing act over 1Q21. We expect oil prices to move up going into 2H21 as wider vaccine distribution begins to slow the spread of the virus. The backwardation in oil market deepened following the announcement (Chart 11). Base Metals: Bullish Already-tight copper markets are getting tighter in the wake of a three-week roadblock in Peru, which has blocked the export of close to 190k MT of copper concentrate, according to mining.com. Production at the Las Bambas mine could halt production entirely, according to local officials. Should that occur, 2% of global mine production would be removed from the market. We are forecasting a physical deficit in 2021-22, on the back of inadequate mining capex and falling ore quality. We expect inventories will continue to draw as consumption increases amid stagnant output (Chart 12). Precious Metals: Bullish As we go to press, Democrats won one of the Senate elections in Georgia and appear likely to win the second. Winning both seats has important ramifications for gold prices over the next few years. This increases the odds of larger fiscal stimulus over the short- and medium-term and reduces the risk of premature fiscal tightening. Fiscal and monetary policy need to work in tandem to generate above-target inflation over the next 2-3 years. Larger fiscal spending is important for sustaining strong broad money growth until the private sector fully recovers. Ags/Softs:  Neutral  Argentina’s export ban and continued poor weather conditions are bolstering corn prices, pushing nearby CME corn futures prices to $5/bu earlier this week. A Farm Futures Survey released this week indicated falling yields in the US will accompany lower supplies in Latin America due to dry weather, according to farmfutures.com. Chart 11Backwardation Deepens Following Voluntary Saudi Oil Cuts Chart 12Copper Supply-Demand Balances Point To Growing Deficits Footnotes Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Trade Recommendation Performance In 2020 Q3 Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2020 Summary of Trades Closed

Special Report

Many investors feel that the Phillips Curve has failed to predict weak inflation over the past decade. But this perception is due to a singular focus on the economic slack component of the modern-day version of the curve to the exclusion of inflation expectations, and a failure to fully consider the lasting impact of sustained periods of a negative output gap on those expectations. In addition, many investors tend to downplay the long-term balance sheet impact of two episodes of excesses and savings/capital misallocations on the relationship between the stance of monetary policy and the output gap, via a persistently negative shock to aggregate demand and a reduced sensitivity of economic activity to interest rates. The COVID-19 pandemic was certainly a major economic shock. But for now, it seems like this was a sharp income statement recession, not a balance-sheet recession. This fact, along with lower odds of negative supply-side shocks and several structural factors, suggest that inflation will be higher over the next ten years than it has over the past decade. Investors looking to protect against potentially higher inflation should look primarily to commodities, cyclical stocks, and US farmland. Gold is likely to remain well supported over the coming few years, but rich valuation suggests the long-term outlook for the yellow metal is poor. A hybrid TIPS/currency portfolio has historically been strongly correlated with the price of gold, and may provide investors with long-term protection against inflation – at a better price. Introduction Chart II-1A Surge In Long-Dated Inflation Expectations The pandemic, and the corresponding fiscal and monetary response is challenging the low-inflation outlook of many market participants. Chart II-1 highlights that long-dated market-based inflation expectations have surged past their pre-COVID levels after collapsing to the lowest-ever level in March. The shift in thinking about inflation has partly been a response to an extraordinary rise in government spending in many countries. But Chart II-1 shows that long-dated expectations in the US were mostly trendless from April to June as Federal support was distributed, and instead rose sharply in July and August in the lead-up to the Fed’s official shift to an average inflation targeting regime. This new dawn for US monetary policy has been prompted not just by the pandemic, but also by the extended period of below-target inflation over the past decade. In this report, we review how the past ten-year episode of low inflation can be successfully explained through the lens of the expectations-augmented (i.e. “modern-day”) Phillips Curve. Many investors fail to fully appreciate the impact that inflation expectations have on driving actual inflation, as well as the cumulative impact of two major capital and savings misallocations over the past 25 years on the responsiveness of demand to interest rates and on the level of inflation expectations. Using the modern-day Phillips Curve as a guide, we present several reasons in favor of the view that inflation will be higher over the next decade than over the past ten years. Finally, we conclude with an assessment of several ways for investors to protect their portfolios from rising inflation. Revisiting The “Modern-Day” Phillips Curve The original Phillips Curve, as formulated by New Zealand economist William Phillips in the late 1950s, described a negative relationship between the unemployment rate and the pace of wage growth. Given the close correlation between wage and overall price growth at the time, the Phillips Curve was soon extended and generalized to describe an inverse relationship between labor market slack and overall price inflation. Chart II-2Rising Unemployment And Inflation Challenged The Original Phillips Curve However, the experience of rising inflation alongside high unemployment from the late 1960s to the late 1970s underscored that prices are also importantly determined by inflation expectations and shocks to the supply-side of the economy (Chart II-2). In the 1980s and 1990s, the Federal Reserve’s success at reigning in inflation was achieved not only by raising interest rates to punishingly high levels, but also by sharply altering consumer, business, and investor expectations about future prices. The experience of the late 1960s and 1970s led to a revised form of the Phillips Curve, dubbed the “expectations-augmented” or “modern” version. As an equation, the modern Phillips Curve is described today by Fed officials, in terms of core inflation, as follows: πct = β1πet + β2πct-1 + β3πct-2 - β4SLACKt + β5IMPt + εt where: πct = Core inflation today πet = Expectations of inflation πct-n = Lagged core inflation SLACKt = Slack in the economy IMPt = Imported goods prices εt = Other shocks to prices Described verbally, this framework suggests that “economic slack, changes in imported goods prices, and idiosyncratic shocks all cause core inflation to deviate from its longer-term trend that is ultimately determined by long-run inflation expectations.1” This framework can easily be extended to headline inflation by adding changes in food and energy prices. In most formal models of the economy in use today, the modern Phillips Curve is combined with the New Keynesian demand function to describe business cycles: Yt = Y*t – β(r-r*) + εt where: Yt = Real GDP Y*t = Real potential GDP r = The real interest rate r* = The neutral rate of interest εt = Other shocks to output This equation posits that differences in the real interest rate from its neutral level, along with idiosyncratic shocks to demand, cause real GDP to deviate from potential output. Abstracting from import prices and idiosyncratic shocks, these two equations tell a simple and intuitive story of how the economy generally works: The stance of monetary policy determines the output gap and, The output gap, along with inflation expectations, determine inflation. The Modern-Day Phillips Curve: The Pre-2000 Experience This above view of inflation and demand was strongly accepted by investors before the 2008 global financial crisis, but the decade-long period of generally below-target inflation has caused a crisis of faith in the idea of the Phillips Curve. Charts II-3 and II-4 show the historical record of the New Keynesian demand function and the modern-day Phillips Curve, using five-year averages of the data in question to smooth out the impact of short-term and idiosyncratic effects. We use nominal GDP growth as our long-run proxy for the neutral rate of interest,2 the US Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) estimate of potential GDP to determine the output gap, and a proprietary measure of inflation expectations based on an adaptive expectations framework3 (Chart II-5). Chart II-3With Just Two Exceptions, Monetary Policy Strongly Explained Demand Before 2000 Chart II-4Similarly, Pre-2000 The Output Gap Generally Explained Unexpected Inflation Chart II-3 shows that until 1999, the stance of monetary policy was highly predictive of the output gap over a five-year period, with just two exceptions where major structural forces were at play: the late 1970s, and the second half of the 1990s. In the case of the former, the disruptive effect of persistently high inflation negatively impacted output growth despite easy monetary policy, and in the latter case, economic activity was modestly stronger than what interest rates would have implied due to the beneficial impact of the technologically-driven productivity boom of that decade. Similarly, Chart II-4 shows that until 1999 there was a good relationship between the output gap and the deviation in inflation from expectations, again with the late 1970s and late 1990s as exceptions. Along with the beneficial supply-side effects of the disinflationary tech boom, persistent import price weakness (via dollar strength) seems to have also played a role in suppressing inflation in the late 1990s (Chart II-6). Chart II-5The Expectations Component Of The Modern Phillips Curve, Visualized Chart II-6A Strong Dollar Also Played A Role In Suppressing Inflation During The 1990s   The Modern-Day Phillips Curve Post-2000 Following 2000, deviations between the monetary policy stance, the output gap, and inflation become more prominent, particularly after 2008. As we will illustrate below, these deviations are more apparent on the demand side. In the case of inflation, the question should be why inflation was not even lower in the years immediately following the global financial crisis. On both the demand and inflation side, these deviations are explainable, and in a way that helps us determine future inflation. Charts II-7 and II-8 show the same series as in Charts II-3 and II-4, but focused on the post-2000 period. From 2000-2007, Chart II-8 shows that the relationship between the output gap and the deviation in inflation from expectations was not particularly anomalous. The output gap was negative from the end of the 2001 recession until the beginning of 2006, and inflation was correspondingly below expectations on average for the cycle. Chart II-7Post-2000, The Output Gap Decoupled From The Monetary Policy Stance Chart II-8Since The GFC, The Real Mystery Is Why Inflation Has Been So Strong   Chart II-7 shows that the anomaly during that cycle was in the relationship between the output gap and the stance of monetary policy. Monetary policy was the easiest it had been in two decades, yet the output gap was negative for several years following the recession. Larry Summers pointedly cited this divergence in his revival of the secular stagnation theory in November 2013, arguing that it was strong evidence that excess savings were depressing aggregate demand via a lower neutral rate of interest and that this effect pre-dated the financial crisis. Why was demand so weak during that period? Chart II-9 compares the annualized per capita growth in the expenditure components of GDP during the 2001-2007 expansion to the 1991-2001 period. The chart shows that all components of GDP were lower than during the 1991-2001 period, with investment – the most interest rate sensitive component of GDP – showing up as particularly weak. On the surface, this supports the idea of structural factors weighing heavily on the neutral rate, rendering monetary policy less easy than investors would otherwise expect. But Chart II-9 treats the 2001-2007 years as one period, ignoring what happened over the course of the expansion. Chart II-10 repeats the exercise shown in Chart II-9 from Q1 2001 to Q3 2005, and highlights that the annualized growth in per capita residential investment was much stronger than it was during the 1991-2001 period – and nonresidential fixed investment was much weaker. Spending on goods was roughly the same, which is impressive considering that the late 1990s experienced a productivity boom and robust wage growth. All the negative contribution to growth from residential investment during the 2001-2007 expansion came after Q3 2005, as the housing market bubble burst in response to rising interest rates. In short, Chart II-10 highlights that there was a strong relationship between easy monetary policy and the demand for housing, but that this was not true for the corporate sector. Chart II-9Looking At The Whole 2001-2007 Period, Investment Was Extremely Weak Chart II-10Housing Absolutely Responded To Easy Monetary Policy   Explaining Weak CAPEX Growth In The Early 2000s This leads us to ask why CAPEX was so weak during the 2001-2007 period. In addition to changes in interest rates, business investment is strongly influenced by expectations of consumer demand and corporate profitability. Chart II-11 shows that real nonresidential fixed investment and as-reported earnings moved in lockstep during the period, and that this delayed corporate-sector recovery also impacted the pace of hiring. Weak expectations for consumer spending do not appear to be the culprit. Chart II-12 highlights that while real personal consumption expenditure growth fell during the recession, spending did not contract (as it had done during the previous recession) and capital expenditures fell much more than what real PCE would have implied. Chart II-11Post-2001, Persistently Weak Profits Led To Weak Investment And Jobs Growth Chart II-12CAPEX Was Much Weaker In 2002 Than Justified By Consumer Spending   Instead, persistently weak CAPEX in the early 2000s appears to be best explained by the damaging impact of corporate excesses that built up during the dot-com bubble. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 was passed in response to a series of corporate accounting frauds that came to light in the wake of the bubble, but in many cases had been occurring for several years. Chart II-13 highlights that widespread write-offs badly impacted earnings quality and the growth in the asset value of equipment and intellectual property products (IPP), both of which only began to improve again in early 2003. This occurred alongside an outright contraction in real investment in IPP as investors lost faith in company financial statements and heavily scrutinized corporate spending. Chart II-14highlights that a contraction in IP spending was a huge change from the double-digit pace of growth that occurred in the late 1990s. Chart II-13The Damaging Impact Of Corporate Excesses Chart II-14A Near-Unprecedented Collapse In IPP Investment Followed The Tech Bubble   In addition, corporate sector indebtedness also appears to have played a role in driving weak investment in the early 2000s. While the interest burden of nonfinancial corporate debt was not as high in 2000 as it was in the early 1990s, Chart II-15 highlights that debt to operating income surged in the late 1990s – which likely caused investors already skeptical about company financial statements to impose a period of elevated capital discipline on corporate managers following the recession. Chart II-16 shows that while the peak in the 12-month trailing corporate bond default rate in January 2002 was similar to that of the early 90s, it was meaningfully higher on average in the lead-up to and following the recession. Chart II-15The Late-1990s Saw A Major Increase In Corporate Debt Chart II-16Above-Average Corporate Defaults Before And After The 2001 Recession   To summarize, Charts II-10-16 underscore that management excesses, governance failures, and elevated debt in the corporate sector in the 1990s were the root cause of the seeming divergence between monetary policy and the output gap from 2001 to 2007. This was, unfortunately, the first of two major savings/capital misallocations that have occurred in the US over the past 25 years. Explaining The Post-GFC Experience In the early 2000s, the Federal Reserve was faced with a decision between two monetary policy paths: one that was appropriate for the corporate sector, and one that was appropriate for the household sector. The Fed chose the former, and it inadvertently contributed to the second major savings/capital misallocation to occur over the past 25 years: the enormous debt-driven bubble in US housing that culminated into the global financial crisis (GFC) of 2007-2009. Chart II-17It Is No Mystery Why Demand And Inflation Were Weak Last Cycle As a result, 2007 to 2013/2014 was a mirror image of the early 2000s. Unlike previous post-war downturns, the GFC precipitated a balance-sheet recession that deeply affected homeowners and the financial system. This lasting damage led to a multi-year household deleveraging process, which substantially lowered the responsiveness of the economy to stimulative monetary policy. On a year-over-year basis, Chart II-17 shows that total nominal household mortgage credit growth was continuously negative for six and a half years, from Q4 2008 until Q2 2015, underscoring that the large divergence during this period between the stance of monetary policy and the output gap should not, in any way, be surprising to investors. And this is even before accounting for the negative impact of the euro area sovereign debt crisis and double-dip recession, or the persistent fiscal drag in nearly every advanced economy last cycle. What is surprising about the post-GFC experience is that inflation was not substantially weaker than it was, which is ironic considering that the secular stagnation narrative was revived to help explain below-target inflation. Chart II-8 showed that actual inflation steadily improved versus expected inflation alongside the closing of the output gap and the decline in the unemployment rate, but that it was much stronger than the output gap would have implied – particularly during the early phase of the economic recovery. It is still an open question as to why this occurred. A weak dollar and a strong recovery in oil prices likely helped support consumer prices, but we doubt that these two factors alone explain the discrepancy. A more credible answer is that expectations stayed very well anchored due to the Fed’s strong record of maintaining low and stable inflation (thus preventing a disinflationary spiral). In addition, the fact that the Fed actively communicated to the public during the early recovery years that a large part of its objective was to prevent deflation may have helped support prices. For example, in a CBS interview following the Fed’s November 2010 decision to engage in a second round of quantitative easing (“QE2”), then-Chair Bernanke prominently tied the decision to the fact that “inflation is very, very low.” When asked whether additional rounds of easing might be required, Bernanke responded that it was “certainly possible” and again cited inflation as a core consideration. Chart II-18Rising US Oil Production Caused The Massive 2014 Oil Price Shock While inflation did not ultimately fall relative to expectations post-GFC as much as the output gap would have implied, the long-lasting weakness in demand left expectations vulnerable to exogenous shocks. In 2014, such a shock occurred: oil prices collapsed almost exactly at the point that US tight oil production crossed the four-million-barrels-per-day mark (Chart II-18), a level of output that many experts had previously believed would not be attainable (or would roughly mark the peak in production). We view this event as a truly exogenous shock to prices, given that research & development of shale technology had been ongoing since the late 1970s and only happened to finally gain traction around 2010. Chart II-19 shows that the 2014 oil price collapse caused a clear break lower in our measure of inflation expectations, to the lowest value recorded since the 1940s. This break also occurred in market-based expectations of inflation, such as long-dated CPI swap rates and TIPS breakeven inflation rates, and surveys of consumer inflation expectations (Chart II-20). This decline in inflation expectations meant that the output gap needed to be above zero in order for the Fed to hit its 2% target (absent any upwards shock to prices), and that the meaningful acceleration of inflation from 2016 to 2018 should actually be viewed as inflation “outperformance” because its long-term trend had been lowered by the earlier downward shift in expectations. Chart II-19The 2014 Oil Price Shock Collapsed Inflation Expectations... Chart II-20...No Matter What Inflation Expectations Measure Is Used   The Modern-Day Phillips Curve: Key Takeaways Based on the evidence presented above, we see the perceived “failure” of the Phillips Curve to predict weak inflation over the past decade as being due to: A singular focus on the output gap/slack component of the modern Phillips Curve, to the exclusion of expectations A failure to fully consider the lasting impact of sustained periods of a negative output gap on expectations Downplaying the long-term balance-sheet impact of two episodes of excesses and savings/capital misallocations on the relationship between the stance of monetary policy and the output gap, via a persistently negative shock to aggregate demand and a reduced sensitivity of economic activity to interest rates. One crucial takeaway from the modern-day Phillips Curve equation presented above is that if inflation expectations are largely formed based on the experience of past inflation, then inflation is ultimately determined by three dimensions of the output gap: whether it is rising or falling, whether it is above or below zero, and how long it has been above or below zero. The extended period of below-potential output over the past two decades, accelerated recently by a major negative shock to energy prices, has now lowered inflation expectations to a point that merely reaching the Fed’s target constitutes inflation “outperformance.” This realization, made even more urgent by the COVID-19 pandemic, has strongly motivated the Fed’s official shift to an average inflation targeting regime. That shift does not suggest that the Fed is moving away from the modern-day Phillips Curve framework; rather, the Fed’s new policy is aimed at closing the output gap as quickly as possible in order to prevent a renewed decline in inflation expectations (and thus inflation itself) from another long period of activity running below its potential. The Outlook For Inflation While the Fed has shifted its policy to prefer higher inflation, that does not necessarily mean it will get it. Why is it likely to happen this time, if the last economic cycle featured such a large divergence between monetary policy and the output gap? Chart II-21Above-Target Inflation Is Not Imminent First, to clarify, we do not believe that above-target inflation is imminent. The COVID-19 pandemic was an extreme event, and even given the very substantial recovery in the labor market, the unemployment rate remains almost 2½ percentage points above the Congressional Budget long-run estimate of NAIRU (Chart II-21). But based on our analysis of the modern-day Phillips Curve presented above, there are at least four main reasons to expect that inflation may be higher on average over the next ten years than over the past decade. Reason #1: This Appears To Be A Sharp Income Statement Recession, Not A Balance-Sheet Recession We highlighted above the importance of savings/capital misallocations in driving a gap between monetary policy and the output gap over the past two decades, but this recession was obviously not sparked by such an event. The onset of the pandemic came following a long period of US household sector deleveraging which, while painful, helped restore consumer balance sheets. Chart II-22 highlights that household debt to disposable income had fallen back to 2001 levels at the onset of the pandemic, and the interest burden of debt servicing had fallen to a 40-year low. From a wealth perspective, Chart II-23 highlights that total household liabilities to net worth have fallen below where they were at the peak of the housing market boom in 2005 for almost all income groups, and that a decline in leverage has been particularly noteworthy for the lowest income group since mid-2016. Chart II-22Households Have Repaired Their Balance Sheets... Chart II-23...Across Almost All Income Brackets   Total credit to the nonfinancial corporate sector rose significantly relative to GDP over the course of the last cycle, but subpar growth in real nonresidential fixed investment and a rise in share buybacks highlight that this debt went largely to fund changes in capital structure rather than increased productive capacity. Chart II-24 highlights that corporate sector interest payments as a percentage of operating income are low relative to history, and they do not seem to be necessarily dependent on extremely low government bond yields.4 Finally, the corporate bond default rate may have already peaked (Chart II-25) and the percentage of jobs permanently lost looks more like 2001 than 2007 (Chart II-26), signaling that a prolonged balance-sheet recession is unlikely. Chart II-24Corporate Sector Debt Is Currently High, But Affordable Chart II-25Corporate Defaults Have Already Peaked Chart II-26So Far, Permanent Job Losses Look Like The 2001 Recession, Not 2007/2008 The bottom line is that while the pandemic has not yet been resolved and that major and permanent economic damage cannot be ruled out, the absence of “balance-sheet dynamics” is likely to eventually lead to a stronger responsiveness of demand for goods and services to what is set to be an extraordinarily easy monetary policy stance for at least another two years. Reason #2: The Fed May Be Able To Jawbone Inflation Higher The Fed’s public commitment to set interest rates in a way that will generate moderately above-target inflation is highly reminiscent of its defense of quantitative easing in the early phase of the last economic expansion, and (in the opposite fashion) of Paul Volker’s campaign in the 1980s against the “self-fulfilling prophecy” of inflation. From 2008-2014, the Fed explicitly linked the odds of future bond buying to the pace of actual inflation in its public statements. On its own, this was not enough to cause inflation to rise, but we highlighted above that it may have contributed to the fact that inflation expectations did not collapse. Chart II-1 on page 12 showed that long-dated market-based expectations for inflation have already been impacted by the Fed’s regime shift, suggesting decent odds that Fed policy will contribute to self-fulfilling price increases if the US economy does indeed avoid “balance-sheet dynamics” as a result of the pandemic. Reason #3: The Odds Of Negative Supply Shocks Are Lower Than In The Past We noted above the impact that energy price shocks and large typically exchange-rate driven changes in import prices can have on inflation, with the 2014 oil price collapse serving as the most vivid recent example. On both fronts, a value perspective suggests that the odds of negative shocks to inflation over the coming few years from oil and the dollar are lower than they have been in the past. Chart II-27 shows that the cost of global energy consumption as a share of GDP has fallen below its median since 1970, and Chart II-28 highlights that the US dollar is comparatively expensive relative to other currencies – which raises the bar for further gains. Stable-to-higher oil prices alongside a flat-to-weak dollar implies reflationary rather than disinflationary pressure. Chart II-27Massive, Downward Shocks To Oil Prices Are Now Less Likely Chart II-28Valuation Favors A Declining Dollar, Which Is Inflationary   Reason #4: Structural Factors In addition to the cyclical arguments noted above, my colleague Peter Berezin, BCA’s Chief Global Strategist, has also highlighted several structural arguments in favor of higher inflation. Chart II-29 highlights that the world support ratio, calculated as the number of workers relative to the number of consumers, peaked early last decade after rising for nearly 40 years. This suggests that output will fall relative to spending the coming several years, which should have the effect of boosting prices. Chart II-30 also highlights that globalization is on the back foot, with the ratio of trade-to-output having moved sideways for more than a decade. Since the early 1990s, rising global trade intensity has corresponded with very low goods prices in many countries, and the end of this trend reduces the impact of a factor that has been weighing on consumer prices globally over the past two decades. Chart II-29Less Production Relative To Consumption Is Inflationary Chart II-30Trade Is Not Suppressing Prices As Much As It Used To   Positioning For Eventually Higher Inflation Below we present an assessment of several potential candidates across the major asset classes that investors can use to protect their portfolios from rising inflation once it emerges. We conclude with a new trade idea that may provide investors with inflation protection at a better valuation profile than more traditional inflation hedges. Fixed-Income Within fixed-income, inflation-linked bonds and derivatives (such as CPI swaps) are the obvious choice for investors seeking inflation protection. Inflation-linked bonds are much better played relative to nominal equivalents, as inflation expectations make up the difference between nominal and inflation-linked yields. But Table II-1 shows that 5-10 year TIPS are also likely to provide positive absolute returns over the coming year even in a scenario where 10-year Treasury yields are rising, so long as real yields do not account for the vast majority of the increase. Barring a major and positive change in the long-term economic outlook over the coming year, our sense is that the Fed would act to cap any outsized increase in real yields and that TIPS remain an attractive long-only option until the Fed becomes sufficiently comfortable with the inflation outlook. Table II-1TIPS Will Earn Positive Absolute Returns Next Year Barring A Surge In Real Yields Commodities Commodities are arguably the most traditional inflation hedge, and are likely to provide investors with superior risk-adjusted returns in an environment where inflation expectations are rising. Our Commodity & Energy Strategy service is positive on gold, and recently argued that Brent crude prices are likely to average between $65-$70/barrel between 2021-2025.5 Chart II-31Gold Is Expensive And Long-Term Returns May Be Poor One caveat about gold is that, unlike oil prices, it appears to be quite expensive relative to its history. Since gold does not provide investors with a cash flow, over time real (or inflation-adjusted) prices should ultimately be mean-reverting unless real production costs steadily trend higher. Chart II-31 highlights that the real price of gold is already sky-high and well above its historical average. Over a ten-year time horizon, gold prices fell meaningfully following the last two occasions where real gold prices reached current levels, suggesting that the long-term outlook for gold returns is poor. However, over the coming few years, gold prices are likely to remain well supported given our economic outlook, the Fed’s new monetary policy regime, and the consistently negative correlation between real yields and the US dollar and gold prices. As such, we would recommend gold as a hedge against the fear of inflation, which is likely to increase over the cyclical horizon. Equities We provide two perspectives on how equity investors may be able to protect themselves against rising inflation. The first is simply to favor cyclical versus defensive sectors. The former is likely to continue to benefit next year in response to a strengthening economy as COVID-19 vaccines are progressively distributed, and historically cyclical sectors have tended to outperform during periods of rising inflation. In addition, my colleague Anastasios Avgeriou, BCA’s Equity Strategist, presented Table II-2 in a June Special Report,6 and it highlights that cyclical sectors (plus health care) have enjoyed positive relative returns on average during periods of rising inflation. Table II-2S&P 500 Sector Performance During Inflationary Periods The second strategy is to favor companies that are more likely to successfully pass on increasing prices to their customers (i.e., firms with “pricing power”). Pricing power is a difficult attribute to identify, but one possible approach is to select industries that have experienced above-average sales per share growth over the past decade. While it is true that the past ten years have seen low rather than high inflation, it has also seen firms in general struggle to achieve robust top-line growth. Industries that have succeeded in this environment may thus be able to pass on higher costs to their customers without disproportionately suffering from lower sales. Chart II-32Last Decade's Revenue Winners: Potential Pricing Power Candidates Chart II-32 presents the historical relative performance of these industries in the US plus the materials and energy sector, equally-weighted and compared to an equally-weighted industry group portfolio (level 2 GICS). The chart shows that the portfolio has outperformed steadily over the past decade, although admittedly at a slower pace since 2018. An interesting feature of this approach is that, in addition to including industries within the industrials, consumer discretionary, and health care sectors (along with the food & staples retailing component of the consumer staples sector), tech stocks show up prominently due to their outstanding revenue performance over the past decade. Table II-2 above highlighted that tech stocks have historically performed poorly during periods of rising inflation, although it is unclear whether this is due to increasing prices or expectations of rising interest rates. Tech stocks are typically long-duration assets, meaning that they are very sensitive to the discount rate, but the Fed’s new monetary policy regime all but guarantees that investors will see a gap between inflation and rates for a time. It is thus an open question how tech stocks would perform in the future in response to rising inflation, and we plan to revisit this topic in a future report. Chart II-33Owners Of Existing Infrastructure Assets Are Primarily Utilities And Telecom Companies As a final point within the stock market, we would caution against equity portfolios favoring companies that are owners or operators of infrastructure assets. While increased infrastructure spending may indeed occur in the US over the coming several years, indexes focused on companies with sizeable existing infrastructure assets tend to be highly concentrated in the utilities and telecommunications sectors. Chart II-33 shows that the relative performance of the MSCI ACWI Infrastructure Index is nearly identical to that of a 50/50 utilities/telecom services portfolio, two sectors that are defensive rather than pro-cyclical and that have historically performed poorly during periods of rising inflation. Direct Real Estate Alongside commodities, direct real estate investment is also typically viewed as a traditional inflation hedge. For now, however, the outlook for important segments of the commercial real estate market is sufficiently cloudy that it is difficult to form a high conviction view in favor of the asset class. CMBS delinquency rates on office properties have remained low during the pandemic, but those of retail and accommodation have soared and the long-term outlook for all three may have permanently shifted due to the impact of the pandemic. By contrast, industrial and medical properties are likely to do well, with the former likely to be increasingly negatively correlated with the performance of retail properties in the coming few years (i.e., “warehouses versus malls”). I noted my colleague Peter Berezin’s structural arguments for inflation above, and Peter has also highlighted farmland as a real asset that is likely to do well in an environment of rising inflation.7 Chart II-34 further supports the argument: the chart shows that despite a significant increase in real farm real estate values over the past 20 years, returns to operators as a % of farmland values are not unattractive. In addition, USDA forecasts for 2020 suggest that operator returns will be the highest in a decade relative to current 10-year Treasury yields, underscoring both the capital appreciation and relative yield potential of US farmland. A Hybrid TIPS/Currency Inflation-Hedged Portfolio Finally, as we highlighted in Section 1, in a world of extremely low government bond yields, global ex-US investors have the advantage of being able to hedge against deflationary risks in a long-only portfolio by employing the US dollar as a diversifying asset. The dollar is consistently negatively correlated with global stock prices, and this relationship tends to strengthen during crisis periods. The flip side is that US-based investors have the advantage of being able to hedge against inflationary risks in a long-only portfolio by buying global currencies. Chart II-35 presents a 50/50 portfolio of US TIPS and an equally-weighted basket of six major DM currencies against the US dollar. The chart highlights that the portfolio is strongly positively correlated with gold prices, but with a better valuation profile. We already showed in Chart II-28 on page 28 that global currencies are undervalued versus the US dollar. TIPS valuation is not as attractive given that real yields are at record low levels, but the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate currently sits at its 40th percentile historically (and thus has room to move higher). Chart II-34Farmland: Protection Again Inflation, At A Decent Yield Chart II-35A Hybrid TIPS/Currency Portfolio: Liquid, And Cheaper Than Gold   As such, while gold prices are likely to remain supported over the cyclical horizon, a hybrid TIPS/currency portfolio may also provide investors with long-term protection against inflation – at a better price. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Footnotes 1 “Inflation Dynamics and Monetary Policy,” Janet Yellen, Speech at the Philip Gamble Memorial Lecture, University of Massachusetts - Amherst, Amherst, Massachusetts, September 24, 2015. 2 The use of nominal GDP growth as our proxy for the neutral rate of interest is based on the idea that borrowing costs are stimulative if they are below that of income growth. 3 An adaptive expectations framework suggests that expectations for future inflation are largely determined by what has occurred in the past. Our proxy for inflation expectations is thus calculated using simple exponential smoothing of the actual PCE deflator, which provides us with a long and consistent time series for expectations. 4 The second debt service ratio shown in Chart II-24 would only rise to its 68th historical percentile if the 10-year Treasury yield were to rise to 3%, or the 75th with a 10-year yield at 4%. This would be elevated relative to history, but not extreme. 5 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Report “BCA’s 2021-25 Brent Forecast: $65-$70/bbl,” dated November 12, 2020, available at ces.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see US Equity Strategy Special Report “Revisiting Equity Sector Winners And Losers When Inflation Climbs,” dated June 1, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report “Will There Be A Fiscal Hangover?” dated May 29, 2020, available at gis.bcaresearch.com

This is our last report of this year. We will resume publications in January. The EM strategy team wishes you a happy holiday season and a prosperous new year. Chart Of The weekFiscal Thrust Is A Major Negative In 2021 Emerging market equities, currencies and credit markets are facing crosscurrents. On the positive side, their business cycle will continue to improve, albeit from very low levels, and there is too much money chasing fewer securities globally. On the other hand, several factors argue for a shakeout in EM financial markets: (1) peak investor sentiment and positioning, (2) peak stimulus and continued regulatory tightening in China and (3) the negative fiscal thrust in the US as well as in EM ex-China, Korea and Taiwan. Our Chart of the Week illustrates that the aggregate fiscal thrust in EM ex-China, Korea and Taiwan will be -2.7% of GDP in 2021. The charts on the following pages illustrate these positives and negatives. With such factors in mind, EM risk assets should price in those negatives and work out excesses before resuming their uptrend. Hence, our best hunch is that a potential shakeout is likely to occur before a breakout. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com EM ex-China: Fiscal Thrust And New Covid Cases In many emerging economies, the good news about the vaccines could be offset by a negative fiscal thrust in 2021. Brazil, Peru, Poland and Hungary stand out as those economies facing the most negative fiscal thrust in 2021. Brazil is in an especially  precarious position and is facing a dilemma: financial markets might sell off in the wake of fiscal stimulus or the economy will relapse again if fiscal policy is not eased substantially. Chart 1 Chart 2EM ex-China: Fiscal Thrust And New Covid Cases Chart 3EM ex-China: Fiscal Thrust And New Covid Cases   Will EM Share Prices Break Out? EM equity prices have risen back to their highs of the last decade. Will they break out and enter a secular bull market? In our outlook report for 2021, for the first time in the past 10 years we suggested that odds of a breakout next year are more than 50%. Nevertheless, it could be preceded by a shakeout. The following pages contain many indicators and charts that highlight both upside and downside risks. Watching emerging Asian credit markets is essential: if the excess return on high-yield corporate bonds breaks out above investment grade bonds, odds of a breakout will rise. Chart 4Will EM Share Prices Break Out? Chart 5Will EM Share Prices Break Out? Chart 6Will EM Share Prices Break Out?   Outside The US, Global Equities Have Not Broken Out Yet Only US stocks have had a broad-based breakout – both large and small caps as well as the equal-weighted index. Global ex-US equity indexes have not yet broken out above their previous highs. Chart 7Outside The US, Global Equities Have Not Broken Out Yet Chart 8Outside The US, Global Equities Have Not Broken Out Yet Chart 9Outside The US, Global Equities Have Not Broken Out Yet Chart 10Outside The US, Global Equities Have Not Broken Out Yet   Too Much Money Chasing Fewer Securities One major reason to expect breakouts in global ex-US share prices is too much money chasing fewer securities. The current round of QEs is producing ballooning broad money supply worldwide. Such a powerful boost to broad money supply is a major departure for QE programs from those of the last decade. We discussed those differences in the following special report: Dissecting The Impact Of QE Programs On Asset Prices And Inflation. Chart 11Too Much Money Chasing Fewer Securities Chart 12Too Much Money Chasing Fewer Securities Chart 13Too Much Money Chasing Fewer Securities Chart 14Too Much Money Chasing Fewer Securities   EM/China EPS Recovery To Continue In H1 2021 As previous stimulus packages continue to work their way through the Chinese economy, its business cycle will remain robust in H1 2021. Reviving business and consumer confidence will reinforce it. EM corporate profits will continue recovering in H1 2021. Chart 15EM/China EPS Recovery To Continue In H1 2021 Chart 16EM/China EPS Recovery To Continue In H1 2021 Chart 17EM/China EPS Recovery To Continue In H1 2021 Chart 18EM/China EPS Recovery To Continue In H1 2021   Global Business Cycle And Investor Expectations Global trade and manufacturing have staged a strong comeback but investor/analyst expectations are already very elevated. Chart 19Global Business Cycle And Investor Expectations Chart 20Global Business Cycle And Investor Expectations Chart 21Global Business Cycle And Investor Expectations Chart 22Global Business Cycle And Investor Expectations   Growth In EM ex-China, Korea And Taiwan In EM ex-China, Korea and Taiwan, the economic activity will continue to improve, albeit from very low levels. Chart 23Growth In EM ex-China, Korea And Taiwan Chart 24Growth In EM ex-China, Korea And Taiwan Chart 25Growth In EM ex-China, Korea And Taiwan Chart 26Growth In EM ex-China, Korea And Taiwan   Investor Sentiment On Stocks The latest Bank of America Merrill Lynch survey noted that investor overweights in EM stocks and commodities are the highest since November 2010 and February 2011, respectively.  Overall investor "risk on" optimism is the highest since early 2011. Our charts corroborate extremely bullish investor sentiment. Chart 27Investor Sentiment on Stocks Chart 28Investor Sentiment on Stocks Chart 29Investor Sentiment on Stocks   Red Flag For Chinese Equities Rising corporate bond yields in China’s onshore bond market are not an impediment to rising Chinese share prices as long as forward EPS net revisions are also rising. Recently, not only have onshore corporate bond yields risen but also forward EPS net revisions have rolled over. Such a combination does not bode well for Chinese equities. Chart 30Red Flag For Chinese Equities China’s Monetary Conditions Have Tightened In China, monetary conditions have tightened as real (inflation-adjusted) interest rates have risen considerably and the RMB has appreciated. Such tightening has historically heralded a shakeout in the domestic A-share market and industrial metals prices. Chart 31China's Monetary Conditions Have Tightened Chart 32China's Monetary Conditions Have Tightened Message From Chinese Equities Chinese cyclical equity sectors and small cap stocks have paused or have had a small setback despite strong economic numbers. This could be a roadmap for DM and EM share prices in the coming months. Chart 33Message From Chinese Equities Chart 34Message From Chinese Equities   Message From Chinese Equities China’s A-share index and relative performance of Chinese cyclical stocks versus defensive ones point to a halt in the EM and commodities rallies. Chart 35Message From Chinese Equities Chart 36Message From Chinese Equities China: Peak Stimulus The PBoC has been withdrawing liquidity from the banking system — the seasonally-adjusted excess reserves ratio has been trending lower. This points to a peak in the credit impulse. Reduced central and local government bonds issuance entails a crest in the fiscal stimulus. Chart 37China: Peak Stimulus Chart 38China: Peak Stimulus Chart 39China: Peak Stimulus Chart 40China: Peak Stimulus   China Stimulus And EM Stocks And Commodities Cycles in the adjusted Total Social Financing (TSF) lead fluctuations in EM equity and industrial metals prices. Can EM and commodities break out despite the peak stimulus in China? They have not been able to do so in the past 10 years. Stay tuned. Chart 41China Stimulus and EM Stocks And Commodities Chart 42China Stimulus and EM Stocks And Commodities The US Dollar Is Very Oversold And Is Due For A Rebound Following the 2016 US elections, the US dollar rallied strongly for several weeks before selling off violently. It seems that the broad trade-weighted dollar is now following a reverse pattern. The US dollar in 2016 is shown inverted in this chart. The greenback was selling off before the 2020 US elections and has since continued to weaken. If this reverse pattern is to play out, the US dollar will near its bottom soon and then stage a playable rebound. Chart 43The US Dollar Is Very Oversold and Is Due For A Rebound Chart 44The US Dollar Is Very Oversold and Is Due For A Rebound Several Indicators Herald A US Dollar Rebound The relative outperformance of the US equal-weighted equity index against its global peers and the recent relapse in a cyclical European currency (the Swedish krona) versus a defensive currency (the Swiss franc) point to a potential rebound in the US dollar. Chart 45Several Indicators Herald A US Dollar Rebound Chart 46Several Indicators Herald A US Dollar Rebound   Chart 47Several Indicators Herald A US Dollar Rebound Commodities Prices Have Surged Recently Many commodities prices have recently spiked after the notable rally from their March/April lows. Is the latest spike the final climax phase of the cyclical rally? If yes, China-related plays might have approached a major peak. Chart 48Commodities Prices Have Surged Recently Chart 49Commodities Prices Have Surged Recently   The Latest Rebound In Oil Prices Is Unsustainable The US and European mobility index points to lower gasoline consumption. Critically, the rise in US oil inventories (shown inverted) points to a drop in crude prices. Chart 50The Latest Rebound In Oil Prices Is Unsustainable Chart 51The Latest Rebound In Oil Prices Is Unsustainable   Chart 52The Latest Rebound In Oil Prices Is Unsustainable The Long-Term Oil Outlook Global oil demand will rise next year, as the deployment of the coronavirus vaccines revives mobility and travel. However, greater demand will be offset by higher crude production in 2021. The long-term oil outlook is dismal as the OPEC+ arrangement of suppressing crude output will likely prove unsustainable. In turn, oil consumption will be suppressed by green policies. Notably, long-term (three- and five-year) oil price forwards have failed to advance. Chart 53The Long-Term Oil Outlook Chinese Oil Imports Have Slowed Chart 54The Long-Term Oil Outlook Oil Production Will Rise For Major Producers Chart 55The Long-Term Oil Outlook Long-Term Oil Prices Remain Depressed Chart 56The Long-Term Oil Outlook   EM Fixed-Income Markets EM sovereign and corporate credit spreads (shown inverted on the chart) move in tandem with commodities prices and EM exchange rates. We continue to recommend receiving 10-year swap rates in Mexico, Colombia, Russia, Malaysia, India and China. In the long run, EM currencies are attractive versus the US dollar. Investors should consider buying cash bonds on potential EM currency weakness. Chart 57EM Fixed-Income Markets Chart 58EM Fixed-Income Markets Chart 59EM Fixed-Income Markets Chart 60EM Fixed-Income Markets EM Currencies Are Cheap   A Peak In Copper And Iron Ore Prices Copper and iron ore prices  are vulnerable going into 2021 due to various factors elaborated in our two recent in-depth special reports. Chart 61A Peak In Copper And Iron Ore Prices Chart 62A Peak In Copper And Iron Ore Prices Chart 63A Peak In Copper And Iron Ore Prices   Five High-Conviction Strategies / Trades Long global value / short Chinese value stocks; Stay neutral on EM versus DM equities; Continue receiving select EM 10-year swap rates (please refer page 21); Stay short a basket of high-beta EM currencies versus an equal-weighted basket of the euro, CHF and JPY; Stay long EM consumer staples / short EM bank stocks. Chart 64Five High-Conviction Strategies/Trades Chart 65Five High-Conviction Strategies/Trades Chart 66Five High-Conviction Strategies/Trades Chart 67Five High-Conviction Strategies/Trades   Footnotes Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

Special Report

Dear Client, Please note that this report will be our final publication of the year (what a year!). In addition to the Special Report we are sending you, please join me for the two webcasts I am hosting ("China 2021 Key Views: Shifting Gears In The New Decade") today at 10:00AM EST (English) and Thursday at 9:00 AM Beijing/HK/Taipei time, 12:00 PM Australian Eastern time (Mandarin).  Our publishing schedule will resume on January 6, 2021 with our monthly China Macro and Market Review. Our China Investment Strategy team wishes you a safe, healthy, and happy holiday season! Best regards, Jing Sima, China Strategist   Highlights Chinese crude steel output growth will moderate considerably next year, leading to a sharp reduction in the country’s iron ore imports. Rising domestic iron ore production as well as increasing use of scrap steel will partially substitute Chinese overseas purchases of iron ore next year. In the meantime, the global iron ore output growth will likely be stronger in 2021 than this year. Both iron ore and steel prices are vulnerable to the downside in 2021. Feature Global iron ore prices have rallied over 60% since February, propelled by surging Chinese iron ore imports (Chart 1). China accounts for about 70% of global iron ore imports (Chart 2). Chart 1Iron Ore: Surging Prices On Strong Chinese Imports Chart 2China Accounts For 70% Of Global Iron Ore Imports Iron ore is mainly used in the steel-making process. The surge in Chinese iron ore imports this year was largely due to its strong crude steel1 output growth. Chart 3Strong Crude Steel Production In China For past six months of this year, crude steel output increased by 8.2% compared with a year ago in China, while having contracted considerably in the rest of world (Chart 3, top panel). As the world’s largest steel producer, China currently accounts for 60% of world crude steel output (Chart 3, bottom panel).  However, the odds are that China’s crude steel output growth will decline considerably next year causing a sharp reduction in the country’s iron ore imports. In addition, rising domestic iron ore extraction as well as increasing use of scrap steel next year also point to a drop in Chinese iron ore imports in 2021. Moreover, global iron ore output is set to increase in 2021, putting further downward pressure on iron ore prices. While global steel output outside of China will likely increase next year, the increase in the world ex-China’s iron ore imports will not offset the drop in the Chinese iron ore imports. This is because nearly half of steel output outside China uses an electric-furnaced steelmaking process mainly requiring scrap steel. Puzzling Surge In Chinese Iron Ore Imports Chart 4Stronger Steel Output Growth But Weaker Iron Ore Imports In 2018 And 2019 It is not always true that strong Chinese steel output growth will boost the country’s iron ore imports. China’s annual crude steel output growth was much higher in both 2018 and 2019 than this year. Yet, the country’s iron ore imports still dropped by 1% in 2018 and only rose slightly in 2019, much lower than the strong 11% growth so far this year (Chart 4). The surge in Chinese iron ore imports this year was due not only to strong domestic steel output, but also to limited scrap steel availability, weak domestic iron ore production, and low domestic iron ore inventory. First, scrap steel availability and domestic iron ore supply can be swing factors that determine Chinese iron ore imports. Both scrap steel and domestically mined iron ore can be used as a replacement for imported iron ore in the steel-making process. China’s post-pandemic steel output growth this year reached a similar rate as in 2019, but this year’s scrap steel availability was limited due to a pandemic-induced disruption in the domestic scrap steel supply chain earlier this year. Meanwhile, Chinese authorities started clamping down on ferrous scrap imports in July 2019 due to environmental concerns. This has caused a collapse in the country’s scrap steel imports since then (Chart 5). Chart 5Tighter Scrap Steel Supply In 2020 In comparison, the scrap steel supply was more abundant in the past two years, thereby reducing the need for the country’s iron ore imports. China’s supply-side reforms and a nationwide clampdown on illegal sub-standard steel (Ditiaogang) production in 2017 led to a significant increase in scrap steel supply for steel producers in 2018. The World Steel Association data shows that Chinese crude steel output from the electric-furnace steel-making process—mainly using scrap steel as the feedstock—jumped significantly to a 33% annual growth rate in 2018.  In 2019, despite the decline in the country’s scrap steel imports, total scrap steel supply in China still had a net increase due to a 9% year-on-year growth in domestic scrap steel supply. Second, China’s domestic iron ore output during the first ten months of this year only rose by 0.4% year on year, compared with the sharp increase of approximately 11% in 2019 (Chart 6, top panel). Chart 6Weaker Domestic Iron Ore Output Growth This Year Finally, China’s iron ore inventory level remains low relative to its crude steel output this year, following a substantial destocking cycle in 2018 and 2019 (Chart 6, bottom panel). Chinese ore inventory increased by three million tons so far this year, after having declined 14 million tons in 2019 and nine million tons in 2018. Bottom Line: The surge in Chinese iron ore imports this year was due not only to strong domestic steel output, but also to low iron ore inventory, weak domestic iron ore production and limited scrap steel availability. Substitutes For China’s Imported Iron Ore Both domestic iron ore output and scrap steel supply are likely to rise in 2021. This will reduce the need for imported iron ore in China’s steel-making process.  Chart 7Chinese Iron Ore Output Is Set To Go Up In 2021 The considerable increase in profit margins for Chinese iron ore domestic miners and a declining number of loss-generating companies herald an upside for iron ore output in China (Chart 7). Chinese iron ore output in the past 12 months was still 56% lower than its peak output in 2014. We expect a 5-7% increase in the country’s iron ore output in 2021. Domestic scrap steel supply will also increase considerably in the coming years as the country puts more emphasis on the “green and sustainable development” of its economy. The increasing use of scrap steel clearly fits this narrative, as using one ton of scrap steel in the steel-making process can reduce emissions of 1.6 tons of carbon dioxide and three tons of solid waste.   Chinese domestic scrap steel supply is expected to reach 290-300 million tons by 2025 from approximately 240 million tons in 2019. This suggests an annual increase of about eight to 10 million tons in the country’s domestic scrap steel supply over the next five years. The use of one ton of scrap steel in the steel-making process can reduce iron ore imports by 1.65 tons. This means the increase of eight to ten million tons of scrap steel could reduce iron ore imports by about 13-17 million tons in the coming year. All else being equal, this alone would reduce this year’s 1,074 million tons of Chinese iron ore imports by 1.2-1.5% in 2021.   Moreover, China is also likely to allow the resumption of ferrous scrap imports in 1H2021. The country plans to reclassify eligible ferrous scrap as a recyclable resource so it would be no longer subject to the import ban. The country is expected to release new standards for steel scrap imports by the end of 2020. Scrap imports peaked at 13.7 million tons in 2009 and plunged to 180,000 tons by 2019. We expect China’s scrap steel imports to increase to 1-1.5 million tons in 2021 (Chart 5 on page 4).  The increased use of steel scrap and domestic iron ore will boost the bargaining power for Chinese steelmakers, as there will be greater volumes of raw materials available to Chinese steel mills. Bottom Line: The availability of steel scrap and domestic iron ore is set to increase for Chinese steel producers. This will likely lead to a considerable reduction in Chinese iron ore imports in 2021. What About China’s Steel Output In 2021? Chinese steel output remains a major determinant for the country’s iron ore imports. The growth of crude steel output in China is generally determined by the country’s underlying steel demand, the steel companies’ profit margins, and the extent of capacity expansion in that year. It is also subject to the government’s regulations in the steel sector.2 Chart 8Chinese Steel Consumption Structure First, our research shows that Chinese underlying steel demand growth will decline considerably next year. Chart 8 shows the structure of China’s underlying steel consumption in 2019. Chart 9Weaker Steel Demand Growth From Construction In 2021 About 55% of Chinese steel consumption is consumed in the construction sector. The sector includes development of properties and traditional infrastructure. There is a close correlation between building construction area starts and Chinese total steel demand proxy (Chart 9, top panel). The latter is calculated as China’s steel output plus net imports. Steel is heavily used in the early construction stage of buildings. Traditional infrastructure3 is also a major user of steel products. This year’s boost in traditional infrastructure investment also contributed a sharp rebound in steel use (Chart 9, bottom panel). As government credit and fiscal stimulus have already peaked, traditional infra-structure investment growth will decelerate from the current level. The weakness will be especially pronounced in 2H2021. Regarding building construction, in the October report, we made a case for a moderate growth in property starts over the following six months. For 2021 in its entirety, odds favor a slight contraction in building construction starts. The country’s property demand faces strong structural headwinds. In the meantime, the Chinese authorities seem determined to deleverage the country’s real estate developers. Hence, subdued property demand and shortage of financing for real estate developers will likely to lead to a decrease in building starts. Chart 10Chinese Machinery Output Will Likely Have A Growth Deceleration Next Year   The machinery sector accounted for 17% of Chinese steel consumption in 2019. Chinese machinery output has experienced significant growth this year due to fiscal stimulus. For example, construction machinery, including excavators, loaders, cranes, road rollers, bulldozers, ball graders and spreaders, surged 40% over the past six months and the annualized output reached a record high (Chart 10). We expect a growth deceleration in Chinese machinery output next year due to peak stimulus in 4Q2020. The automobile and shipbuilding sectors accounted for 6% and 2% of Chinese steel consumption in 2019, respectively. Automobile output showed a strong rebound in the past six months while the output of civilian ships was still in a deep contraction during the same period (Chart 11). We expect steel consumption in both sectors to improve only slightly in 2021, which will not offset the steel demand growth reduction in the construction and machinery sectors. The home appliance sector contributed 2% of Chinese steel consumption in 2019. Next year’s government-targeted stimulus in the consumption segment may provide a boost in output of home appliances, albeit a modest one (Chart 12). In addition, global demand for freezers and refrigerators due to the pandemic may diminish. Overall, we expect steel consumption in the home appliance sector will grow only slightly. Chart 11Steel Consumption Next Year Will Rise Slightly In Automobile And Shipbuilding Sectors… Chart 12… As Well As In The Home Appliance Sector The China Iron and Steel Association estimates that Chinese steel demand year-on-year growth for the first ten months of this year was at about 10.3%. We expect it to fall considerably to 3-5% next year, mainly due to diminishing steel demand growth in the construction and machinery sectors; combined, this accounts for about 72% of Chinese steel demand. Second, weakening demand growth will push down steel prices more than iron ore prices, resulting in a profit margin squeeze. This will force some unprofitable steel-making companies out of the market.   Chart 13Falling Profit Margins Of Chinese Steel Producers May Weigh On Their Steel Output Chart 13 shows a close correlation between crude steel output and steelmakers’ profit margins. Despite a recent rebound, Chinese steel producers’ profit margins have fallen sharply from last year. Finally, the new version of the capacity swap policy for the steel sector, which is expected to be released soon, will get stricter. The capacity swap policy, introduced by the authorities in 2017 and in effect since January 1, 2018, has allowed steel producers to add new capacity to replace obsolete capacity at a ratio of 1:1-1.25 (the range depends on region). Recently, it has been reported that the new version of the capacity swap policy will raise the ratio to 1:1.25-1.5. This new policy, if implemented next year, will likely curb new steel production capacity in 2021. Bottom Line: China’s steel output growth is likely to drift lower next year mainly due to diminishing steel demand growth. This will also weigh on Chinese iron ore imports. More Global Iron Ore Supply In 2021 Global iron ore supply outside China will go up next year due to larger capex. The world’s top four iron ore producers—Rio Tinto, Vale, BHP and Fortescue Metals Group (FMG) account for about half of global iron ore production. The year-on-year growth of their aggregate iron ore output will likely increase from 2% this year to 4-6% in 2021.  Table 1 shows the capex of these four companies this year and in 2021. All four will increase their capex considerably in 2021. Table 1The Capex of the World’s Top Four Iron Ore Producing Companies In 2020 & 2021 Chart 14Both Australian And Brazilian Iron Ore Producers Are Set To Increase Their Iron Ore Output Their aggregate capex will surge by 22% year on year in 2021. In particular, FMG4 will boost its capex by 60% next year. In 2019, 92% of FMG’s iron ore sales went to China. Next year, we expect Vale to considerably increase its iron ore output and exports to compete with Australian iron ore miners (Chart 14).  Very high current iron ore prices will likely boost the capex of other iron ore producers next year as well. We expect global iron ore output growth to accelerate in 2021. Moreover, the giant Simandou iron ore deposit in Guinea—the often-called “Pilbara-killer” (the Pilbara region accounts for over 90% of Australian iron ore exports)—is getting closer to development (Box 1).       Box 1 The Giant Simandou Iron Ore Deposit There are four blocks in the Simandou deposit, all of which involve participation from Chinese companies. The SMB-winning consortium—including one Singaporean company, one Guinean company and three Chinese companies—won the tender last year to develop blocks 1 and 2. Rio Tinto, Chinalco and the Guinean government own blocks 3 and 4. Last month, Guinea’s government approved the consortium’s plan to build a railroad and deep-water port to export output from the massive Simandou iron ore deposit to key markets including China. The consortium aims to bring the two blocks into production by 2025, with the first phase of iron ore export targeted at 80 million tons. One estimate is that Guinea’s combined annual iron ore production from blocks 1-4 could be 120 million tons per year (phase 1) by 2026 and may increase to 220 million tons per year (phase 2) by 2030. The 220 million tons of iron ore is equivalent to approximately 15% of the global seaborne iron ore trade in 2019. Investment Implications Chart 15Both Iron Ore And Steel Prices Are Vulnerable To The Downside In 2021 Both iron ore and steel prices are vulnerable to the downside next year. We expect prices of Chinese imported iron ore (62% grade) to decline around 30% from current US$155 per ton to about US$100-110 per ton in 2021 (Chart 15, top panel). We expect the Chinese steel products price index to drop 15% from the current 158 to the range of 130-140 in RMB terms in 2021 (Chart 15, bottom panel).   Ellen JingYuan He  Associate Vice President ellenj@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1According to the World Steel Association, crude steel is defined as steel in its first solid (or usable) form, including ingots, semi-finished products (billets, blooms, slabs), and liquid steel for castings. 2For example, there were mandated production cuts during the supply-side reform in the previous several years and frequent output halts aiming to reduce winter pollution. 3Traditional infrastructure is made up of three categories: (1) transport, storage and postal services; (2) water conservancy, environment and utility management; and (3) electricity, gas and water production and supply. 4In November 2020, FMG signed 12 memoranda of understanding (MoU) with major Chinese steel mills, procurement partners and financial institutions on the sidelines of the third China International Import Expo. The MoUs are valued cumulatively in the range of US$3 to $4 billion. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights With a vaccine already rolling out in the UK and soon in the US, investors have reason to be optimistic about next year. Government bond yields are rising, cyclical equities are outperforming defensives, international stocks hinting at outperforming American, and value stocks are starting to beat growth stocks (Chart 1). Feature President Trump’s defeat in the US election also reduces the risk of a global trade war, or a real war with Iran. European, Chinese, and Emirati stocks have rallied since the election, at least partly due to the reduction in these risks (Chart 2). However, geopolitical risk and global policy uncertainty have been rising on a secular, not just cyclical, basis (Chart 3). Geopolitical tensions have escalated with each crisis since the financial meltdown of 2008. Chart 1A New Global Business Cycle Chart 2Biden: No Trade War Or War With Iran? Chart 3Geopolitical Risk And Global Policy Uncertainty Chart 4The Decline Of The Liberal Democracies? Trump was a symptom, not a cause, of what ails the world. The cause is the relative decline of the liberal democracies in political, economic, and military strength relative to that of other global players (Chart 4). This relative decline has emboldened Chinese and Russian challenges to the US-led global order, as well as aggressive and unpredictable moves by middle and small powers. Moreover the aftershocks of the pandemic and recession will create social and political instability in various parts of the world, particularly emerging markets (Chart 5). Chart 5EM Troubles Await Chart 6Global Arms Build-Up Continues   We are bullish on risk assets next year, but our view is driven largely from the birth of a new economic cycle, not from geopolitics. Geopolitical risk is rapidly becoming underrated, judging by the steep drop-off in measured risk. There is no going back to a pre-Trump, pre-Xi Jinping, pre-2008, pre-Putin, pre-9/11, pre-historical golden age in which nations were enlightened, benign, and focused exclusively on peace and prosperity. Hard data, such as military spending, show the world moving in the opposite direction (Chart 6). So while stock markets will grind higher next year, investors should not expect that Biden and the vaccine truly portend a “return to normalcy.” Key View #1: China’s Communist Party Turns 100, With Rising Headwinds Investors should ignore the hype about the Chinese Communist Party’s one hundredth birthday in 2021. Since 1997, the Chinese leadership has laid great emphasis on this “first centenary” as an occasion by which China should become a moderately prosperous society. This has been achieved. China is deep into a structural economic transition that holds out a much more difficult economic, social, and political future. Chart 7China: Less Money, More Problems The big day, July 1, will be celebrated with a speech by General Secretary Xi Jinping in which he reiterates the development goals of the five-year plan. This plan – which doubles down on import substitution and the aggressive tech acquisition campaign – will be finalized in March, along with Xi’s yet-to-be released vision for 2035, which marks the halfway point to the “second centenary,” 2049, the hundredth birthday of the regime. Xi’s 2035 goals may contain some surprises but the Communist Party’s policy frameworks should be seen as “best laid plans” that are likely to be overturned by economic and geopolitical realities. It was easier for the country to meet its political development targets during the period of rapid industrialization from 1979-2008. Now China is deep into a structural economic transition that holds out a much more difficult economic, social, and political future. Potential growth is slowing with the graying of society and the country is making a frantic dash, primarily through technology acquisition, to boost productivity and keep from falling into the “middle income trap” (Chart 7). Total debt levels have surged as Beijing attempts to make this transition smoothly, without upsetting social stability. Households and the government are taking on a greater debt load to maintain aggregate demand while the government tries to force the corporate sector to deleverage in fits and starts (Chart 8). The deleveraging process is painful and coincides with a structural transition away from export-led manufacturing. Beijing likely believes it has already led de-industrialization proceed too quickly, given the huge long-term political risks of this process, as witnessed in the US and UK. The fourteenth five-year plan hints that the authorities will give manufacturing a reprieve from structural reform efforts (Chart 9). Chart 8China Struggles To Dismount Debt Bubble Chart 9China Will Slow De-Industrialization, Stoking Protectionism Chart 10China Already Reining In Stimulus A premature resumption of deleveraging heightens domestic economic risks. The trade war and then the pandemic forced the Xi administration to abandon its structural reform plans temporarily and drastically ease monetary, fiscal, and credit policy to prevent a recession. Almost immediately the danger of asset bubbles reared its head again. Because the regime is focused on containing systemic financial risk, it has already begun tightening monetary policy as the nation heads into 2021 – even though the rest of the world has not fully recovered from the pandemic (Chart 10). The risk of over-tightening is likely to be contained, since Beijing has no interest in undermining its own recovery. But the risk is understated in financial markets at the moment and, combined with American fiscal risks due to gridlock, this familiar Chinese policy tug-of-war poses a clear risk to the global recovery and emerging market assets next year. Far more important than the first centenary, or even General Secretary Xi’s 2035 vision, is the impending leadership rotation in 2022. Xi was originally supposed to step down at this time – instead he is likely to take on the title of party chairman, like Mao, and aims to stay in power till 2035 or thereabouts. He will consolidate power once again through a range of crackdowns – on political rivals and corruption, on high-flying tech and financial companies, on outdated high-polluting industries, and on ideological dissenters. Beijing must have a stable economy going into its five-year national party congresses, and 2022 is no different. But that goal has largely been achieved through this year’s massive stimulus and the discovery of a global vaccine. In a risk-on environment, the need for economic stability poses a downside risk for financial assets since it implies macro-prudential actions to curb bubbles. The 2017 party congress revealed that Xi sees policy tightening as a key part of his policy agenda and power consolidation. In short, the critical twentieth congress in 2022 offers no promise of plentiful monetary and credit stimulus (Chart 11). All investors can count on is the minimum required for stability. This is positive for emerging markets at the moment, but less so as the lagged effects of this year’s stimulus dissipate. Chart 11No Promise Of Major New Stimulus For Party Congress 2022 Not only will Chinese domestic policy uncertainty remain underestimated, but geopolitical risk will also do so. Superficially, Beijing had a banner year in 2020. It handled the coronavirus better than other countries, especially the US, thus advertising Xi Jinping’s centralized and statist governance model. President Trump lost the election. Regardless of why Trump lost, his trade war precipitated a manufacturing slowdown that hit the Rust Belt in 2019, before the virus, and his loss will warn future presidents against assaulting China’s economy head-on, at least in their first term. All of this is worth gold in Chinese domestic politics. Chart 12China’s Image Suffered In Spite Of Trump Internationally, however, China’s image has collapsed – and this is in spite of Trump’s erratic and belligerent behavior, which alienated most of the world and the US’s allies (Chart 12). Moreover, despite being the origin of COVID-19, China’s is one of the few economies that thrived this year. Its global manufacturing share rose. While delaying and denying transparency regarding the virus, China accused other countries of originating the virus, and unleashed a virulent “wolf warrior” diplomacy, a military standoff with India, and a trade war with Australia. The rest of Asia will be increasingly willing to take calculated risks to counterbalance China’s growing regional clout, and international protectionist headwinds will persist. The United States will play a leading part in this process. Sino-American strategic tensions have grown relentlessly for more than a decade, especially since Xi Jinping rose to power, as is evident from Chinese treasury holdings (Chart 13). The Biden administration will naturally seek a diplomatic “reset” and a new strategic and economic dialogue with China. But Biden has already indicated that he intends to insist on China’s commitments under Trump’s “phase one” trade deal. He says he will keep Trump’s sweeping Section 301 tariffs in place, presumably until China demonstrates improvement on the intellectual property and tech transfer practices that provided the rationale for the tariffs. Biden’s victory in the Rust Belt ensures that he cannot revert to the pre-Trump status quo. Indeed Biden amplifies the US strategic challenge to China’s rise because he is much more likely to assemble a “grand alliance” or “coalition of the willing” focused on constraining China’s illiberal and mercantilist policies. Even the combined economic might of a western coalition is not enough to force China to abandon its statist development model, but it would make negotiations more likely to be successful on the West’s more limited and transactional demands (Chart 14). Chart 13The US-China Divorce Pre-Dates And Post-Dates Trump Chart 14Biden's Grand Alliance A Danger To China The Taiwan Strait is ground zero for US-China geopolitical tensions. The US is reviving its right to arm Taiwan for the sake of its self-defense, but the US commitment is questionable at best – and it is this very uncertainty that makes a miscalculation more likely and hence conflict a major tail risk (Chart 15). True, Beijing has enormous economic leverage over Taiwan, and it is fresh off a triumph of imposing its will over Hong Kong, which vindicates playing the long game rather than taking any preemptive military actions that could prove disastrous. Nevertheless, Xi Jinping’s reassertion of Beijing and communism is driving Taiwanese popular opinion away from the mainland, resulting in a polarizing dynamic that will be extremely difficult to bridge (Chart 16). If China comes to believe that the Biden administration is pursuing a technological blockade just as rapidly and resolutely as the Trump administration, then it could conclude that Taiwan should be brought to heel sooner rather than later. Chart 15US Boosts Arms Sales To Taiwan Chart 16Taiwan Strait Risk Will Explode If Biden Seeks Tech Blockade Bottom Line: On a secular basis, China faces rising domestic economic risks and rising geopolitical risk. Given the rally in Chinese currency and equities in 2021, the downside risk is greater than the upside risk of any fleeting “diplomatic reset” with the United States. Emerging markets will benefit from China’s stimulus this year but will suffer from its policy tightening over time. Key View #2: The US “Pivot To Asia” Is Back On … And Runs Through Iran Most likely President-elect Biden will face gridlock at home. His domestic agenda largely frustrated, he will focus on foreign policy. Given his old age, he may also be a one-term president, which reinforces the need to focus on the achievable. He will aim to restore the Obama administration’s foreign policy, the chief features of which were the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran and the “Pivot to Asia.” The US is limited by the need to pivot to Asia, while Iran is limited by the risk of regime failure. A deal should be agreed. The purpose of the Iranian deal was to limit Iran’s nuclear and regional ambitions, stabilize Iraq, create a semblance of regional balance, and thus enable American military withdrawal. The US could have simply abandoned the region, but Iran’s ensuing supremacy would have destabilized the region and quickly sucked the US back in. The newly energy independent US needed a durable deal. Then it could turn its attention to Asia Pacific, where it needed to rebuild its strategic influence in the face of a challenger that made Iran look like a joke (Chart 17). Chart 17The "Pivot To Asia" In A Nutshell It is possible for Biden to revive the Iranian deal, given that the other five members of the agreement have kept it afloat during the Trump years. Moreover, since it was always an executive deal that lacked Senate approval, Biden can rejoin unilaterally. However, the deal largely expires in 2025 – and the Trump administration accurately criticized the deal’s failure to contain Iran’s missile development and regional ambitions. Therefore Biden is proposing a renegotiation. This could lead to an even greater US-Iran engagement, but it is not clear that a robust new deal is feasible. Iran can also recommit to the old deal, having taken only incremental steps to violate the deal after the US’s departure – manifestly as leverage for future negotiations. Of course, the Iranians are not likely to give up their nuclear program in the long run, as nuclear weapons are the golden ticket to regime survival. Libya gave up its nuclear program and was toppled by NATO; North Korea developed its program into deliverable nuclear weapons and saw an increase in stature. Iran will continue to maintain a nuclear program that someday could be weaponized. Nevertheless, Tehran will be inclined to deal with Biden. President Hassan Rouhani is a lame duck, his legacy in tatters due to Trump, but his final act in office could be to salvage his legacy (and his faction’s hopes) by overseeing a return to the agreement prior to Iran’s presidential election in June. From Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s point of view, this would be beneficial. He also needs to secure his legacy, but as he tries to lay the groundwork for his power succession, Iran faces economic collapse, widespread social unrest, and a potentially explosive division between the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and the more pragmatic political faction hoping for economic opening and reform. Iran needs a reprieve from US maximum pressure, so Khamenei will ultimately rejoin a limited nuclear agreement if it enables the regime to live to fight another day. In short, the US is limited by the need to pivot to Asia, while Iran is limited by the risk of regime failure. A deal should be agreed. But this is precisely why conflict could erupt in 2021. First, either in Trump’s final days in office or in the early days of the Biden administration, Israel could take military action – as it has likely done several times this year already – to set back the Iranian nuclear program and try to reinforce its own long-term security. Second, the Biden administration could decide to utilize the immense leverage that President Trump has bequeathed, resulting in a surprisingly confrontational stance that would push Iran to the brink. This is unlikely but it may be necessary due to the following point. Third, China and Russia could refuse to cooperate with the US, eliminating the prospect of a robust renegotiation of the deal, and forcing Biden to choose between accepting the shabby old deal or adopting something similar to Trump’s maximum pressure. China will probably cooperate; Russia is far less certain. Beijing knows that the US intention in Iran is to free up strategic resources to revive the US position in Asia, but it has offered limited cooperation on Iran and North Korea because it does not have an interest in their acquiring nuclear weapons and it needs to mitigate US hostility. Biden has a much stronger political mandate to confront China than he does to confront Iran. Assuming that the Israelis and Saudis can no more prevent Biden’s détente with Iran than they could Obama’s, the next question will be whether Biden effectively shifts from a restored Iranian deal to shoring up these allies and partners. He can possibly build on the Abraham Accords negotiated by the Trump administration smooth Israeli ties with the Arab world. The Middle East could conceivably see a semblance of balance. But not in 2021. The coming year will be the rocky transition phase in which the US-Iran détente succeeds or fails. Chart 18Oil Market Share War Preceded The Last US-Iran Deal Chart 19Still, Base Case Is For Rising Oil Prices Chart 20Biden Needs A Credible Threat The lead-up to the 2015 Iranian deal saw a huge collapse in global oil prices due to a market share war with Saudi Arabia, Russia, and the US triggered by US shale production and Iranian sanctions relief (Chart 18). This was despite rising global demand and the emergence of the Islamic State in Iraq. In 2021, global demand will also be reviving and Iraq, though not in the midst of full-scale war, is still unstable. OPEC 2.0 could buckle once again, though Moscow and Riyadh already confirmed this year that they understand the devastating consequences of not cooperating on production discipline. Our Commodity and Energy Strategy projects that the cartel will continue to operate, thus drawing down inventories (Chart 19). The US and/or Israel will have to establish a credible military threat to ensure that Iran is in check, and that will create fireworks and geopolitical risks first before it produces any Middle Eastern balance (Chart 20). Bottom Line: The US and Iran are both driven to revive the 2015 nuclear deal by strategic needs. Whether a better deal can be negotiated is less likely. The return to US-Iran détente is a source of geopolitical risk in 2021 though it should ultimately succeed. The lower risk of full-scale war is negative for global oil prices but OPEC 2.0 cartel behavior will be the key determiner. The cartel flirted with disaster in 2020 and will most likely hang together in 2021 for the sake of its members’ domestic stability. Key View #3: Europe Wins The US Election Chart 21Europe Won The US Election The European Union has not seen as monumental of a challenge from anti-establishment politicians over the past decade as have Britain and America. The establishment has doubled down on integration and solidarity. Now Europe is the big winner of the US election. Brussels and Berlin no longer face a tariff onslaught from Trump, a US-instigated global trade war, or as high of a risk of a major war in the Middle East. Biden’s first order of business will be reviving the trans-Atlantic alliance. Financial markets recognize that Europe is the winner and the euro has finally taken off against the dollar over the past year. European industrials and small caps outperformed during the trade war as well as COVID-19, a bullish signal (Chart 21). Reinforcing this trend is the fact that China is looking to court Europe and reduce momentum for an anti-China coalition. The center of gravity in Europe is Germany and 2021 faces a major transition in German politics. Chancellor Angela Merkel will step down at long last. Her Christian Democratic Union is favored to retain power after receiving a much-needed boost for its handling of this year’s crisis (Chart 22), although the risk of an upset and change of ruling party is much greater than consensus holds. Chart 22German Election Poses Political Risk, Not Investment Risk However, from an investment point of view, an upset in the German election is not very concerning. A left-wing coalition would take power that would merely reinforce the shift toward more dovish fiscal policy and European solidarity. Either way Germany will affirm what France affirmed in 2017, and what France is on track to reaffirm in 2022: that the European project is intact, despite Brexit, and evolving to address various challenges. The European project is intact, despite Brexit, and evolving to address various challenges. This is not to say that European elections pose no risk. In fact, there will be upsets as a result of this year’s crisis and the troubled aftermath. The countries with upcoming elections – or likely snap elections in the not-too-distant future, like Spain and Italy – show various levels of vulnerability to opposition parties (Chart 23). Chart 23Post-COVID EU Elections Will Not Be A Cakewalk Chart 24Immigration Tailwind For Populism Subsided The chief risks to Europe stem from fiscal normalization and instability abroad. Regime failures in the Middle East and Africa could send new waves of immigration, and high levels of immigration have fueled anti-establishment politics over the past decade. Yet this is not a problem at the moment (Chart 24). And even more so than the US, the EU has tightened border enforcement and control over immigration (Chart 25). This has enabled the political establishment to save itself from populist discontent. The other danger for Europe is posed by Russian instability. In general, Moscow is focusing on maintaining domestic stability amid the pandemic and ongoing economic austerity, as well as eventual succession concerns. However, Vladimir Putin’s low approval rating has often served as a warning that Russia might take an external action to achieve some limited national objective and instigate opposition from the West, which increases government support at home (Chart 26). Chart 25Europe Tough On Immigration Like US Chart 26Warning Sign That Russia May Lash Out Chart 27Russian Geopolitical Risk Premium Rising The US Democratic Party is also losing faith in engagement with Russia, so while it will need to negotiate on Iran and arms reduction, it will also seek to use sanctions and democracy promotion to undermine Putin’s regime and his leverage over Europe. The Russian geopolitical risk premium will rise, upsetting an otherwise fairly attractive opportunity relative to other emerging markets (Chart 27). Bottom Line: The European democracies have passed a major “stress test” over the past decade. The dollar will fall relative to the euro, in keeping with macro fundamentals, though it will not be supplanted as the leading reserve currency. Europe and the euro will benefit from the change of power in Washington, and a rise in European political risks will still be minor from a global point of view. Russia and the ruble will suffer from a persistent risk premium. Investment Takeaways As the “Year of the Rat” draws to a close, geopolitical risk and global policy uncertainty have come off the boil and safe haven assets have sold off. Yet geopolitical risk will remain elevated in 2021. The secular drivers of the dramatic rise in this risk since 2008 have not been resolved. To play the above themes and views, we are initiating the following strategic investment recommendations: Long developed market equities ex-US – US outperformance over DM has reached extreme levels and the global economic cycle and post-pandemic revival will favor DM-ex-US. Long emerging market equities ex-China – Emerging markets will benefit from a falling dollar and commodity recovery. China has seen the good news but now faces the headwinds outlined above. Long European industrials relative to global – European equities stand to benefit from the change of power in Washington, US-China decoupling, and the global recovery. Long Mexican industrials versus emerging markets – Mexico witnessed the rise of an American protectionist and a landslide election in favor of a populist left-winger. Now it has a new trade deal with the US and the US is diversifying from China, while its ruling party faces a check on its power via midterm elections, and, regardless, has maintained orthodox economic policy. Long Indian equities versus Chinese – Prime Minister Narendra Modi has a single party majority, four years on his political clock, and has recommitted to pro-productivity structural reforms. The nation is taking more concerted action in pursuit of economic development since strategic objectives in South Asia cannot be met without greater dynamism. The US, Japan, Australia, and other countries are looking to develop relations as they diversify from China.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com

Dear Client, We are sending you our Strategy Outlook today, where we outline our thoughts on the macro landscape and the direction of financial markets for 2021 and beyond. Next week, please join me for a webcast on Thursday, December 17 at 10:00 AM EST (3:00 PM GMT, 4:00 PM CET, 11:00 PM HKT) where I will discuss the outlook. Our publishing schedule will resume early next year. On behalf of the entire Global Investment Strategy team, I would like to wish you a Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, and a Healthy New Year! Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights Macroeconomic outlook: The global economy will strengthen in 2021 as the pandemic winds down. Inflation will remain well contained for the next 2-to-3 years before moving sharply higher by the middle of the decade. Global asset allocation: Stocks are technically overbought and vulnerable to a short-term correction. Nevertheless, investors should favor equities over bonds in 2021 given the likelihood that earnings will accelerate while monetary policy stays accommodative. Equities: This year’s losers will be next year’s winners. In 2021, international stocks will outperform US stocks, small caps will outperform large caps, banks will outperform tech, and value stocks will outperform growth stocks. Fixed income: Bond yields will rise modestly next year, implying that investors should maintain below average duration exposure. Spread product will outperform safe government bonds. Favor inflation-protected securities over nominal bonds. Currencies: The US dollar will continue to weaken in 2021. The collapse in US interest rate differentials versus its trading partners, stronger global growth, and a widening US trade deficit are all bearish for the greenback. Commodities: Tight supply conditions and a cyclical recovery in oil demand will support crude prices. Investors should favor gold over bitcoin as a hedge against long-term inflation risk. I. Macroeconomic Outlook V Is For Vaccine Chart 1Efficacy Rates Of Seasonal Flu Vaccines Are Well Below Those Of The Covid-19 Vaccines Ten months after the start of the pandemic, there is a light at the end of the tunnel. Both of the vaccines developed by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna using mRNA technology have demonstrated efficacy rates of around 95%. AstraZeneca’s vaccine, produced in collaboration with Oxford University, showed an efficacy rate of 90% in one of its clinical arms. Russia and China have also launched vaccines. The Russian vaccine, Gamaleya, displayed an efficacy rate of 91% based on 22,000 test participants. Such high efficacy rates are on par with the measles and smallpox vaccines, and well above the typical 30%-to-50% success rate for the seasonal flu vaccine (Chart 1). Inoculating most of the world’s population will not be easy. Nevertheless, large-scale vaccine production has already begun. More than half of the professional forecasters enrolled in the Good Judgement Project expect enough doses to be available to vaccinate 200 million Americans (about 60% of the US population) by the end of the second quarter of 2021 (Chart 2). Chart 2Mass Distribution Of Covid-19 Vaccines Expected By Mid-2021 According to opinion polls, public concern about the potential side effects from the vaccines, while still high, has diminished over the past few weeks (Chart 3). Most countries will start by vaccinating health care workers and other at-risk groups. Assuming no major side effects are reported, the successful deployment of the vaccines among health care professionals should bolster confidence within the general public. Chart 3The Public Is Slowly Becoming Less Worried About Covid-19 Vaccines Vaccines And Growth: A Short-Term Paradox? There is no doubt that the availability of a safe and effective vaccine will bolster economic activity over the medium-to-long term. The short-term impact, however, is ambiguous. On the one hand, vaccine optimism could reduce household precautionary savings. It could also prompt more firms to invest in new capacity. On the other hand, the expectation that a vaccine is coming could motivate people to take even greater efforts to avoid getting sick in the interim. Think about what happens when you take cover under a tree after it starts to rain. Your decision to stay under the tree depends on how long you expect the rain to continue. If the rain will last for only 10 minutes, staying put makes sense. However, if it will rain continuously for the next two days, you are better off going home. You are going to get wet anyway. Who wants to get sick just as the pandemic is winding down? It is like being the last soldier killed on the battlefield. Growth In Europe Suffering More Than In The US… So Far The number of new daily cases has declined by 45% in the EU from the highs reached in the second week of November. That said, progress on the disease front has come at a cost. As Covid infections surged, European governments were forced to reimplement a variety of lockdown measures (Chart 4). Correspondingly, growth indicators have weakened across the region (Chart 5). At this point, it looks highly likely that GDP will contract in the euro area and the UK in the fourth quarter. Chart 4The Latest Viral Surge Led To Lockdowns In Europe   In contrast to Europe, the US economy should expand in the fourth quarter. The Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow model is pointing to growth of 11.2% in Q4, led by a recovery in personal consumption, strength in residential and nonresidential investment, and inventory restocking. Nevertheless, dark clouds are forming. After a short-lived dip in late November, the number of new daily cases in the US is on the rise again. The 7-day average of confirmed new cases has jumped to around 200,000. The Centers for Disease Control  (CDC) estimates that for every single case that is caught, seven go undiagnosed.1 This implies that over 11 million people are being infected each week, or about 3% of the US population. With the weather getting colder and the Christmas holiday season approaching, a further viral surge looks probable. Just as in Europe, we may see more lockdowns and more voluntary social distancing in the US over the coming weeks. Building A Fiscal Bridge To A Post-Pandemic World Lockdowns would be less of a problem if governments provided enough income support to struggling households and businesses. Unfortunately, at least in the US, considerable uncertainty remains about whether such support will be forthcoming. After a burst of stimulus earlier this year, US fiscal policy has tightened sharply. Since peaking in April, real disposable personal income has dropped by 9%, reflecting a steep decline in government transfer payments (Chart 6). The latest data suggest that real disposable income will be down in Q4 compared to the preceding quarter. Chart 5Renewed Lockdowns Are Weighing On Economic Activity In The Euro Area Chart 6Less Transfers Mean Less Income   President Trump tried to offset some of the sting from the expiration of emergency unemployment benefits in the CARES Act by diverting funds from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to support jobless workers. However, this money has now run out (Chart 7). Likewise, the resources in the Paycheck Protection Program for small businesses have been depleted, and many state and local governments are facing a cash crunch. Chart 7Drastic Drop In Unemployment Insurance Payments Chart 8People Are Eager For More Stimulus The US Congress has been squabbling over a new stimulus bill since May. Ultimately, we think a bill will be passed, potentially as part of a year-end omnibus spending package. Public opinion still very much favors maintaining stimulus. A survey conducted by Pew Research after the election found that about 80% of respondents supported passing a new stimulus package (Chart 8). Similarly, according to a recent NY Times/Siena College poll, 72% of voters supported a hypothetical $2 trillion stimulus package that would extend emergency unemployment insurance benefits, distribute direct cash payments to households, and provide financial support to state and local governments (Table 1). Such a package is basically what the Democrats are proposing. Strikingly, when this package is described in non-partisan terms, even the majority of Republicans are in favor of it. Table 1Even Republicans Want More Stimulus Peak Chinese Stimulus Even though it originated there, China has weathered the pandemic better than any other major country. Chinese export growth accelerated to 21.1% year-over-year in November. The Caixin manufacturing PMI rose to 54.9 on the month, the strongest reading since November 2010. The service sector PMI increased to a healthy 57.8. The “official” PMIs published by the National Bureau of Statistics also rose. Chinese growth will moderate over the coming months. The magnitude of China’s policy support has peaked, as evidenced by the rise in bond yields and interbank rates (Chart 9). The authorities have also permitted more corporate issuers to default, while tightening rules on online lending. Turning points in Chinese domestic demand and imports tend to lag policy developments by about 6-to-9 months (Chart 10). Thus, the tailwind from Chinese stimulus should fade by the middle of next year, hopefully just in time for the baton to be passed to a more organic, vaccine-driven global growth recovery. Chart 9China: Bond Yields And Interbank Rates Have Been Rising Chart 10Tailwind From Chinese Stimulus Will Fade By The Middle Of Next Year Japan: Near-Term Wobbles Japan is in the midst of its third wave of the pandemic. While not as bad as the latest waves in the US and Europe, it has still been disruptive enough to slow the economy. Although it did tick up in November, the manufacturing PMI remains below the crucial 50 boom/bust line, notably weaker than in other APAC countries. The outlook component of the Economy Watchers Survey fell to 36.5 in November (from 49.1), while the current situation component slid to 45.6 (from 54.5). Nevertheless, there are some encouraging signs. The number of new Covid cases seems to be stabilizing. Machine tool orders rose to 8% year-over-year in November, the first positive print since September 2018. Retail sales have recovered from a low of -14% year-over-year in April to around +6% in October. Broad money growth has reached a record high. The Japanese government is also considering a new ¥73 trillion fiscal stimulus package to fight the pandemic. Global Monetary Policy To Stay Accommodative Chart 11Service And Shelter Inflation Tend To Be Largely Determined By Labor Market Slack Could a vaccine-led economic recovery cause central banks to remove the punch bowl? We think not. Inflation is likely to rise in the first half of 2021 as the “base effects” from the pandemic-induced drop in prices reverse. However, central banks will see through these short-term oscillations in inflation. Inflation in modern economies is largely driven by services and shelter (goods account for only 25% of the US core CPI and 37% of the euro area core CPI). Both service inflation and shelter inflation tend to be largely determined by labor market slack (Chart 11). In its October 2020 World Economic Outlook, the IMF projected that the unemployment rate in the main developed economies would fall back to its full employment level by around 2025 (Chart 12). While this is too pessimistic in light of the subsequent progress that has been made on the vaccine front, it is probable that unemployment will remain too high to generate an overheated economy for the next 2-to-3 years. Chart 12Unemployment Rate Is Projected To Decline Towards Pre-Covid Lows In The Coming Years Chart 13Long-Term Inflation Expectations Are Still Subdued   Moreover, despite vaccine optimism, long-term inflation expectations are still below target in most of the major economies (Chart 13). Not only do central banks want inflation to return to target, they want inflation to overshoot their targets in order to make up for the shortfall in inflation in the post-GFC era. Had the core PCE deflator in the US risen by 2% per year since 2012, the price level would be about 3.3% higher than it currently is. In the euro area, the price level is about 9.5% below where it would have been if consumer prices had risen by 2% over this period. In Japan, the price level is 11.6% below target (Chart 14). Chart 14Central Banks Have Missed Their Inflation Targets II. Financial Markets A. Global Asset Allocation Remain Overweight Equities Versus Bonds On A 12-Month Horizon Equities have run up a lot since the start of November. Bullish sentiment has surged in the American Association of Individual Investors weekly bull-bear poll, while the put-to-call ratio has fallen to multi-year lows (Chart 15). This makes equities vulnerable to a short-term correction. Nevertheless, rising odds of an effective vaccine and continued easy monetary policy keep us bullish on stocks over a 12-month horizon. Stronger economic growth should lift earnings estimates. Stocks have usually outperformed bonds when growth has been on the upswing (Chart 16). Chart 15A Lot Of Bullishness Chart 16Stocks Rarely Underperform Bonds When The Global Economy Is Strengthening Valuations also favor stocks. As Chart 17 illustrates, the global equity risk premium – which we model by subtracting real bond yields from the cyclically-adjusted earnings yield – remains quite high. Along the same lines, dividend yields are above bond yields in the major markets. Even if one were to pessimistically assume that nominal dividend payments stay flat for the next 10 years, real equity prices would have to fall by 24% in the US for stocks to underperform bonds (Chart 18). In the euro area, real equity prices would need to tumble 32%. In Japan, they would have to drop 20%. Chart 17Equity Risk Premia Remain Elevated Chart 18Stocks Would Need To Fall A Lot For Equities To Underperform Bonds As such, investors should overweight global equities relative to bonds. We recommend a neutral allocation to cash to take advantage of any short-term dip in stock prices. Our full suite of asset allocation and trade recommendations are shown at the back of this report.   B. Equity Sectors, Regions, Styles This Year’s Losers Will Be Next Year’s Winners The “pandemic trade” is giving way to the “reopening trade.” We are still in the early innings of this transition. Hence, going into next year, it makes sense to favor stocks that were crushed by lockdown measures but could thrive once restrictions are lifted. Chart 19 shows relative 12-months forward earnings estimates for US/non-US, large caps/small caps, and tech/overall market. In all three cases, the tables have turned: Estimates are now rising more quickly for non-US stocks, small caps, and non-tech sectors. Non-US Stocks To Outperform Stocks outside the US are significantly cheaper than their US peers based on price-to-earnings, price-to-book, price-to-sales, and dividend yields (Chart 20). The macro outlook also favors non-US stocks, which tend to outperform when global growth is strengthening and the US dollar is weakening (Chart 21). Chart 19Relative Earnings Expectations For Non-US Stocks, Small Caps, And Non-Tech Are Improving   Chart 20Non-US Stocks Are Cheaper Chart 21Non-US Equities Tend To Outperform Their US Peers When Global Growth Is Improving And The Dollar Is Weakening As we discuss below, the dollar is likely to depreciate further over the next 12 months. A weaker dollar benefits cyclical sectors of the stock market more than defensives (Chart 22). Deep cyclicals are overrepresented outside the US (Table 2). Being more cyclical in nature, small caps usually outperform when the dollar weakens (Chart 23). Chart 22Cyclicals Tend To Outperform Defensives In A Falling Dollar Environment Table 2Financials Are Overrepresented In Ex-US Indices, While Tech Dominates The US Market Chart 23Small Caps Also Tend To Outperform When Global Growth Strengthens And The Dollar Weakens   Chart 24Banks’ Net Interest Margins Will Receive A Boost Buy The Banks Banks comprise a larger share of non-US stock markets. Stronger growth in 2021 will put upward pressure on long-term bond yields. Since short-term rates will stay where they are, yield curves will steepen. Steeper yield curves will boost banks’ net interest margins (Chart 24).   In addition, faster economic growth will put a lid on defaults. Banks have set aside considerable capital for pandemic-related loan losses. Yet, the wave of defaults that so many feared has failed to materialize. According to the American Bankruptcy Institute, commercial bankruptcies are lower now than they were this time last year (Chart 25). Personal loan delinquencies have also been trending down. The 60-day delinquency rate on credit card debt fell to 1.16% in October from 2.02% a year earlier. The delinquency rate for mortgages fell from 1.54% to 0.98%. Only auto loan delinquencies registered a tiny blip higher (Table 3). Chart 25Commercial Bankruptcies Are Well Contained Table 3Personal Loan Delinquencies Have Also Been Trending Lower Just A “Value Bounce”? In our conversations with clients, many investors are open to the idea that value stocks are due for a cyclical bounce. However, most still believe that growth stocks will fare best over a longer-term horizon. Such a view is understandable. After all, profit growth is the principal driver of equity returns. If, by definition, growth companies enjoy faster earnings growth, does it not stand to reason that growth stocks will outperform value stocks over the long haul? Well, actually, it doesn’t. What matters is profit growth relative to expectations, not absolute profit growth. If earnings rise quickly, but by less than investors had anticipated, stock prices could still go down. Historically, investors have tended to extrapolate earnings trends too far into the future, which has led them to overpay for growth stocks. Chart 26 demonstrates this point analytically. It features the results of a study by Louis Chan, Jason Karceski, and Josef Lakonishok. The authors sorted companies by projected five-year earnings growth and then compared the analysts’ forecasts with realized earnings. For the most part, they found that there was no relationship between expected profit growth and realized profit growth beyond horizons of two years. In general, the higher the long-term earnings growth estimates, the more likely actual earnings were to miss expectations. Chart 26Investors Tend To Overpay For Growth The Paradox Of Growth Given the difficulty of picking individual stocks that will consistently surpass earnings estimates, should investors simply allocate the bulk of their capital to sectors such as technology that have the best long-term growth prospects while eschewing structurally challenged sectors such as energy and financials? Again, the answer is not as obvious as it may seem. As Chart 27 illustrates, stocks in industries that experience a burst of output growth do tend to outperform other stocks. However, over the long haul, companies in fast growing industries do not outperform their peers (Chart 28). In other words, stock prices seem to respond more to unanticipated changes in industry growth rather than to the trend level of growth. Chart 27Stocks In Industries That Experience A Burst Of Output Growth Do Tend To Outperform Other Stocks … Chart 28… But Over The Long Haul, Companies In Fast-Growing Industries Do Not Outperform Their Peers Explaining Tech Outperformance In this vein, it is useful to examine what has powered the performance of US tech stocks over the past 25 years. Chart 29 shows that faster sales-per-share growth explains less than half of tech’s outperformance since 1996 and none of tech’s outperformance in the period up to 2011. The majority of tech’s outperformance is explained by greater margin expansion and an increase in the P/E ratio at which tech stocks trade relative to the rest of the stock market. Chart 29Decomposing Tech Outperformance What accounts for the significant increase in tech profit margins? In two words, the answer is “monopoly power.” Tech companies are particularly susceptible to network effects: The more people who use a particular tech platform, the more attractive it is for others to use it. Facebook is a classic example. Second, tech companies benefit significantly from scale economies. Once a piece of software has been written, creating additional copies costs almost nothing. Even in the hardware realm, the marginal cost of producing an additional chip is tiny compared to the fixed cost of designing it. All of this creates a winner take-all environment where success begets further success. Normally, structurally fast-growing industries attract more competition, which increases the odds that up-and-coming firms will displace incumbents. The growth of tech monopolies has subverted that process, allowing profits to rise significantly. A Tougher Path Forward For Tech A key question for investors is how much additional scope today’s tech monopolies have to expand profits. While it is difficult to generalize, two broad forces are likely to curtail future earnings growth. First, many tech titans have become so big that their future growth will be driven less by their ability to take market share from competitors and more by the overall size of the markets in which they operate. As it is, close to three-quarters of US households have an Amazon Prime account. Slightly over half have a Netflix account. Nearly 70% have a Facebook account. Google commands 92% of the internet search market. Together, Google and Facebook generate about 60% of all online advertising revenue. Second, the monopoly power wielded by tech companies makes them vulnerable to governmental action, including higher taxes, increased regulation, and stronger anti-trust enforcement. Importantly, it is not just the left that wants greater scrutiny of tech companies. According to a recent Pew Research study, more than half of conservative Republicans favor increasing government regulation of the tech sector (Chart 30). Chart 30Conservatives Favor Increased Government Regulation Of Big Tech Companies We do not expect tech stocks to decline in absolute terms since they still have a variety of tailwinds supporting them. Nevertheless, our bet is that the cyclical shift in favor of value stocks we are seeing now will usher in a period of outperformance for value names that could last for much of this decade. Not only are value stocks exceptionally cheap compared to growth stocks (Chart 31), but as we discuss below, bond yields likely reached a secular bottom this year. This could set the stage for a period of lasting outperformance for value plays. Chart 31Value Stocks Are Extremely Cheap Relative To Growth Stocks C. Fixed Income Position For Steeper Yield Curves As discussed earlier, central banks are unlikely to raise rates over the next 2-to-3 years. In fact, short-term real rates will probably decline further in 2021 as inflation expectations rise towards central bank targets. What about longer-term bond yields? Chart 32 displays the expected path of policy rates in the major developed economies now and at the start of 2020. The chart suggests that there is still scope for rate expectations in the post-2023 period to recover some of the ground they have lost since the start of the pandemic. This implies that bond investors should position for steeper yield curves, while keeping duration risk at below-benchmark levels. They should also favor inflation-linked securities over nominal bonds. Chart 32Policy Rate Expectations Remain Below Pre-Pandemic Levels Avoid “High Beta” Government Bond Markets The highest-yielding bond markets tend to have the highest “betas” to the general direction of global bond yields (Chart 33). This means when global bond yields are rising, higher-yielding markets such as the US usually experience the biggest selloff in bond prices. Chart 33High-Yielding Bond Markets Are The Most Cyclical This pattern exists because faster growth has a more subdued impact on rate expectations in economies such as Europe and Japan where the neutral rate of interest is stuck deep in negative territory. For example, if stronger growth lifts the neutral rate in Japan from say, -4% to -2%, this would still not warrant raising rates. In contrast, if stronger growth lifts the neutral rate from -1% to +1% in the US, this would eventually justify a rate hike.  As such, we would underweight US Treasurys in global government bond portfolios. We expect the 10-year Treasury yield to increase to around 1.3%-to-1.5% by the end of 2021, which is above current expectations of 1.15% based on the forward curve. Conversely, we would overweight European and Japanese government bond markets. After adjusting for currency-hedging costs, US Treasurys offer only a small yield pickup over European and Japanese bonds but face a much greater risk of capital losses as rate expectations recover (Table 4). Table 4Bond Markets Across The Developed World BCA’s global fixed-income strategists have a neutral recommendation on Canadian and Australian bonds. While Canadian and Australian yields are also “high beta,” both the BoC and the RBA are very active purchasers in their domestic markets. Stay Overweight High-Yield Developed Market Corporate Debt In fixed-income portfolios, we would overweight corporate debt relative to safer government bonds. In an economic environment where monetary policy remains accommodative and growth is rebounding, corporate default rates should remain contained, which will keep spreads from widening. Within corporate credit, we favor high yield over investment grade. Geographically, we prefer US corporate bonds over euro area bonds. The former trade with a higher yield and spread than the latter (Charts 34A & B). Chart 34AFavor High-Yield Bonds Over Investment-Grade ... Chart 34B… And US Corporates Over Euro Area One way to gauge the attractiveness of credit is to look at the percentile rankings of 12-month breakeven spreads. The 12-month breakeven spread is the amount of credit spread widening that can occur before a credit product starts to underperform a duration-matched, risk-free government bond over a one-year horizon. For US investment-grade corporates, the breakeven spread is currently in the bottom decile of its historic range, which is rather unattractive from a risk-adjusted perspective. In contrast, the US high-yield breakeven spread is currently in the 62nd percentile, which is quite enticing. In the UK, high-yield debt is more appealing than investment grade, although not quite to the same extent as in the US. In the euro area, both high-yield and investment-grade credit are fairly unattractive (Chart 35). Chart 35Corporate Bond Breakeven Spread Percentile Rankings Outside the corporate sector, our US bond strategists like consumer ABS due to the strength of household balance sheets. They also see value in municipal bonds. However, they would avoid MBS, as prepayment risks are elevated in that sector. EM credit should also benefit from the combination of stronger global growth and a weaker US dollar. Long-Term Inflation Risk Is Underpriced As noted earlier in the report, inflation is unlikely to rise significantly over the next three years. Beyond then, a more inflationary environment is probable. Chart 36 shows that the wage-version of the Phillips curve in the US is alive and well. It just so happens that over the past three decades, the labor market has never had a chance to overheat. Something always came along that derailed the economy before a price-wage spiral could develop. This year it was the pandemic. In 2008 it was the Global Financial Crisis. In 2000 it was the dotcom bust and in the early 1990s it was the collapse in commercial real estate prices following the Savings and Loan Crisis. Admittedly, only the pandemic qualifies as a true “exogenous” shock. The prior three recessions were endogenous in nature to the extent that they were preceded by growing economic imbalances, laid bare by a Fed hiking cycle. One can debate the degree to which the global economy is suffering from imbalances today, but one thing is certain: no major central bank is keen on raising rates anytime soon. Central banks want higher inflation. They are likely to get it. D. Currencies, Commodities, And Yes, Bitcoin Dollar Bear Market To Continue In 2021 The dollar faces a number of headwinds going into next year. First, interest rate differentials have moved significantly against the greenback. At the start of 2019, US real 2-year rates were about 190 basis points above rates of other developed economies; today, US real rates are around 60 basis points lower than those abroad. In fact, as Chart 37 shows, the trade-weighted dollar has weakened less than one would have expected based on the decline in interest rate differentials. This suggests that there could be some “catch-up” weakness for the dollar next year even if rate differentials remain broadly stable. Chart 36Is The Phillips Curve Really Dead? Chart 37A Relatively Muted Decline In The Dollar Given The Move In Real Yield Differentials   Second, the US dollar is a counter-cyclical currency, meaning that it tends to move in the opposite direction of the global business cycle (Chart 38). If the global economy strengthens next year thanks to an effective vaccine, the dollar should weaken. Chart 38The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency Chart 39USD Remains Overvalued Third, the US dollar remains about 13% overvalued based on Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) exchange rates (Chart 39). This overvaluation is also reflected in the large US current account deficit, which rose in the second quarter to the highest level since 2008 and is on track to swell even further in the second half of the year. Technicals Are Dollar Bearish Admittedly, many investors are now bearish on the dollar. Shouldn’t one be a contrarian and adopt a bullish dollar view? Not necessarily. In most cases, being contrarian makes sense. However, this does not apply to the dollar. The dollar is a high-momentum currency (Chart 40). When it comes to trading the dollar, it pays to be a trend follower. Chart 40The Dollar Is A High Momentum Currency One of the simplest and most profitable trading rules for the dollar is to go long the greenback when it is trading above its moving average and go short when it is trading below its moving average (Chart 41). Today, the trade-weighted dollar is trading below its 3-month, 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year moving averages. Along the same lines, the dollar performs best when sentiment is bullish and improving. In contrast, the dollar does worse when sentiment is bearish and deteriorating, as it is now (Chart 42). Chart 41Being A Contrarian Doesn’t Pay When It Comes To Trading The Dollar (I) Chart 42Being A Contrarian Doesn’t Pay When It Comes To Trading The Dollar (II) The bottom line is that both fundamental factors – interest rate differentials, global growth, valuations, current account dynamics – and technical factors – moving average rules and sentiment – all point to dollar weakness next year. Top Performing Currencies In 2021 EUR/USD is likely to rise to 1.3 by the middle of next year. The ECB does not want a stronger currency, but with euro area interest rates already in negative territory, there is not much it can do. The Swedish krona, as a highly cyclical currency, should strengthen against the euro. In contrast, the Swiss franc, a classically defensive currency, will weaken against the euro. It is more difficult to forecast the direction of the pound given uncertainty about ongoing Brexit talks. The working assumption of BCA’s geopolitical team is that Prime Minister Boris Johnson has sufficient economic and political incentives to arrive at a trade deal, a parliamentary majority to get it approved, and a powerful geopolitical need to mollify Scotland. This bodes well for sterling. The yen is a very defensive currency. Thus, in an environment of strengthening global growth, the yen is likely to trade flat against the dollar, and in the process, lose ground against most other currencies. We are most bullish about the prospects for EM and commodity currencies going into next year. China is likely to let its currency strengthen further in return for a partial rollback of tariffs by the Biden administration. A stronger yuan will allow other currencies in Asia to appreciate. Stay Bullish On Commodities And Commodity Currencies The combination of a weaker US dollar and stronger global growth should support commodity prices in 2021. Industrial metals outperformed oil this year, but the opposite should be true next year. Chart 43Oil Prices Are Expected To Recover While the long-term outlook for crude is murky in light of the shift towards electric vehicles, the near-term picture remains favorable due to the cyclical rebound in petroleum demand and ongoing OPEC and Russian supply discipline. BCA’s commodity strategists expect the average price of Brent to exceed market expectations by about $14 in 2021, which should help the Norwegian krone, Canadian dollar, Russian ruble, Mexican peso, and Colombian peso (Chart 43). Favor Gold Over Bitcoin As An Inflation Hedge Gold has traditionally served as the go-to hedge against inflation. These days, however, there is a new competitor in town: bitcoin. In traditional economic parlance, money serves three purposes: as a medium of exchange; as a unit of account; and as a store of value. Both gold and bitcoin flunk the test for the first two purposes. Few transactions are conducted in either gold or bitcoin. It is even rarer for prices of goods and services to be set in ounces of gold or units of bitcoin. Gold arguably does better as a store of value. It has been around for a long time and if all else fails, it can always be melted down and turned into nice jewelry. Bitcoin’s Achilles Heel Bitcoin’s defenders argue that the cryptocurrency does serve as a store of value because one day, it will reach a critical mass that will make it a viable medium of exchange and a functional unit of account. Yet, this argument is politically naïve. Countries with fiat currencies derive significant benefits from their ability to create money out of thin air that can then be used to pay for goods and services. In the US, this “seigniorage revenue” amounts to over $100 billion per year. The existence of fiat currencies also gives central banks the power to set interest rates and provide liquidity backstops to the financial sector. Bitcoin’s ability to facilitate anonymous transactions is also its Achilles heel. The widespread use of bitcoin would make it more difficult for governments to tax their citizens. All this suggests that bitcoin will never reach a critical mass where it becomes a viable medium of exchange or functional unit of account. Governments will step in to ban or greatly curtail its usage before then. And without the ability to reach this critical mass, bitcoin’s utility as a store of value will disappear. Hence, investors looking for some inflation protection in their portfolios should stick with gold. Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  Heather Reese, A. Danielle Iuliano, Neha N. Patel, Shikha Garg, Lindsay Kim, Benjamin J. Silk, Aron J. Hall, Alicia Fry, and Carrie Reed, “Estimated incidence of COVID-19 illness and hospitalization — United States, February–September, 2020,” Clinical Infectious Diseases (Oxford Academic), November 25, 2020. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations This table provides trade recommendations that may not be adequately represented in the matrix on the preceding page. Current MacroQuant Model Scores