Monetary

Highlights China’s credit tightening may have surpassed maximum strength. Monetary policy will remain accommodative and fiscal policy will become more supportive in the rest of the year. However, overall regulatory oversight is still restrictive, limiting the scope of reflationary effects on the economy. There were signs that the “cross-cyclical” approach – a new catchphrase from the July Politburo meeting - emerged even before the start of the pandemic. The current policy backdrop resembles the situation in 2H2018. China’s new “common prosperity” plan, which sets up guidance for long-term policy direction, will likely have cyclical implications. Chinese investable stocks are in oversold territory and will probably rebound in the near term. In the next 6 to 12 months, however, we remain cautious given the lack of a catalyst to revive investor sentiment. Feature Chart 1Chinese Stocks Are Oversold In Absolute Terms China’s economic momentum has slowed, while regulatory crackdowns show no signs of dissipating. Meanwhile, Chinese investable stocks in absolute terms have slumped into technically oversold territory (Chart 1). Global investors are looking at fiscal and monetary policy easing for clues to what may be next. A shift in policy direction from restrictive to reflationary will help to shore up market sentiment and the outlook for the economy. Fiscal policy implementation in 1H21 was tighter than budgeted, leaving room for more support in 2H21. The PBoC’s unexpected reserve requirement ratio (RRR) cut in early July may have been a signal that policy tightening has ended. In short, China’s financial tightening has most likely passed its peak strength. Chart 2Valuations Are Almost Back To 2018 Lows We have no doubt that China will announce some compensatory measures in the coming months in response to rising downward pressures on the domestic economy. However, we continue to hold the view that the bar for a fresh round of material stimulus is higher today than it was in the past. The policy focus pivoting from a countercyclical to cross-cyclical adjustment, the rising emphasis on common prosperity, and the ongoing regulatory clampdowns in an array of industries, all limit the extent to which authorities can deploy the expected magnitude in infrastructure spending and bank lending. Therefore, we continue to recommend investors remain underweight Chinese stocks versus their global peers – a stance we have maintained since earlier this year – despite cheapened relative valuations in Chinese equities (Chart 2).  Shifting To A Cross-Cycle Approach China’s policy shift to a cross-cyclical stance has gained more market attention since the late-July Politburo meeting. However, there were signs that the cross-cyclical approach emerged even before the start of the pandemic. Chart 3Size Of Stimulus Was Already Getting Smaller During the height of the 2018/19 US-China trade war, policymakers responded to the economic shocks from imposed import tariffs with much more measured stimulus than in previous cycles (Chart 3). President Xi repetitively used the “Long March” analogy during the trade war, warning Chinese citizens to prepare for protracted hardship stemming from conflict with the US.1 The metaphor had important market implications because the attitude was fundamental to how the government handled the cyclical slowdown in 2018/19. Despite aggressive RRR and policy rate cuts in the second half of 2018, authorities maintained tight restrictions on bank lending and local government spending. Consequentially, aggregate credit growth continued to slide through end-2018 (Chart 4). Furthermore, authorities became uneasy about the sharp rise in the rate of credit expansion in Q1 2019. Following a public spat between the Premier Li Keqiang and the central bank, bank lending slowed sharply in the rest of the year. As a result, the improvement in infrastructure investment growth was small and short-lived. Despite an acceleration in local government bond issuance in 2H18 and Q1 2019, infrastructure investment growth remained on a structural downward trend throughout most of 2018 and 2019 (Chart 5). Chart 4China: A Deja Vu Of 2018-2019? Chart 5Improvement In Infrastructure Investment Was Short-Lived In 2019 Chart 6Financial De-Risking Mode Is Still On The current policy backdrop resembles the situation in 2H2018: while the central bank has kept interest rates at historically low levels and preemptively cut the RRR rate in July, lending standards remain tight and shadow bank credit continues to shrink (Chart 6).  In the past Chinese authorities stimulated substantially following exogenous shocks, but did not stimulate much when business cycle was slowing in an orderly manner.  A resurgence of domestic COVID cases and the severe flood in central China in July and August represent exogenous shocks and occured when the economy was losing steam. Hence, there are higher odds authorities will provide some support in response to these exogenous shocks. However, the recurring battle against COVID and lingering tensions with the US have likely prompted Chinese top leadership to extend their cross-cycle strategy. Officials may feel that a modest easing in both monetary and fiscal policies will be sufficient to offset the current economic weakness without overstimulating the economy.   Bottom Line: A cross-cycle policy approach means not only responding early to small shocks with piecemeal stimulus to stabilize growth but also limiting the scope of stimulus and preparing for “protracted battles”. The response from Chinese leaders during the trade war with the US in 2018/19 may be a roadmap for policy direction in the next 12 months.  Cyclical Implications From “Common Prosperity”  President Xi Jinping laid out a plan for “common prosperity”, a guideline for the country’s national policy in the coming decades, at the August 18th Central Committee for Financial and Economic Affairs.  Most of the plan’s objectives have 2035 deadlines and will be achieved gradually in multiple phases.2 However, in the next 12 months and leading to the 20th National Party Congress in the fall of 2022, we expect the authorities to accelerate some reform agendas that are consistent with the 14th Five-Year Plan (2021-2025). A key area that may gain momentum is increasing labor income and household consumption share in national output. Both labor compensation and household consumption as a share of GDP improved from 2011 to 2016, but the progress stalled in recent years and further deteriorated last year in the wake of the pandemic (Chart 7). Policy decision makers can reverse the falling share by either boosting income/consumption or lowering the share of capital formation in the national output, or a combination of both. Regulatory tightening in the property market has reduced investment growth in the sector, which accounts for 66% of the country’s total fixed-asset formation (Chart 8). We expect policy restrictions to continue curbing real estate investment in the rest of the year and into 2022, further shrinking the share of capital formation in the aggregate output.3 Chart 7China's Economic Rebalancing Progress Has Stalled In The Past Five Years Chart 8Policymakers Are Moving Away From The 'Old Economy' Pillars Chart 9Recovery In Household Income And Consumption Has Significantly Lagged Other Sectors Recovery in household income and consumption has significantly lagged other sectors in China’s recent economic rebound (Chart 9). In addition to short-term, pandemic-related factors, household consumption has been sluggish due to China’s long-standing imbalanced income distribution.  Given that China will be under more pressure to deliver economic progress in 2022, boosting wage growth and consumption will help to facilitate both the nation’s cross-cyclical economic strategy and President Xi’s longer-term reform plan for income and wealth redistribution. If successfully implemented, a rebalancing of labor income and consumption as a share of the national aggregate will have long-term economic benefits. However, for investors with a cyclical time frame, the transition will likely have the following implications on the market: Policymakers will keep a large fiscal budget deficit and increase spending in public services and social welfare, but there will be more pressure on the central government to keep local government debt in check. The increased fiscal burden also means that while the government will provide subsidies for households and key new-economy industries, policy at margin may move away from boosting investment in traditional infrastructure and construction (Chart 10). Chart 10Traditional Infrastructure Investment Will Remain Subdued Empirical research shows that lower-income households have a higher marginal propensity to consume.4 Last year China refrained from meaningful stimulus to incentivize consumption. In contrast, the statement from the August 18th meeting indicated the focus is on securing living standards and wages among lower-income households. Common prosperity related policies may boost consumption of staples and some durable goods but will likely discourage splurging in high-end luxury goods and services. Large corporations and high-net-worth individuals will be expected to share social responsibility and the cost of reducing income inequality, either through higher and stricter tax burdens, raising minimum wages for employees, and/or donations. Bottom Line: The “common prosperity” theme will mostly entail long-term policy initiatives, but it may also have some cyclical market repercussions. Investment Recommendations Chart 11Tactical Bounce Gave Way To Cyclical Downturn In Previous Cycles We do not rule out the possibility of a tactical (within the next three months) / technical rebound in Chinese stocks. Our August 4th report discussed how prices managed to rebound strongly within 90 days of the policy-triggered market riots in both 2015 and 2018. However, the rallies quickly faded and stocks fell to new lows (Chart 11). Prices bottomed when policy decisively turned reflationary. For now, the risks to Chinese equities are largely to the downside. Although there are some remedial measures to ease monetary and fiscal policies, officials have not sent a clear signal to ease on the regulatory front. Conversely, there are two scenarios that could prompt us to upgrade Chinese stocks to either neutral or overweight in both absolute and relative terms. Chart 12No Clear Signal Chinese Policymakers Will Ease On The Regulatory Front The first scenario is that the economy does not slow further and a modest policy easing is sufficient to stabilize the economic outlook. This may happen if strong global economic growth and demand continue to support China’s export and manufacturing sectors, while domestic household consumption improves. In this case, the downside risks on the overall economy would abate, but the gradual underlying downtrend in China's old economy would be intact. We would need an additional reflationary tailwind, such as a boost from fiscal spending or a reversal of industry policy tightening, to upgrade Chinese stocks to overweight. We have argued in the past that housing appears to be the best candidate; the catalyst is missing at the moment (Chart 12). In the second scenario, Chinese policymakers may determine that the downside risks to growth are unacceptably large given existing slowdowns in the industrial and service sectors, and decide to temporarily reverse course on structural reforms. We will watch for indications of a shift in attitude. For now, we think that China’s leadership has a higher pain threshold than in the past, suggesting that this outcome is not yet probable.   Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1"Xi Jinping calls for ‘new Long March’ in dramatic sign that China is preparing for protracted trade war", South China Morning Post. 2"Xi stresses promoting common prosperity amid high-quality development, forestalling major financial risks", Xinhua, English.news.cn 3We use fixed-asset investment (FAI) as a proxy for gross fixed capital formation (GFCF) because the National Bureau of Statistics of China does not publish the GFCF breakdown by sectors. GFCF comprises FAI, less the purchase of existing fixed assets, land and some minor items. Historically, the two series have closely tracked each other. 4"The Stimulative Effect of Redistribution", Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Market/Sector Recommendations Cyclical Investment Stance

Highlights Jackson Hole: The message from Jackson Hole is that the majority of the FOMC – including Fed Chair Powell - is ready to begin tapering asset purchases before year-end. There is less unanimity within the FOMC over the timing of interest rate increases following the taper. Fed Policy: The Fed is trying to communicate a separation of the balance sheet and interest rate components of its monetary policy, hoping to limit bond volatility stemming from markets pulling forward the timing of rate hikes during the taper. A tightening US labor market will make that separation difficult given the shallow path for interest rates currently discounted in the US yield curve - particularly if the current surge in US inflation proves not to be as transitory as the Fed is expecting. US Treasury Yields: Expect higher Treasury yields over the next 12-18 months as the Fed transitions from talking about tapering to actual tapering and, eventually, to rate hikes starting in H2/2022. A September To Remember? Chart 1The Fed Faces Some Tough Decisions The much anticipated Jackson Hole speech from Fed Chair Jerome Powell offered a balanced tone.1 Powell did say that the Fed could begin tapering asset purchases by the end of this year, given the “substantial further progress” on the Fed’s 2% average inflation goal, if the US economy evolved in line with the Fed’s forecasts. However, Powell also noted that rate hikes would not occur without greater improvements in the US labor market, particularly given the Fed’s view that the current surge in US inflation will not prove lasting. Several other Fed officials speaking to the media before Powell’s speech hinted at a much more accelerated timetable, with tapering to begin in September and rate hikes potentially starting as soon as mid-2022. The Fed’s messaging is part of an extended conversation with financial markets to prepare for a withdrawal of pandemic-era policy stimulus from quantitative easing (QE). The FOMC is well aware that valuations on asset prices of all stripes have been boosted by loose monetary settings. Powell’s Jackson Hole comments were more nuanced than those of his FOMC colleagues, but this is no surprise as the words of the Fed Chair carry the greatest weight among investors. The Fed Chair does not want to risk a repeat of the 2013 Taper Tantrum in Treasury yields, or the December 2018 plunge in US equity prices, by sounding unexpectedly hawkish and triggering a market rout that tightens US financial conditions (Chart 1). Our baseline assumption has been that the Fed would signal a tapering at the December FOMC meeting and begin to slow asset purchases in January 2022, leading to an eventual liftoff of the fed funds rate by the end of next year. The comments from Powell and others have raised the risk that the Fed moves a bit faster than our expectations on tapering, and perhaps even for liftoff (Chart 2). This would also be faster than the expectations among bond investors. Chart 2The Fed May Be Set To Move Faster Than Our Expected Timeline The New York Fed’s Survey of Primary Dealers in July showed that tapering is expected by Q1 of next year but a rate hike was not projected until the latter half of 2023 (Table 1). Current pricing in the US overnight index swap (OIS) forward curve is a bit more hawkish than that, with a full 25bp rate hike discounted by January 2023. Table 1Primary Dealers Expect A Taper, Not Rate Hikes The Fed’s next move will depend on how the questions regarding the Delta variant, the true state of the US labor market and underlying US inflation momentum are resolved. Dismissing The Delta Threat? There has been a clear hit to US economic confidence from the spread of the variant. The August readings from the University of Michigan consumer sentiment survey, the Philadelphia Fed business outlook survey and the ZEW survey of US growth expectations all showed sharp declines (Chart 3). The August flash estimate of the Markit PMIs fell to 8-month and 4-month lows, respectively, indicating that the pace of US economic activity slowed. Higher frequency data like restaurant reservations and hotel bookings have also dipped in recent weeks, potentially a sign of US consumers turning more cautious on leaving home during the Delta surge. Yet there is some tentative positive news on the spread of the variant. The 7-day moving average of new COVID-19 cases in the US appears to be rolling over (Chart 4). In the more stricken states in the US south like Florida, Texas and Louisiana, the effective reproduction number has fallen below one and cases are clearly peaking, suggesting that the transmission of Delta is slowing. If these trends continue, the full hit to US growth from the variant could prove to be minimal and potentially contained to only August data Chart 3A Hit To US Confidence From The Delta Variant Chart 4Has The US Delta Wave ##br##Peaked? Fed officials have been highlighting Delta as a potential near-term risk to the economy, but some comments made last week suggested only a modest level of concern that would not derail tapering plans. For example: Dallas Fed President Robert Kaplan: “[…] what I'm seeing is, in certain sectors, as you would expect, travel-related, you're seeing weakness in some other sectors but by and large, predominantly, what we're seeing is resilience across the indicators that we look at.”2 Kansas City Fed President Esther George: “[…] by and large, I think, unlike what we experienced last year, people have mechanisms to continue to interact with the economy in a way that we didn't before. And so that gives me some confidence in the outlook that we see, that we could continue to push through this.”3 Atlanta Fed President Raphael Bostic: “What I have seen is some suggestion that things are slowing down, but they are still just slowing from extremely high levels. I have not seen big changes in the underlying dynamic.”4 Even Powell himself noted in his speech that “while the Delta variant presents a near-term risk, the prospects are good for continued progress toward maximum employment.” If the hit to the domestic US economy from Delta proves to be modest and short-lived, the Fed will want to see confirmation of this in the US employment data. Labor market slack overestimated? It is clear from other comments made last week that FOMC officials will be watching the August payrolls report very closely, especially given the perception that the US job market may be a lot tighter than the headline unemployment rate suggests. For example, Fed Governor Christopher Waller noted that “when you adjust the labor force for early retirements, if we get another million [jobs in August] we will recover about 85% of the jobs that were lost and that took almost seven years after the last recession.”5 Kaplan noted that “we do think that the labor market is much tighter than the headline statistics indicate. We've had 3 million retirements since February 2020.” Our colleagues at BCA Research’s The Bank Credit Analyst came to a similar conclusion on labor market tightness in a report published last week.6 They determined that the single largest factor driving the US labor force participation rate lower since the onset of the pandemic has been individuals choosing to retire (Chart 5). Only some of that decline has been related to early retirement decisions made in response to COVID. There has been a structural trend of a falling participation rate, by an average of 0.3 percentage points per year, since 2008 due to demographic factors. The labor force participation rate does not need to fully return to pre-pandemic levels for the Fed to conclude that its maximum employment goal has been reached, after accounting for retirements and other demographic shifts (Chart 6). This fits with the comments from Waller and Kaplan indicating that there has likely been enough labor market improvement to begin tapering asset purchases. Chart 5Most Of The Pandemic Decline In Labor Force Participation Has Occurred Due To Retirement Chart 6Full Employment Without A Pre-COVID Participation Rate Transitory or persistent inflation? In his Jackson Hole speech, Fed Chair Powell downplayed many of the factors that have driven US headline inflation higher in 2021 as “[…] the product of a relatively narrow group of goods and services that have been directly affected by the pandemic and the reopening of the economy.” He also noted that the current surge in durable goods inflation, which has contributed “about one percentage point to the 12-month measures of headline and core inflation”, was likely to end once current supply chain disruptions fade. Durables would then return to the deflationary trend of the past 25 years and help cool off current overheated US inflation. Chart 7US Inflation Is Not Slowing Down Powell also noted the absence of significant US wage growth as reason not to be overly worried about a sustained period of high inflation. He also highlighted that “there is little reason to think” that ongoing structural disinflationary forces like technology and globalization “have suddenly reversed or abated” and that “it seems more likely that they will continue to weigh on inflation as the pandemic passes into history.” This is the message that the Fed has consistently communicated over the past several months, that high inflation was merely “transitory” and the inevitable result of year-over-year base effect comparisons and temporary supply squeezes. The problem with this interpretation is that we are now well into the summer months of 2021, past the period where base effects would be expected to boost US year-over-year inflation rates (the level of both the CPI and PCE deflator indices fell between January and May 2020 before starting to climb again in June). The July 2021 readings on annual headline and core PCE inflation were 4.2% and 3.6%, respectively, the highest rates seen since 1991 (Chart 7, top panel). The year-over-year increase appears to have been concentrated in a few components, with the Dallas Fed’s trimmed mean PCE 12-month inflation for July only climbing to 2.0%. However, the 6-month annualized measure was a more rapid 2.6% - the fastest such pace in 13 years - suggesting that the momentum of US inflation is both broadening and accelerating on the margin (second panel). Chart 8A Sustainable, Not Transitory, Rise In Global Inflation Powell, like many other developed market central bankers, is making a big bet that the “transitory” inflation narrative will prove to be correct and the current surge in inflation will soon subside. Yet already, global supply chain disruptions have lingered longer than the Fed has been expecting. There are also deeper underlying trends in inflation that are challenging the “transitory” narrative. The NFIB small business survey showed that a net 52% of respondents reported raising selling prices in July, while a net 44% planned future price hikes (third panel), both readings last seen during the days of double-digit US inflation in the late 1970s. US firms are successfully passing on rising input costs to US consumers, which is influencing US consumer inflation expectations. The University of Michigan consumer survey for August showed that US households expect inflation over the next year of 4.6% and over the next 5-10 years of 2.9%, with both series well above pre-pandemic lows (bottom panel). The trends in higher inflation seen in the US, and elsewhere, are not just limited to commodity prices where supply squeezes were most prevalent earlier this year and where price momentum is peaking (Chart 8). A GDP-weighted average of core inflation rates for 14 developed market economies reached 2.50% in June and 2.4% in July, levels last seen in the mid-1990s. Higher core inflation readings are consistent with intensifying price pressures stemming from diminished economic slack. The broad swings in our global core inflation measure correlate strongly with the IMF’s estimate of the output gap for the advanced economies (bottom panel). The current acceleration in global core inflation is entirely consistent with the rapid narrowing of the global output gap projected by the IMF for 2021 and, more importantly, 2022. This suggests that underlying inflation pressures, both within and outside the US, will linger into next year, providing an offset the expected drag on “non-core” inflation from slowing commodity price momentum. Already, lingering supply squeezes and stubbornly high US inflation are causing concern among some FOMC members, as noted in these comments last week: Robert Kaplan: “[…] headline PCE inflation next year, we think is going to be in the neighborhood of 2.5%, and there's risk that could be higher. And so we think some of these supply-demand imbalances for materials, some of them will not moderate, but some of them are going to persist longer than people think.” Esther George: “[…] if you continue to have supply constraints and strong demand, you might expect that those will persist more through this year or longer than we originally anticipated.” Chris Waller: “I do think it’s going to be more persistent than I may have thought back in May.” Chart 9Fed Tapering To Deal With Financial Stability Risks? Importantly, the senior FOMC leadership - Powell, Lael Brainard, Richard Clarida – has been sticking with the “transitory” narrative. However, even Clarida noted in a speech in early August that he would consider core PCE inflation at or above 3% at year-end to be “much more than a “moderate” overshoot” of the Fed’s 2% inflation objective.7 In his role as Fed Chair, Powell must speak on behalf of the entire FOMC, even if those views are not necessarily his own. Given the growing chorus of Fed voices expressing concern that US inflation could remain higher for longer, it will be increasingly difficult for Powell to do what he did at Jackson Hole – sound more dovish than the individual FOMC members with regards to inflation risks. What about financial stability risks from QE? Fed officials have been understandably cautious in their comments about how QE (and a 0% funds rate) could be influencing asset prices (Chart 9). However, with equity markets at record highs, corporate bond yields near record lows despite high levels of corporate leverage, and US house prices soaring – the S&P CoreLogic Case-Shiller national index rose 18.6% on a year-over-year basis in June, the fastest pace in its 35-year history - it is difficult not to see the role of the Fed’s easy money policies in boosting risk seeking, yield chasing activities. Stimulative financial conditions are also creating future upside growth risks, with the Conference Board leading economic indicator now reaccelerating (bottom panel). Robert Kaplan, Boston Fed President Eric Rosengren and St. Louis Fed President James Bullard have voiced concerns that QE, particularly the Fed’s buying of agency mortgage-backed securities (MBS), have played a significant role in the current US housing boom. The senior FOMC leadership has avoided any such comments for obvious reasons – imagine the market reaction if Powell expressed concerns about high house prices or equity market valuations. However, for those at the Fed already looking to begin tapering sooner, booming asset prices are an additional reason to vote that way as soon as the September FOMC meeting. Separating Tapering From Rate Hikes It seems clear that the majority of the FOMC is now leaning towards starting to taper before year-end, if US growth and employment maintain recent strength. The common message of Fed officials, from Powell on down, is that enough progress has been made on the Fed’s 2% average inflation target objective to justify tapering. Market-based inflation expectations from the TIPS and CPI swap markets are consistent with that interpretation, with breakevens and forward inflation rates within the 2.3-2.5% range consistent with the Fed’s 2% inflation mandate (Chart 10). Yet while our Fed Monitor continues to flag the need for tighter US monetary policy, only 100bps of rate hikes are discounted in the US OIS curve by the end of 2024 – and only after a first rate hike not expected to occur until January 2023. Despite the common messaging on the start of the taper, the Fed voices were singing a bit less in harmony about the potential timing of the first interest rate hike post-taper. Powell went out of his way to note in his Jackson Hole speech that “the timing and pace of the coming reduction in asset purchases will not be intended to carry a direct signal regarding the timing of interest rate liftoff, for which we have articulated a different and substantially more stringent test.” That test, of course, is when the Fed deems that its maximum employment objective has been reached. Can the Fed continue to successfully separate guidance on balance sheet decisions from guidance on future interest rate moves? Current pricing from US OIS and CPI swap forward curves indicates that the market is discounting negative real policy rates, with the Fed never raising rates above inflation, for the next decade (Chart 11). This goes a long way to explain the persistence of negative real US Treasury yields at a time of elevated inflation readings. Although a decade of negative real interest rates is also consistent with the market believing the equilibrium real interest rate (i.e. r-star) is negative – a view currently expressed by no one on the FOMC. Chart 10Too Few Rate Hikes Discounted In The US OIS Curve Chart 11Markets Believe The Fed Will Never Raise Rates Above Inflation That persistent pricing of negative real rates make sense when there is modest headline inflation and ample spare capacity in the US economy and labor markets. However, that complacency on future rate hikes will be shaken if the US economy approaches full employment and inflation remains above the Fed’s 2% target – outcomes that we expect to occur by the second half of next year. That will lead to the first fed rate hike of the next cycle in Q4 2022, but only after the taper that we expect to start in either December 2021 or January 2022 is completed in Q3 2022. Bottom Line: A tightening US labor market will make the Fed’s current guidance on the separation of tapering from rate hikes increasingly unconvincing, given the shallow path for interest rates currently discounted in the US yield curve - particularly if the current surge in US inflation proves not to be as transitory as the Fed is expecting. Jackson Hole Investment Conclusion – Expect Higher US Treasury Yields Chart 12Stay Below-Benchmark On US Duration With such a modest path for future rate hikes, and bond yields, discounted in US forward interest rate curves, we continue to advocate positioning for higher US Treasury yields on a strategic (6-18 months) basis (Chart 12). We see the benchmark 10-year Treasury yield eventually reaching a peak in the 2-2.25% range by the end of 2022. We recommend maintaining a below-benchmark duration stance in the US, while staying underweight US Treasuries in US and global bond portfolios. There is even a case to be made for a more tactical (i.e. shorter-term) bearish stance on US Treasuries with the US data surprise cycle set to turn towards upside surprises, especially if the negative impact of the Delta variant on confidence and spending begins to wane as case numbers start to decline in the coming weeks. Bottom Line: Expect higher Treasury yields over the next 12-18 months as the Fed transitions from talking about tapering to actual tapering and, eventually, to rate hikes starting in H2/2022.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 A transcript of Powell’s speech can be found here: https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/powell20210827a.htm 2 https://finance.yahoo.com/news/dallas-fed-president-robert-kaplan-yahoo-finance-transcript-august-2021-215700082.html 3 https://finance.yahoo.com/news/kansas-city-fed-president-esther-george-yahoo-finance-transcript-august-2021-113024734.html 4 https://www.reuters.com/business/exclusive-feds-bostic-says-reasonable-begin-bond-buying-taper-october-2021-08-27/ 5 https://finance.yahoo.com/news/fed-gov-waller-strong-august-jobs-report-will-be-green-light-for-taper-202340105.html 6 Please see BCA Research The Bank Credit Analyst September 2021 Section II, “The Return To Maximum Employment: It May Be Faster Than You Think”, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 7 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/clarida20210804a.htm Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Commodity markets will face growing supply challenges over the next decade as the US and China prepare for war, if only to deter war. Chinese President Xi Jinping's push for greater self-reliance at home and supply chain security abroad is reinforced by the West’s focus on the same interests. The erosion of a single rules-based global trade system increases the odds of economic and even military conflict. The competition for security is precipitating a reforging of global supply chains and a persistent willingness to use punitive measures, which can escalate into boycotts, embargoes, and even blockades (i.e. not only Huawei). The risk of military engagements will rise, particularly along global chokepoints and sea lanes needed to transport vital commodities. Import dependency and supply chain risk are powerful drivers of decarbonization efforts, especially in China. On net, geopolitical trends will keep the balance of commodity-price risks tilted to the upside. Commodity and Energy Strategy remains long commodity index exposure on a strategic basis via the S&P GSCI and the COMT ETF.  Note: Even in the short term, a higher geopolitical risk premium is warranted in oil prices due to US-Iran conflict. Feature The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) under President Xi Jinping has embarked on a drive toward autarky, or economic self-sufficiency, that has enormous implications, especially for global commodities. Beijing believes it can maintain central control, harness technology, enhance its manufacturing prowess, and grow at a reasonable rate, all while bulking up its national security. The challenge is to maintain social stability and supply security through the transition. China lives in desperate fear of the chaos that reigned throughout most of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, which also enabled foreign domination (Chart 1). The problem for the rest of the world is that Chinese nationalism and assertive foreign policy are integral aspects of the new national strategy. They are needed to divert the public from social ills and deter foreign powers that might threaten China’s economy and supply security. Chart 1China Fears Any Risk Of Another ‘Century Of Humiliation’ The chief obstacle for China is the United States, which remains the world leader even though its share of global power and wealth is declining over time. The US is formally adopting a policy of confrontation rather than engagement with China. For example, the Biden administration is co-opting much of the Trump administration's agenda. Infrastructure, industrial policy, trade protectionism, and the “pivot to Asia” are now signature policies of Biden as well as Trump (Table 1).1 Table 1US Strategic Competition Act Highlights Return Of Industrial Policy, Confrontation With China Many of these policies are explicitly related to the strategic aim of countering China’s rise, which is seen as vitiating the American economy and global leadership. Biden’s Trump-esque policies are a powerful indication of where the US median voter stands and hence of long-term significance (Chart 2). Thus competition between the US and China for global economic, military, and political leadership is entering a new phase. China’s drive for self-reliance threatens the US-led global trade system, while the US’s still-preeminent geopolitical power threatens China’s vital lines of supply. Chart 2US Public’s Fears Are China-Centric Re-Ordering Global Trade The US’s and China’s demonstrable willingness to use tariffs, non-tariff trade barriers, export controls, and sanctions cannot be expected to abate given that they are locked in great power competition (Chart 3). More than likely, the US and China will independently pursue trade relations with their respective allies and partners, which will replace the mostly ineffective World Trade Organization (WTO) framework. The WTO is the successor to the rules-based and market-oriented system known as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which was formed following World War II. The GATT’s founders shared a strong desire to avoid a repeat of the global economic instability brought on by World War I, the Great Crash of 1929, and the retreat into autarky and isolationism that led to WWII. Chart 3US and China Imposing Trade Restrictions This inter-war period saw domestically focused monetary policies and punishing tariffs that spawned ruinous bouts of inflation and deflation. Minimizing tariffs, leveling the playing field in trading markets, and reducing subsidization of state corporate champions were among the GATT's early successes. The WTO, like the GATT before it, has no authority to command a state to change its economy or the way it chooses to organize itself. At its inception the GATT's modus vivendi was directed at establishing a rules-based system free of excessive government intrusion and regulation. If governments agreed to reduce their domestic favoritism, they could all improve their economic efficiency while avoiding a relapse into autarky and the military tensions that go with it.2 The prime mover in the GATT's founding and early evolution – the USA – firmly believed that exclusive trading blocs had created the groundwork for economic collapse and war. These trading blocs had been created by European powers with their respective colonies. During the inter-war years the revival of protectionism killed global trade and exacerbated the Great Depression. After WWII, Washington was willing to use its power as the global hegemon to prevent a similar outcome. Policymakers believed that European and global economic integration would encourage inter-dependency and discourage protectionism and war. The fall of the Soviet Union reinforced this neoliberal Washington Consensus. Countries like India and China adopted market-oriented policies. The WTO was formed along with a range of global trade deals. Ultimately the US and the West cleared the way for China to join the trading bloc, hoping that the transition from communism to capitalism would eventually be coupled with social and even political liberalization. The world took a very different turn as the United States descended into a morass of domestic political divisions and foreign military adventures. China seized the advantage to expand its economy free of interference from the US or West. The West failed to insist that liberal economic reforms keep pace.3 Moreover, when China joined the WTO in 2001, the organization was in a state of "regulatory stalemate," which made it incapable of dealing with the direct challenges presented by China.4 Today President Xi has consolidated control over the Communist Party and directs its key economic, political, and military policymaking bodies. He has deepened party control down to the management level of SOEs – hiring and firing management. SOEs have benefited from Xi’s rule (Chart 4). But now the West is also reasserting the role of the state in the economy and trade, which means that punitive measures can be brought to bear on China’s SOEs. Chart 4State-Owned Enterprises Benefit From Xi Administration What Comes After The WTO? The CCP has shown no interest in coming around to the WTO's founding beliefs of government non-interference in the private sector. For example, it is doubling down on subsidization and party control of SOEs, which compete against firms in other WTO member states. Nor has the party shown any inclination to accept a trade system based on the GATT/WTO founding members' Western understanding of the rule of law. These states represent market-based economies with long histories of case law for settling disputes. Specifically, China’s fourteenth five-year plan and recent policies re-emphasize the need to upgrade the manufacturing sector rather than rebalancing the economy toward household consumption. The latter would reduce imbalances with trade deficit countries like the US but China is wary of the negative social consequences of too rapidly de-industrializing its economy. It wants to retain its strategic and economic advantage in global manufacturing and it fears the social and political consequences of fully adopting consumer culture (Chart 5). Chart 5China’s Economic Plans Re-Emphasize Manufacturing, Not Consumption The US, EU, and Japan have proposed reform measures for the WTO aimed at addressing “severe excess capacity in key sectors exacerbated by government financed and supported capacity expansion, unfair competitive conditions caused by large market-distorting subsidies and state owned enterprises, forced technology transfer, and local content requirements and preferences.”5 But these measures are unlikely to succeed. China disagrees with the West’s characterization. In 2018-19, during the trade war with the US, Beijing contended that WTO members must “respect members’ development models.” China formally opposes “special and discriminatory disciplines against state-owned enterprises in the name of WTO reform.”6 In bilateral negotiations with the US this year, China’s first demand is that the US not to oppose its development model of “socialism with Chinese characteristics” (Table 2). Table 2China’s Three Diplomatic Demands Of The United States (2021) Yet it is hard for the US not to oppose this model because it involves Beijing using the state’s control of the economy to strengthen national security strategy, namely by the fusion of civil and military technology. Going forward, the Biden administration will violate the number one demand that Chinese diplomats have made: it will attempt to galvanize the democracies to put pressure on China’s development model. China’s demand itself reflects its violation of the US primary demand that China stop using the state to enhance its economy at the expense of competitors. If a breakdown in global trading rules is replaced by the US and China forming separate trading blocs with their allies and partners, the odds of repeating the mistakes of the inter-bellum years of 1918-39 will significantly increase. Tariff wars, subsidizing national champions, heavy taxation of foreign interests, non-tariff barriers to trade, domestic-focused monetary policies, and currency wars would become more likely. China’s Strategic Vulnerability The CCP has delivered remarkable prosperity and wealth to the average Chinese citizen in the 43 years since it undertook market reforms, and especially since its accession to the WTO in 2001 (Chart 6). China has transformed from an economic backwater into a $15.4 trillion (2020) economy and near-peer competitor to the US militarily and economically.7 This growth has propelled China to the top of commodity-importing and -consuming states globally for base metals and oil. We follow these markets closely, because they are critical to sustaining economic growth, regardless of how states are organized. Production of and access to these commodities, along with natural gas, will be critical over the next decade, as the world decarbonizes its energy sources, and as the US and China address their own growth and social agendas while vying for global hegemony. Decarbonization is part of the strategic race since all major powers now want to increase economic self-sufficiency and technological prowess. Chart 6CCPs Remarkable Success In Growing Chinas Economy Over recent decades China has become the largest importer of base metals ores (Chart 7) and the world's top refiner of many of these metals. In addition, it is the top consumer of refined metal (Chart 8). Chart 7China Is World’s Top Ore Importer Chart 8China Is Worlds Top Refined Metal Consumer By contrast, the US is not listed among ore importers or metals consumers in the Observatory of Economic Complexity (OEC) databases we used to map these commodities. This reflects not only domestic supplies but also the lack of investment and upgrades to the US's critical infrastructure over 2000-19.8 Going forward, the US is trying to invest in “nation building” at home. An enormous change has taken shape in strategic liabilities. In the oil market, the US went from being the world's largest importer of oil in 2000, accounting for more than 24% of imports globally, to being the largest oil and gas producer by 2019, even though it still accounted for more than 12% of the world's imports (Chart 9). In 2000, China accounted for ~ 3.5% of the world's oil imports and by 2019 it was responsible for nearly 21%. China is far behind per capita US energy consumption, given its large population, but it is gradually closing the gap (Chart 10). Overall energy consumption in China is much higher than in the US (Chart 11). Chart 9US Oil Imports Collapse As Shale Production Grows Chart 10Energy Use Per Capita In China Far From US Levels... Chart 11China Is World’s Largest Primary Energy Consumer China's impressive GDP growth in the twenty-first century is primarily responsible for China's stunning growth in imports and consumption of oil (Chart 12) and copper (Chart 13), which we track closely as a proxy for the entire base-metals complex. Chart 12Global Oil Demand Forecast Remains Steady Chinas GDP Drives Oil Consumption, Imports Chart 13Global Oil Demand Forecast Remains Steady Chinas GDP Drives Refined Copper Consumption And Ore Imports China’s importance in these markets points to an underlying strategic weakness, which is its dependency on imports. This in turn points to the greatest danger of the breakdown in US-China relations and the global trade system. The Road To War? China is extremely anxious about maintaining supply security in light of these heavy import needs. Its pursuit of economic self-sufficiency, including decarbonization, is driven by its fear of the US’s ability to cut off its key supply lines. China’s first goal in modernizing its military in recent years was to develop a naval force capable of defending the country from foreign attack, particularly in its immediate maritime surroundings. Historically China suffered from invaders across the sea who took advantage of its weak naval power to force open its economy and exploit it. Today China is thought to have achieved this security objective. It is believed to have a high level of capability within the “first island chain” that surrounds the coast, from the Korean peninsula to the Spratly Islands, including southwest Japan and Taiwan (Map 1).9 China’s militarization of the South China Sea, suppression of Hong Kong, and intimidation of Taiwan shows its intention to dominate Greater China, which would put it in a better strategic position relative to other countries. Map 1China’s Navy Likely Achieved Superiority Within The First Island Chain China’s capability can be illustrated by comparing its naval strength to that of the United States, the most powerful navy in the world. While the US is superior, China would be able to combine all three of its fleets within the first island China, while the US navy would be dispersed across the world and divided among a range of interests to defend (Table 3). China would also be able to bring its land-based air force and missile firepower to bear within the first island chain, as opposed to further abroad.10 Table 3China’s Naval Growth Enables Primacy Within First Island Chain In this sense China is militarily capable of conquering Taiwan or other nearby islands. President Xi Jinping had in fact ordered China’s armed forces be capable of doing so by 2020.11 Taiwan continues to be the most significant source of insecurity for the regime. True, a military victory would likely be a pyrrhic victory, as Taiwan’s wealth and tech industry would be destroyed, but China probably has the raw military capability to defeat Taiwan and its allies within this defined space. However, this military capability needs to be weighed against economic capability. If China seized military control of Taiwan, or Okinawa or other neighboring territories, the US, Japan, and their allies would respond by cutting off China’s access to critical supplies. Most obviously oil and natural gas. China’s decarbonization has been impressive but the reliance on foreign oil is still a fatal strategic vulnerability over the next few years (Chart 14). China is rapidly pursuing a Eurasian strategy to diversify away from the Middle East in particular. But it still imports about half its oil from this volatile region (Chart 15). The US navy is capable of interdicting China’s critical oil flows, a major inhibition on China’s military ambitions within the first island chain. Chart 14Chinas Energy Diversification Still Leaves Vulnerabilities Of course, if the US and its allies ever blockaded China, or if China feared they would, Beijing could be driven to mount a desperate attack to prevent them from doing so, since its economic, military, and political survival would be on the line. Chart 15China Still Dependent On Middle East Energy Supplies The obvious historical analogy is the US-Japan conflict in WWII. Invasions that lead to blockades will lead to larger invasions, as the US and Japan learned.12 However, the lesson from WWII for China is that it should not engage the US navy until its own naval power has progressed much further. In the event of a conflict, the US would be imposing a blockade at a distance from China’s naval and missile forces. When it comes to the far seas, China’s naval capabilities are extremely limited. Military analysts highlight that China lacks a substantial naval presence in the Indian Ocean. China relies on commercial ports, where it has partial equity ownership, for ship supply and maintenance (Table 4). This is no substitute for naval basing, because dedicated military facilities are lacking and host countries may not wish to be drawn into a conflict. Table 4China’s Network Of Part-Owned Ports Across The World: Useful But Not A Substitute For Military Bases Further, Beijing lacks the sea-based air power necessary to defend its fleets should they stray too far. And it lacks the anti-submarine warfare capabilities necessary to defend its ships.13 These capabilities are constantly improving but at the moment they are insufficient to overthrow US naval control of the critical chokepoints like the Strait of Hormuz or Strait of Malacca. While China’s naval power is comparable to the US’s Asia Pacific fleet (the seventh fleet headquartered in Japan), it is much smaller than the US’s global fleet and at a much greater disadvantage when operating far from home. China’s navy is based at home and focused on its near seas, whereas US fleet is designed to operate in the far seas, especially the Persian Gulf, which is precisely the strategic area in question (Chart 16).14 China is gradually expanding its navy and operations around the world, so over time it may gain the ability to prevent the US from cutting off its critical supplies in the Persian Gulf. But not immediately. The implication is that China will have to avoid direct military conflict with the United States until its military and naval buildup has progressed a lot further. Chart 16China’s Navy At Huge Disadvantage In Distant Seas Meanwhile Beijing will continue diversifying its energy sources, decarbonizing, and forging supply chains across Eurasia via the Belt and Road Initiative. What could go wrong? We would highlight a few risks that could cause China to risk war even despite its vulnerability to blockade: Chart 17China’s Surplus Of Males Undergirds Rise In Nationalism Domestic demographic pressure. China is slated to experience a dramatic bulge in the male-to-female ratio over the coming decade (Chart 17).15 A surfeit of young men could lead to an overshoot of nationalism and revanchism. This trend is much more important than the symbolic political anniversaries of 2027, 2035, and 2049, which analysts use to predict when China’s military might launch a major campaign. Domestic economic pressure. China’s turn to nationalism reflects slowing income growth and associated social instability. An economic crisis in China would be worrisome for regional stability for many reasons, but such pressures can lead nations into foreign military adventures. Domestic political pressure. China has shifted from “consensus rule” to “personal rule” under Xi Jinping. This could lead to faulty decision-making or party divisions that affect national policy. A leadership that carefully weighs each strategic risk could decay into a leadership that lacks good information and perspective. The result could be hubris and belligerence abroad. Foreign aggression. Attempts by the US or other powers to arm China’s neighbors or sabotage China’s economy could lead to aggressive reaction. The US’s attempt to build a technological blockade shows that future embargoes and blockades are not impossible. These could prompt a war rather than deter it, as noted above. Foreign weakness. China’s capabilities are improving over time while the US and its allies lack coordination and resolution. An opportunity could arise that China’s strategists believe they cannot afford to miss. Afghanistan is not one of these opportunities, but a US-Iran war or another major conflict with Russia could be. The breakdown in global trade is concerning because without an economic buffer, states may resort to arms to resolve disputes. History shows that military threats intended to discourage aggressive behavior can create dilemmas that incentivize aggression. The behavior of the US and China suggests that they are preparing for war, even if we are generous and assume that they are doing so only to deter war. Both countries are nuclear powers so they face mutually assured destruction in a total war scenario. But they will seek to improve their security within that context, which can lead to naval skirmishes, proxy wars, and even limited wars with associated risks of going nuclear. Investment Takeaways The pursuit of the national interest today involves using fiscal means to create more self-sufficient domestic economies and reduce international supply risks. Both China and the West are engaged in major projects to this end, including high-tech industrialization, domestic manufacturing, and decarbonization. These trends are generally bullish for commodities, even though they include trends like military modernization and naval expansion that could well be a prelude to war. War itself leads to commodity shortages and commodity price inflation, but of course it is disastrous for the people and economies involved. Fortunately, strategic deterrence continues to operate for the time being. The underlying geopolitical trend will put commodity markets under continual pressure. A final urgent update on oil and the Middle East: The US attempt to conduct a strategic “pivot” to Asia Pacific faces a critical juncture. Not because of Afghanistan but because of Iran. The Biden administration will have trouble unilaterally lowering sanctions on Iran after the humiliating Afghanistan pullout. The new administrations in both Iran and Israel are likely to establish red lines and credible threats. A higher geopolitical risk premium is thus warranted immediately in global oil markets. Beyond short-term shows of force, everything depends on whether the US and Iran can find a temporary deal to avoid the path to a larger war. But for now short-term geopolitical risks are commodity-bullish as well as long-term risks.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1     There are also significant differences between Biden and Trump in other areas such as redistribution, immigration, and social policy. 2     See Ravenhill, John (2020), Regional Trade Agreements, Chapter 6 in Global Political Economy, which he edited for Oxford University Press, particularly pp. 156-9. 3    “As time went by, the United States realized that Communism not only did not retreat, but also further advanced in China, with the state-owned economy growing stronger and the rule of the Party further entrenched in the process." See Henry Gao, “WTO Reform and China Defining or Defiling the Multilateral Trading System?” Harvard International Law Journal 62 (2021), p. 28, harvardilj.org.  4    See Mavroidis, Petros C. and Andre Sapir (2021), China and the WTO, Why Multilateralism Still Matters (Princeton University Press) for discussion.  See also Confronting the Challenge of Chinese State Capitalism published by the Center for Strategic & International Studies 22 January 2021. 5    Gao (2021), p. 19. 6    Gao (2021), p. 24. 7     Please see China's GDP tops 100 trln yuan in 2020 published by Xinhuanet 18 January 2021. 8    We excluded 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic's effects on supply and demand for these ores, metals and crude oil. 9    See Captain James Fanell, “China’s Global Navy Strategy and Expanding Force Structure: Pathway To Hegemony,” Testimony to the US House of Representatives, May 17, 2018, docs.house.gov. 10   Fanell (2018), p. 13. 11    He has obliquely implied that his vision for national rejuvenation by 2035 would include reunification with Taiwan. Others suggest that the country’s second centenary of 2049 is the likely deadline, or the 100th anniversary of the People’s Liberation Army. 12    The US was a major supplier of oil to Japan, and in 1941 it froze Japan's assets in the US and shut down all oil exports, in response to Japan's military incursion into China in the Second Sino-Japanese War of 1937-45.  Please see Anderson, Irvine H. Jr. (1975), "The 1941 De Facto Embargo on Oil to Japan: A Bureaucratic Reflex," Pacific Historical Review, 44:2, pp. 201-231.  13   See Jeffrey Becker, “Securing China’s Lifelines Across the Indian Ocean,” China Maritime Report No. 11 (Dec 2020), China Maritime Studies Institute, digital-commons.usnwc.edu. 14   See Rear Admiral Michael McDevitt, “Becoming a Great ‘Maritime Power’: A Chinese Dream,” Center for Naval Analyses (June 2016), cna.org. 15   For discussion see Major Tiffany Werner, “China’s Demographic Disaster: Risk And Opportunity,” 2020, Defense Technical Information Center, discover.dtic.mil.  

This week I have been holding client calls and roundtables with clients located in the EMEA region. In next week’s report we will share our answers to the most common client questions. In the meantime, this week we are sending you a report about Peru that discusses the political situation and the outlook for the nation’s financial markets. Best regards, Arthur Budaghyan Highlights Do not bottom fish in Peruvian financial markets. Political volatility has not yet reached its apex. Clashes between the government and congress are inevitable. Either president Pedro Castillo will be impeached and massive protest will follow, or his party’s radical leftist agenda will be at least partially legislated. Neither scenario bodes well for Peru’s financial markets. Capital outflows and lower metal prices pose a threat to the exchange rate. Go short the sol versus the US dollar. Dedicated EM equity and fixed-income managers should continue underweighting Peru in their respective portfolios. Feature Chart 1Peru: Absolute And Relative Equity Performance Peru’s financial assets have plummeted due to the election of left-wing president Pedro Castillo. Some investors may be tempted to bottom fish in these markets due to their lower valuations and oversold conditions (Chart 1, top panel). Some may attempt to draw parallels with Brazil’s 2002 election of Lula da Silva which initially triggered a selloff in Brazilian financial markets followed by a substantial rally during the president’s two terms in office. Will that be the case with Peruvian markets? We do not think so. Unlike twenty years ago in Brazil, Peru is currently facing a much worse political and economic outlook. Overall, the political volatility as well as deteriorating macro fundamentals warrant a higher risk premium on Peruvian assets. Thus, we recommend investors underweight Peru within EM equity, local, and sovereign fixed-income portfolios (Chart 1, bottom panel). A Political Showdown Is Looming One could argue that Peruvian financial markets have hit a floor and that much of the bad news has already been priced. Another argument is that Castillo will not be able to pass sweeping socio-economic reforms because of strong opposition from congress. In our opinion, Peru has yet to reach peak political tensions, which may very well end with a bang. Given this heightened political uncertainty, investors should brace themselves for a rocky ride. We identify two main risks plaguing Peruvian politics. First, the unsustainable ideological divide within Castillo’s proposed cabinet between far-left militants and the pragmatic center-left. Second, the looming clash between a government that wants to upend the country’s socioeconomic system and a notoriously harsh congress keen on making the president’s job unbearable. Intra-Government Dichotomy The ideological divide in Castillo’s government is extreme. On one side is the Marxist-Leninist wing, headed by Free Peru’s party leader, Vladimir Cerrón, and prime minister candidate, Guido Bellido. On the other side is the left-to-center members, headed by Pedro Francke, the minister of finance candidate. The more extremist Marxist-Leninist camp constitutes the majority, while moderates are a minority. Critically, the Marxist-Leninist radicals will make few concessions to the moderate ministers, as the former believe they have a mandate from the people to upend the country’s socio-economic system. Nevertheless, the policies supported by the general public are more nuanced than that. According to a national Ipsos survey from August, 85% of respondents believe president Castillo should govern with technocrats in his governments’ key positions. Only 11% support him making the ideology of his party the centerpiece of his policies and promoting (radical) members of his party. This shows how Castillo’s victory was more of a national referendum against Fujimori and the corrupt political elites than support for a radical socialist government. We elaborated on this topic in our previous report on Peru. The wide ideological divide between the party and a few moderate members of the cabinet in key positions will make governing extremely difficult. Cracks are already beginning to form. Bellido and Francke hold different views on the role of the state in the economy. Bellido, on the one hand, has stated he supports state-owned companies in commodity-extracting sectors (particularly natural gas and hydroelectricity) and the drafting of a new constitution to give the state greater ownership of mining contracts. Francke, on the other hand, wants to reinstate fiscal spending caps and is less harsh with multinational companies, favoring an increase only in mining taxes. Furthermore, there is significant uncertainty around the government’s official fiscal plan, as Francke has avoided giving clear figures on fiscal expenditures and social programs. To make matters worse, there is growing concern that it is party leader Cerrón who is de facto in charge, and that he has an enormous influence on Castillo. Cerrón is unpopular among voters as a result of his criminal allegations, close ties to the Cuban regime, and often apologetic stance toward the Maoist terrorist group, Shining Path. Although he intended to run as the presidential candidate for Free Peru, he was banned from the election because of ongoing criminal accusations, which is why he handpicked Castillo as his replacement. Without a doubt, he intends to be heavily involved in government decision-making. According to the same Ipsos poll we cited earlier, 61% of Peruvians believe Cerrón is either de facto in charge of the government or holds considerable sway over Castillo. The biggest risk to financial markets will be the eventual dismissal or resignation of finance minister Francke. This may happen as he eventually realizes that the radicals will concede very little. This would also lead to a resignation of orthodox central bank governor Julio Velarde, who Francke has been able to convince to remain in his post. These two resignations would result in another riot in Peruvian markets, as the investment and business communities fully lose confidence in Castillo’s government.  An Inevitable Clash Between The Government And Congress Being president in Peru is a notoriously difficult job due to the large sway that congress has on legislation and governing. The outcome of this constant confrontation between the president and congress has been five different presidents in the past five years alone. Critically, this tension has never been higher. The government and congress hold diametrically opposed views on the broad vision and strategy for the nation and how the economy should be managed. On the one hand, congress is mainly composed of traditional centrist parties and the opposition holds a majority—Castillo’s coalition has only about 39% of the seats. On the other hand, the government has just been elected on a far-left reformist platform. In essence, both the government and congress have incentives and the determination to be as obstructive as possible for each other. As tensions ramp up and confrontation becomes inevitable, the risks of unrest and clashes between supporters of Castillo and congress will rise. Table 1Peru: Voters Support More Moderate Politicians In congress’s point of view, they have a mandate to serve as an opposing force to Castillo’s radicalism: There is some validity to this claim. The opposition holds a majority, and congress president Maricarmen Alva is by far more popular than the leaders of the Free Peru party like Cerrón and Bellido (Table 1). Given that Castillo’s ideology is a threat to the nation’s current socio-economic model and, thereby, to the political establishment, the majority in congress would prefer to block all radical legislation, including the appointments of controversial cabinet members. In addition, they will use all manner of accusations and alleged linkages between cabinet members and Shining Path to impeach Castillo. Congress needs only 87 votes, which means they need to convince only eight members from the governing alliance to impeach Castillo. In turn, the government argues it was elected to upend the country’s status quo and confront the unpopular political elites: Critically, the president has the ability to dissolve congress after two votes of no confidence, thereby putting pressure on congress to abide by the government’s radical proposals. This latter point and the fact that congress has little popular support provide leverage for the government over congress. Given the fact that current congressional members cannot be reelected, they might be more careful about how they maneuver, so that they do not provoke Castillo to dissolve congress. There are, therefore, two extreme possible outcomes. On one hand, congress may impeach the president, triggering a social revolt from Castillo’s hardline supporters against congress. On the other hand, congressional members may allow the passing of a leftist legislative agenda in order to maintain their seats, which would gravely reduce corporate profitability and productivity in Peru. Both scenarios would result in a collapse of investor and business confidence, leading to more capital flight and a riot in Peruvian financial markets. Bottom Line: Political volatility in Peru has not yet reached its apex. Clashes between the government and congress are inevitable, as well as among key cabinet members. Such elevated political volatility warrants a higher risk premium on Peruvian assets. Return Of Macro Instability Peru enjoyed a period of relative macro stability from the early 2000s until recently. Its currency, local interest rates, and sovereign spreads have fluctuated less than those in other Latin American countries. However, the nation’s economy and financial markets have entered a period of heightened volatility. Both domestic and external macro factors have turned into headwinds for the Peruvian economy and financial markets. Chart 2Peru: Business Confidence Will Continue Plummeting Domestically, the economic recovery has been uninspiring, and multiple indicators point to growth disappointments ahead: Business confidence took another serious hit with the election of Castillo and ensuing uncertainty (Chart 2). Imminent political volatility will further depress business confidence, and, consequently, capital expenditures and hiring in the coming months. This will curb household income growth and consumer spending. Peru remains one of the world’s deadliest COVID-19 hotspots (Chart 3, top panel). In addition, vaccination rates are the lowest among major Latin American economies (Chart 3, bottom panel). As the more infectious Delta variant becomes dominant, there will not be enough immunity to hold back new cases. Consequently, either the government will introduce lockdowns or people will voluntarily limit their activities, thereby inhibiting the nascent economic recovery. The unemployment rate remains far above its pre-pandemic level (Chart 4). Thus, household income remains very depressed. The latter does not bode well for debtors’ ability to service debt. Chart 3Peru: The Government Has Grossly Mismanaged The Pandemic Chart 4Peru: Labor Market Has Not Fully Recovered   As a result, loan delinquencies will rise anew, weighing on banks’ appetite to lend. Notably, local currency loans to the private sector will contract (Chart 5).    Chart 5Peru: Prepare For A Credit Slump Commercial banking profitability is also vulnerable, as president Castillo aims to strengthen the state bank (Banco de la Nación) by expanding its operations and undercutting private banking fees. Given financials of the bourse’s market cap, poor banking profitability is a major risk to this stock market. Unrelenting currency depreciation—see below for a more detailed analysis of the exchange rate—will prompt the central bank to hike rates further. This will not only weigh on new credit demand, but also augment loan delinquencies in the banking system. As a result, banks will become very risk averse and shrink their balance sheets. A credit crunch will ensue. Even though fiscal spending will be increased, it is unlikely to propel economic growth. The basis is that fiscal primary spending accounted for less than 15% of GDP before the pandemic and is now 17% due to the pandemic distortion (Chart 6). In the meantime, consumer spending constitutes 63% of GDP, capital spending 21%, and exports 25%. Externally, deteriorating balance of payments dynamics will weigh down on the currency: Peruvian assets tend to move with the country’s trade balance and global metal prices. The fact that Peruvian stock prices have plummeted in the face of rising industrial and precious metal prices supports a bearish thesis on this bourse (Chart 7). Chart 6Peru: Fiscal Expenditures Have Risen Due To The Pandemic Chart 7Rising Metal Prices Have Failed To Boost Peruvian Stocks Chart 8China's Slowdown Portends A Fall In Commodities Export revenue will contract as a result of a decline in commodity prices brought on by China’s slowing “old economy” (Chart 8). Precious and industrial metals together account for 66% of Peru’s merchandise exports. A meaningful decline in metal prices will erode the trade surplus and weigh on the exchange rate. Furthermore, Peru is already experiencing capital flight. Potential anti-market policies from this government could trigger more capital exodus. The capital account deficit will widen as both FDI and portfolio inflows fall due to the negative commodity outlook as well as political uncertainty (Chart 9). Foreigners still hold 45% of local currency bonds, and they will reduce their holdings (Chart 10). Chart 9Peru: FDI Inflows Will Decline Chart 10Peruvian Domestic Bonds: Will Banks Make Up For Foreign Investor Retrenchment? Chart 11Peru: The Dollarization Rate Has Room To Rise Currency depreciation will also be reinforced by locals converting their sol deposits into foreign currency. The dollarization rate—the ratio of foreign currency banking deposits to total deposits—will rise (Chart 11). A weakening currency will also lead to higher inflation expectations, to which the central bank will respond by raising rates. The monetary authorities already hiked the policy rate by 25 basis points this month due to higher-than-expected inflation and a rapidly depreciating currency. As Peru’s exchange rate continues to weaken, the central bank might also sell foreign currency reserves to prevent large fluctuations in the value of the currency. This foreign exchange intervention will, in turn, shrink banking system local currency liquidity and lift interbank rates (Chart 12). Chart 12FX Reserve Sales Will Shrink Banking Liquidity And Lift Interbank Rates In short, the central bank has enough international reserves to stabilize the exchange rate, but this will come at the cost of tighter liquidity and higher interest rates. The latter will only reinforce sluggish growth in domestic demand. Bottom Line: Heightened political volatility and lower metal prices are working against the Peruvian economy and its financial markets. Peru is experiencing large capital flight, which will exacerbate currency depreciation. Investment Recommendations Keep an underweight allocation to the Peruvian bourse within an EM equity portfolio. We recommend currency traders go short the Peruvian sol versus the US dollar. While the sol has already depreciated considerably, the domestic and external headwinds entail more downside. For fixed-income investors, we maintain an underweight allocation to Peruvian sovereign credit in an EM credit portfolio. The basis for this position is that the nation’s fiscal policy may undergo a major shift, entailing larger fiscal spending and wider budget deficits. We are downgrading local bonds from neutral to underweight in an EM domestic bond portfolio. Critically, the share of foreign ownership of Peruvian local fixed income remains one of the highest in the EM universe—it has only fallen from around 55% to 45% of domestic fixed-income instruments in the past six months (Chart 10 on page 9). Thus, there is a major risk that foreign investors will sell domestic bonds as the currency depreciates further, which will weigh down on local bonds. Juan Egaña Research Analyst juane@bcaresearch.com Footnotes

Highlights China’s new plan for “common prosperity” is a long-term strategic plan to bulk up the middle class that will strengthen China – if it is implemented successfully. The record on implementing reforms is mixed. Large budget deficits to provide subsidies for households and key industries are inevitable. But fiscal reforms will be more difficult. Implementation will proceed gradually and some provinces will move faster than others. Cyclically, the common prosperity plan will not be allowed to interfere with the post-pandemic economic recovery. Beijing will have to ease monetary and fiscal policy to secure the recovery. But large debt levels create a limit on the ability to push through key reforms. Macro policy easing is beneficial for the rest of the world but Chinese investors must deal with a rise in uncertainty and an anti-business turn in the policy environment. Beijing has centralized political power to move rapidly on reforms. However, centralization creates new structural problems while antagonizing foreign nations. Feature Chinese President Xi Jinping laid out a plan on August 18 for “common prosperity” in China that will help guide national policy over the coming decades. The plan seeks to reduce social and economic imbalances and hence strengthen China and reinforce the Communist Party’s rule. The plan confirms our top key view for the year – China’s confluence of internal and external risks – as well as our long-running theme that Chinese domestic political risk is greater than it looks because of underlying problems like inequality and weak governance. The market has woken up to these views and themes (Chart 1). Now Beijing is turning to address these problems, which is positive if it follows through. But investors will have to cope with new policies and laws that reverse the pro-business context of recent decades. In this report we review the new plan and its implications in the context of overall Chinese economic policy. The chief investment takeaway is that while China will push forward various reforms, Beijing cannot afford to self-inflict an economic collapse. Monetary and fiscal policy will ease over the coming 12 months. As such China policy tightening will not short-circuit the global recovery. However, Chinese corporate earnings and the renminbi will not benefit from the country’s anti-business turn. Chart 1Market Wakes Up To China's Political Risk What Is In The Common Prosperity Plan? The first thing to understand about Beijing’s new plan for “common prosperity” is that it is aspirational: it contains few specific targets or concrete policies. It builds on existing policy goals set for 2049, the hundredth anniversary of the People’s Republic. Implementation will be gradual. The plan is consistent with the Xi administration’s previous emphasis on improving the country’s quality of life and tackling systemic risks. It takes aim at social immobility, income and wealth inequality, poor public services, a weak social safety net, and other problems that did not receive enough attention during China’s rapid growth phase over the past forty years. Left unattended, China’s socioeconomic imbalances could fester and eventually destabilize the regime. From the beginning, the Xi administration has tackled the most pressing popular concerns to try to rebuild the party’s legitimacy, increase public support, and avoid crises. Crackdowns on pollution and excessive debt are prime examples. China does indeed suffer from high income inequality and low social mobility, as we have highlighted in key reports. It is comparable to the United States as well as Italy, Argentina, and Chile, all of which have suffered from significant social and political upheaval in recent memory (Chart 2). By contrast, Japan, Germany, and Australia have been relatively politically stable. Chart 2China Risks Social Unrest Like The Americas Table 1 summarizes the common prosperity plan. The key takeaways are the long 2049 deadline, the emphasis on “mixed ownership” in the corporate sphere (retaining a big role for state control and state-owned enterprises but attracting private capital), the redistribution of household income (reform the tax code), the establishment of property rights, the censorship of media/discourse, and the need to reduce rural disparity. The most important point of all is that Beijing intends to grow the size and wellbeing of the middle class – the foundation of a country’s strength. Table 1China’s “Common Prosperity” Plan For 2049 Coastal China today has reached Taiwanese and Korean levels of per capita income and has slightly exceeded their levels of wealth inequality (Chart 3). These countries witnessed social unrest and regime change in the 1980s due to such problems. The urban-rural gap is even more problematic in China due to its large rural population and territory. The Chinese public is expected to become more demanding as it evolves. Hence Beijing is pledging to redistribute wealth, grow the middle class, speed up income growth among the poorest, reduce rural disparities, expand access to elderly care, medicine, and housing, and establish a better legal framework for business. These goals are positive in principle, especially for household sentiment, social stability, and political support for the administration. But they also entail a higher tax/wage/regulation environment for business and corporate earnings. The question for investors centers on implementation. Chart 3China's Wealth Disparities Outstrip Comparable Neighbors What About Vested Interests? Table 1 above shows that the super-committee that issued the common prosperity plan also addressed China’s ongoing battle against financial risk. The financial policy statement was neither new nor surprising but it highlights something important: “preventing risks” will have to be balanced with “ensuring stable growth.” This balancing of reform and growth is essential to Chinese government and will guide the implementation of the common prosperity plan just as it has guided President Xi’s crackdown on shadow banking. This is an especially pertinent point today, as Beijing runs the risk of overtightening monetary, fiscal, and regulatory policies. While Beijing’s vision of a better regulated, more heavily taxed, and higher-wage society should not be underrated, reform initiatives will be delayed if they threaten to derail the post-pandemic recovery. Time and again the Xi administration has ruled against a rapid, resolute, and disruptive approach to reform, such as the “assault phase of reform” spearheaded by Premier Zhu Rongji in the late 1990s. In the plan’s own words: “achieving common prosperity will be a long-term, arduous, and complicated task and it should be achieved in a gradual and progressive manner.” Having said that, the pattern of reform has been a vigorous launch, a market riot, and then backtracking or delay. This means markets face more volatility first before things settle down. An initial volley of policy actions should be expected between now and spring of 2023, when the National People’s Congress solidifies the plans of the twentieth National Party Congress in fall 2022. As with the ongoing regulatory crackdown on Big Tech, the market may experience a technical rebound but the political assessment suggests government pressure will be sustained for at least the next 12 months. We do not recommend bottom feeding in Chinese equities. Will the reforms be effective over time? When the Xi administration took power in 2012-13, it issued a visionary policy document calling for wide-ranging reforms to China’s economy (“Decision on Several Major Questions About Deepening Reform”).1 Over the past decade these reforms have had mixed success. Rhodium Group maintains a reform tracker to monitor progress – the results are lackluster (Table 2). Some core principles, such as the claim that China would make market forces “decisive” in allocating resources, have been totally reversed. Table 2China’s Progress On Reforms Over Past Decade While China’s government model is absolutist, there are still social and economic limits on what the government can achieve. Beijing cannot raise a nationwide property tax, estate tax, and capital gains tax overnight just to reduce inequality. In fact, the long saga of the property tax tells a very different story. Beijing is limited in how it can tax the bubbling property sector because Chinese households store their wealth in houses and because any sustained price deflation would lead to a national debt crisis. Officials have pledged to advance a nationwide property tax in the past three five-year plans with little progress. A serious effort to impose the tax in 2014 was only implemented in two provinces, notably Shanghai’s tax on second or third homes owned by the same household.2 The common prosperity plan entails that the government will revive the property tax but the rollout will still be gradual and step-by-step reform. The tax will focus on major urban areas, not minor ones where population decline could weigh on prices. The government work report in early 2023 will be a key watchpoint for where and when the property tax will be levied but there can be little doubt that it will gradually be levied for top-tier cities. Other aspects of the common prosperity plan will be implemented with provincial trial runs. It all begins with a “demonstration zone,” namely Zhejiang province, a wealthy coastal state where President Xi Jinping once served as party secretary and first army secretary. Zhejiang is expected to make some progress by 2025 and achieve most the goals by 2035 (in keeping with Xi’s 2035 strategic vision). The Zhejiang plan includes concrete numerical targets and as such sheds light on the broader national plan and how other provinces will implement it. The most important target is the desire to have 80% of the population earn an annual disposable income of CNY 100,000-500,000 ($15,400-77,000). The labor share of output should be greater than 50%, compared to a national average of 35%-40%. The urbanization rate should hit 75%, up from 72%. Urban incomes should be capped at just short of twice that of rural income. Enrollment rates in higher education will go up, life expectancy should reach above 80 years, pollution should be further controlled, and the unemployment rate should stay below 5.5%. A host of other goals, ranging from technology to fertility and the social safety net, are shown in Table 3. Table 3China: Zhejiang Province As Bellwether For “Common Prosperity” Plan Some of the plan’s intentions will be undermined by Chinese governance. It is difficult to improve social fairness and property rights in the context of autocracy because the central and local governments create distortions and cannot be held to account for their own mistakes and abuses. The immediate political context of the common prosperity plan should not be missed: the president is outlining a bright future to justify the fact that he will not step down from power as earlier term limits required in fall 2022. The president’s 2035 vision implies an important strategic window in which to accomplish ambitious goals but the lack of checks and balances suggests that the next 14 years could be very similar to the last 10 years, in which arbitrary and absolutist decisions govern policy. The problem is highlighted by China’s recent 10-point plan on government under rule of law, which is undercut by the arbitrary actions of regulators in the tech crackdown (see Appendix). In other words, while social stability may improve in many ways, the shift away from consensus rule, toward rule of a single person, will increase policy uncertainty and create new governance problems at the same time that could produce greater instability over the long run. Having said all that, it is essential to acknowledge that a comprehensive plan to grow the middle class and expand the social safety net could be very positive for China if implemented. A Global Social Justice Race? If investors are thinking that the Xi administration’s calls for “social fairness and justice” and big new investments in “elderly care, medical security, and housing supply” resemble those of US President Joe Biden in his American Families Plan, then they are right. But while the US is already at historic levels of social division after failing to deal with inequality, China is attempting to learn from the US’s problems and rebalance society before polarization, factionalization, and social unrest occur. The Communist Party tends to take major action in response to American crises. Beijing’s crackdown on extremism and domestic terrorism in the early 2000s followed from the September 11 attacks. Its crackdown on local government debt and shadow banking stemmed from the 2008 financial crisis. And its crackdown on Big Tech, social media, and inequality today responds to the rise of populism in the US and Europe. The fact that deindustrialization has led to political crises in the developed world, and that social media companies can both exacerbate social unrest and silence a sitting president, is not lost on the Chinese administration. Unfortunately, China’s approach will probably escalate conflict with the West. First, Beijing is coupling its new social agenda with an aggressive campaign of military modernization and technological acquisition. It is doubling down on advanced manufacturing as its future economic model. The liberal democracies will not only be forced to defend their own political systems and governance models but will also be pressured into more hawkish stances on foreign, trade, and defense policy toward China. So far China is still attractive to foreign investors but the combination of socialist policy, import substitution, and foreign protectionism should put a cap on investment flows over time (Chart 4). What is the net effect of social largesse at home and great power competition abroad? Larger budget deficits. Fiscal expansionism is the key mechanism for the US and China to reboot their economies, reduce social pressures, secure supply chains, and compete with other each other. And expansionary fiscal policies will boost inflation expectations on the margin. One thing is clear: China’s regime will be imperiled if instead of common prosperity and “national rejuvenation” it gets economic collapse. Beijing is already seeing capital outflows reminiscent of the crisis period in 2014-15 when aggressive reforms triggered a collapse in risk appetite and a stock market crash (Chart 5). The implication is that monetary and fiscal easing will accompany the reform agenda. Chart 4China's New Policies Will Deter Foreign Investment Chart 5Capital Flight And Capital Controls A Risk If Implementation Aggressive That would be marginally positive for global growth and EM countries that export to China. Investors in China, however, will have to deal with greater policy uncertainty as China attempts to redistribute wealth while waging a cold war abroad. Investment Takeaways None of Beijing’s social goals can be met if overall growth and job creation slow too much. Reforms are constantly subject to the ultimate constraint of maintaining overall stability. Already in 2021 Beijing is verging on excessive monetary and fiscal policy tightening (Chart 6). The Politburo signaled in July that it would take its foot off the brakes but policy uncertainty is still wreaking havoc in the equity market and overall animal spirits are downbeat. We expect policy to ease over the coming year to ensure stability ahead of the twentieth national party congress. This would be marginally good news for global growth, contingent on the effects of the global pandemic. Of course we cannot deny that more bad news for global risk assets may be necessary in the very near term to prompt the policy easing that we expect. Policymakers will backtrack on various policies when the market revolts or when the risk of debt-deflation rears its ugly head. Corporate and even household debt have expanded so much in recent years that Chinese policymakers have their hands tied when they try to push reforms too aggressively (Chart 7). A Japanese-style combination of a shrinking and graying population could create a feedback loop with debt deleveraging in the event of a sharp drop in asset prices. On the whole we maintain a pessimistic outlook on Chinese currency and assets. Chart 6China Runs Risk Of Overtightening Policy Chart 7Debt Trap Must Be Avoided - Monetary/ Fiscal Policy Will Stay Accommodative   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com     Appendix Table A1China: 10-Point Guidelines On Government Under Rule Of Law (2021-25) Footnotes 1     See Arthur R. Kroeber, “Xi Jinping’s Ambitious Agenda for Economic Reform in China,” Brookings, November 17, 2013, brookings.edu. 2     Chongqing’s property tax only affects luxury houses. Shenzhen and Hainan are the next pilot projects.

Dear Client, I will be on vacation next week. In lieu of our regular report, we will be sending you a Special Report written by my colleagues Chester Ntonifor, BCA Research’s Chief Foreign Exchange Strategist, and Matt Gertken, Chief Geopolitical Strategist. Their report discusses the threat to the dollar’s reserve status over the next decade. This week, Matt published a timely report entitled “Afghanistan? Watch Iran And China,” examining the global macro significance of the US withdrawal from Afghanistan. I trust you will find both reports insightful.   Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights Over the next 12 months, US inflation will decline fast enough to allow the Federal Reserve to maintain its accommodative monetary stance, but not as fast as investors are expecting. A number of structural forces were becoming inflationary even before the pandemic began. The pandemic will only buttress the tide. Even if the virus is eventually vanquished, the pandemic could prop up inflation by permanently reducing labor supply, hastening the retreat from globalization, and keeping fiscal policy looser than it otherwise would have been. Fixed-income investors should maintain a short duration stance. We expect the US 10-year Treasury yield to rebound to about 1.8% by early next year. Long-term bond yields in the other major economies will also rise, although not as much as in the US. In and of itself, higher inflation is not necessarily bad for equities. What makes higher inflation toxic for stocks is when it forces central banks to raise rates to punitive levels. Fortunately, such an outcome is still a few years away, justifying an overweight equity position for now. Upside Risks To Inflation In our July 23rd report, we argued that investors were asking the wrong question about inflation. Rather than asking whether higher inflation is transitory, they should be asking whether inflation will decline faster or slower than what the market is discounting. Chart 1Investors Expect Inflation To Fall Rapidly From Current Levels Chart 1 shows that investors expect inflation to fall rapidly from current levels and to remain subdued thereafter. The widely followed 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate currently stands at 2.12%, below the Fed’s comfort zone of 2.3%-to-2.5% (Chart 2).1 Chart 2Below-Target Inflation Expectations And A Low R* Have Restrained Bond Yields Downbeat long-term inflation expectations and the market’s perception that the neutral rate of interest is very low are the two main reasons why bond yields are so depressed. QE programs have also dampened yields, although not nearly as much as widely believed. Chart 3Outside Of A Few Pandemic-Related Sectors, The CPI Has Yet To Return To Trend In our report, we contended that US inflation would come down fast enough over the next few quarters to allow the Federal Reserve to maintain its accommodative monetary stance, but not as fast as investors are expecting. On the one hand, the evidence clearly shows that most of the recent increase in US inflation has been driven by just a few pandemic-related sectors (Chart 3). On the other hand, high levels of excess household savings, the need for firms to expand capacity and rebuild inventories, and continued policy support will boost output and prices. The Long-Term Inflationary Consequences Of The Pandemic We also argued that a variety of structural forces, including the exodus of baby boomers from the labor market, a retreat from globalization, and increasing social unrest, would drive up inflation over the long haul. A key question is how the pandemic will shape these structural forces going forward. As we discuss below, there are three main overlapping channels through which the pandemic could have a lasting impact on inflation: Labor market scarring: Even if the virus is eventually vanquished, the pandemic could still permanently reduce the labor supply. Widespread worker shortages would fuel inflation. Deglobalization: Globalization has historically been a deflationary force. The pandemic could accelerate the retreat from globalization by prompting firms to bring more production back home, while exacerbating geopolitical tensions. Fiscal policy: Big budget deficits could persist in the post-pandemic period. Debt-saddled governments may turn to inflation to erode their debt burdens. Let us assess these three channels in turn.   Channel #1: Labor Market Scarring Despite July’s blockbuster employment report, there are still nearly 4% fewer Americans employed than was the case in January 2020. Yet, US businesses are struggling to hire workers (Chart 4). Nationwide, the job openings rate stands at a record 6.5%, up from 4.5% on the eve of the pandemic (Chart 5). Chart 4US Companies Are Facing A Labor Shortage Chart 5There Are Plenty Of Jobs Available Generous unemployment benefits, less immigration, and the reluctance of many workers to expose themselves to the virus have all helped to reduce labor supply. A marked shift in the composition of spending has increased the demand for workers in some sectors while reducing demand in other sectors (Chart 6). Since labor is not perfectly fungible across sectors, this has caused overall unemployment to rise. Chart 6Which Sectors Have Gained And Which Have Lost Jobs Since The Pandemic? Looking out, labor supply should increase as emergency unemployment benefits expire, immigration picks up, and more people are vaccinated. The mismatch of workers across sectors should also diminish as goods and services spending rebalances. Nevertheless, there is considerable uncertainty over how quickly all this will happen. According to Indeed, an online job posting site, unemployed workers cited having a “financial cushion” as the most popular reason for not looking for a job in July (Chart 7). Given that American households are sitting on $2.4 trillion in excess savings, it may take some time for this cushion to deflate (Chart 8). Chart 7Americans Are Not Desperate To Find Work Chart 8A Lot Of Excess Savings Chart 9No Jab, No Job Wider vaccine mandates could also impact labor market participation. A host of major companies, ranging from Google to Citigroup, are requiring their employees to be inoculated before returning to the office (Chart 9). The Pentagon has laid out a plan endorsed by President Biden obliging members of the military to get the COVID-19 vaccine. Earlier this week, the Las Vegas Raiders became the first NFL team to require fans to produce proof of vaccination to gain entry to home games. On the one hand, vaccine mandates could encourage more people to get the jab, which should help curb the pandemic and boost employment in the service sector. While the numbers have improved in recent weeks, only 57% of Americans between the ages of 18 and 64 are fully vaccinated (Chart 10). On the other hand, some people might opt for unemployment over a vaccine. According to a recent YouGov poll, about half of all unvaccinated Americans believe that the government is using COVID-19 vaccines to microchip the population (Chart 11). The threat of losing one’s job is unlikely to sway many of them. Chart 10Many Workers Remain Unvaccinated Chart 11One In Five Americans Believes The US Government Is Using The Covid-19 Vaccine To Microchip The Population Pandemic-induced shifts in work-life preferences could also reduce labor supply. According to Ipsos, a polling firm, most employees would prefer to work remotely at least part of the time, with 25% indicating they do not want to return to their workplace at all (Chart 12). The same poll found that 30% of workers would consider looking for another job if their employer required them to work away from home full time (Chart 13). Chart 12Let’s Chat Around The Water Cooler On Tuesdays And Wednesdays Chart 13What Is The Opposite Of A “One Size Fits All” Work Environment? Chart 14Number Of Retired People Jumped During The Pandemic If remote working boosted productivity, as some have claimed, this would not be such a bad thing. However, it is far from clear that this is the case. A recent University of Chicago study of 10,000 skilled professionals from an Asian IT company revealed that work-from-home policies decreased productivity by 8%-to-19%. Early retirement has also reduced labor supply. The share of retirees in the US population rose by 1.3 percentage points between February 2020 and July 2021, with most of the increase occurring early in the pandemic (Chart 14). Based on pre-pandemic demographic trends, the retirement rate should have risen by only 0.5 percentage points over this period.  The good news, as discussed in a recent study by the Kansas City Fed, is that most of the increase in the retirement rate was driven by fewer people transitioning from retirement back into employment. The share of people transitioning from employment to retirement did not change much (Chart 15). This led the authors to conclude that “More retirees may rejoin the workforce as health risks fade, but the retirement share is unlikely to return to a normal level for some time.” Chart 15Increased Retirees: A Closer Look Bottom Line: Labor supply will recover as the pandemic recedes. Nevertheless, the available pool of workers will likely be lower in the post-pandemic period than it would have otherwise been. A shortage of workers will prop up wage growth, helping to fuel inflation.   Channel #2: Deglobalization Globalization was on the back foot even before the pandemic began. Having steadily increased between 1991 and 2008, the ratio of global trade-to-output was basically flat during the 2010s (Chart 16). Ironically, the pandemic has revived global trade by shifting the composition of spending away from non-tradable services towards tradable goods. This shift in spending is the key reason why shipping costs have soared in recent months (Chart 17). Chart 16Globalization Plateaued Over A Decade Ago Chart 17Shipping Costs Have Soared In Recent Months The rebound in trade will not endure. Already, we are seeing companies moving production back home to establish greater control over their supply chains. The pandemic has exacerbated geopolitical tensions between China and the US. Recriminations about how the pandemic began and what China could have done to stop it will not go away anytime soon. Trade bloomed during Pax Britannica, when Great Britain ruled the waves, and then again during Pax Americana, when the US controlled the commanding heights. As BCA’s geopolitical team has long stressed, the shift to a multi-polar world is likely to restrain globalization.2 Historically, globalization has been a deflationary force. Trade has allowed countries such as the US that consistently run current account deficits to satiate excess demand for goods with imports, thereby forestalling inflation. Trade has also raised productivity by allowing countries to specialize in those areas in which they have a comparative advantage, while providing a mechanism to diffuse technological know-how around the world. Standard trade theory predicts that less-skilled workers in developed economies will suffer a relative decline in wages in response to rising trade with developing countries. A number of studies have documented that this is precisely what happened after China entered the global trading system.3  Poor workers tend to spend more of their paychecks than either rich workers or the owners of capital. To the extent that deglobalization shifts the balance of economic power back towards blue-collar workers in advanced economies, this will raise overall aggregate demand. Against the backdrop of muted productivity growth, inflation could increase as a consequence. Bottom Line: Globalization is deflationary, while deglobalization is inflationary. The pandemic is likely to reinforce the trend towards deglobalization.    Channel #3: Fiscal Policy There was once a time when governments trembled in fear of the bond vigilantes. Those days are long gone. After briefly rising to 4% in June 2009, the US 10-year Treasury yield trended lower over the subsequent decade, even though unemployment fell and government debt rose. The pandemic sent the bond vigilantes scurrying for cover. Negative real yields allowed governments to run budget deficits of previously unimagined proportions during the pandemic. Budget deficits will decline over the next few years, but the aversion to deficit spending will not return. Not anytime soon at least. The IMF expects the cyclically-adjusted primary budget deficit in advanced economies to average 2.6% of GDP between 2022 and 2026, up from 1% of GDP in the 2014-19 period (Chart 18). Even that is probably too conservative, since the IMF’s projections do not include pending legislation such as President Biden’s $550 billion infrastructure package and $3.5 trillion reconciliation budget bill. Chart 18Fiscal Policy: Tighter But Not Tight If the growth rate of the economy exceeds the interest rate on government debt, then governments with high debt-to-GDP ratios could run larger budget deficits than governments with low ratios, while still achieving a stable debt-to-GDP ratio over time.4  The problem is that these same governments would face an exponential increase in debt-servicing costs if interest rates were to rise above the growth rate of the economy. This is not a risk for any major developed economy at the moment but could become an issue as spare capacity recedes. At that point, central banks could face political pressure to keep rates low, even if their economies are overheating. The result could be higher inflation. Higher inflation, in turn, would boost nominal GDP growth, putting downward pressure on debt-to-GDP ratios. Bottom Line: While budget deficits will come down over the next few years, governments in developed economies will still maintain looser fiscal policies than before the pandemic. High debt levels could incentivize policymakers to permit higher inflation. Investment Conclusions US inflation will decline over the next 12 months, but not as quickly as markets are discounting. A number of structural forces were becoming inflationary even before the pandemic began. The pandemic will only reinforce the inflationary tide. Fixed-income investors should maintain a short duration stance. We expect the US 10-year Treasury yield to rebound to about 1.8% by early next year as the Delta variant wave fades. Long-term bond yields in the other major economies will also rise, although not as much as in the US. In and of itself, higher inflation is not necessarily bad for equities. What makes higher inflation toxic for stocks is when it forces central banks to raise rates to punitive levels. Fortunately, such an outcome is still a few years away, justifying an overweight equity position for now. The second quarter earnings season was a strong one. Back on July 2nd, analysts expected S&P 500 companies to generate about $45 in EPS in Q2. In the end, they generated at least $52. Analysts expect earnings to decline in absolute terms in Q3 and remain below Q2 levels until the second quarter of next year, when they are projected to grow by a meagre 3.5% year-over-year (Table 1). Table 1US Earnings Estimates Have Upside Earnings estimates usually drift lower over time (Chart 19). BCA’s US equity strategists think there is scope for earnings estimates for the second half of this year to rise materially from current levels. This should support US stocks. Along the same lines, above-trend global growth and attractive valuations should buoy stock markets outside the US. Chart 19Analysts Have Been Revising Up Earnings Estimates This Year Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The Federal Reserve targets an average inflation rate of 2% for the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) index. The TIPS breakeven is based on the CPI index. Due to compositional differences between the two indices, CPI inflation has historically averaged 30-to-50 basis points higher than PCE inflation. This is why the Fed effectively targets a CPI inflation rate of about 2.3%-to-2.5%. 2 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report “Hypo-Globalization (A GeoRisk Update),” dated July 30, 2021; and Special Report, “The Apex Of Globalization - All Downhill From Here,” dated November 12, 2014. 3 For example, economists Katharine Abraham and Melissa Kearney have estimated that increased competition from Chinese imports cost the US economy 2.65 million jobs between 1999 and 2016, almost double the 1.4 million jobs lost to automation. Similarly, David Autor and his colleagues found that increased trade with China has led to large job losses for blue-collar workers in the US manufacturing sector. 4 The steady-state debt-to-GDP ratio can be expressed as p/(r-g), where r is the interest rate, g is trend GDP growth, and p is the primary (i.e., non-interest) budget balance. Thus, for example, if the government wanted to achieve a stable debt-to-GDP ratio of 50% and r-g is -2%, it would need to run a primary budget deficit of 0.5*0.02=1% of GDP. However, if the government targeted a stable debt-to-GDP ratio of 200%, it could run a primary budget deficit of 2*0.02=4% of GDP. See Box 1 in our February 22, 2019 report for a derivation of this debt sustainability equation. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores

Highlights US crude oil output will continue its sharp recovery before leveling off by mid-2022, in our latest forecast (Chart of the Week). The recovery in US production is led by higher Permian shale-oil production, which is quietly pushing toward pre-COVID-19 highs while other basins languish. Permian output in July was ~ 143k b/d below the basin's peak in Mar20, and likely will surpass its all-time high output in 4Q21. Overall US shale-oil output remains ~ 1.1mm b/d below Nov19's peak of 9.04mm b/d, but we expect it to end the year at 7.90mm b/d and to average 8.10mm b/d for 2022. We do not expect US crude oil production to surpass its all-time high of 12.9mm b/d of Jan20 by the end of 2023. Instead, exploration & production (E&P) companies will continue to prioritize shareholders' interests. This means larger shares of free cashflow will go to shareholders, and not to drilling for the sake of increasing output. While our overall balances estimates remain largely unchanged from last month, we have taken down our expectation for demand growth this year by close to 360k b/d and moved it into 2022, due to continuing difficulties containing the COVID-19 Delta variant. Our Brent crude oil forecasts for 2H21, 2022 and 2023 remain largely unchanged at $70, $73 (down $1) and $80/bbl. WTI will trade $2-$3/bbl lower. Feature Chart 1US Crude Recovery Continues Global crude oil markets are at a transition point. The dominant producer – OPEC 2.0 – begins retuning 400k b/d every month to the market from the massive 5.8mm b/d of spare capacity accumulated during the COVID-19 pandemic. For modeling purposes, it is not unreasonable to assume this will be a monthly increment returned to the market until the accumulated reserves are fully restored. This would take the program into 2H22, per OPEC's 18 July 2021 communique issued following the meeting that produced this return of supply. Thereafter, the core group of the coalition able to increase and sustain higher production – Kuwait, the UAE, Iraq, KSA and Russia – is expected to meet higher demand from their capacity.1 There is room for maneuver in the OPEC 2.0 agreement up and down. We continue to expect the coalition to make supply available as demand dictates – a data-dependent strategy, not unlike that of central banks navigating through the pandemic. This could stretch the return of that 5.8mm b/d of accumulated spare capacity further into 2H22 than we now expect. The pace largely depends on how quickly effective vaccines are distributed globally, particularly to EM economies over the course of this year and next. US Shale Recovery Led By Permian Output While OPEC 2.0 continues to manage member-state output – keeping the level of supply below that of demand to reduce global inventories – US crude oil output is quietly recovering. We expect this to continue into 1H22 (Chart 2). Chart 2Permian Output Recovers Strongly The higher American output in the Lower 48 states primarily is due to the continued growth of tight-oil shale production in the low-cost Permian Basin (Chart 3). This has been aided in no small part by the completion of drilled-but-uncompleted (DUC) wells in the Permian and elsewhere. Chart 3E&Ps Favor Permian Assets Since last year’s slump, the rig count has increased; however, compared to pre-pandemic levels, the number of rigs presently deployed are not sufficient to sustain current production. The finishing of DUC wells means that, despite the low rig count during the pandemic, shale oil supply has not dipped by a commensurate amount. This is a major feat, considering shale wells’ high decline rates. Chart 4US Producers Remain Focused On Shareholder Priorities DUCS have played a large role in sustaining overall US crude oil production. According to the EIA, since its peak in June 2020, DUCs in the shale basins have fallen by approximately 33%. As hedges well below the current market price for shale producers roll off, and DUC inventories are further depleted, we expect to see more drilling activity and the return of more rigs to oil fields. We do not expect US crude oil output to surpass its all-time high of 12.9mm b/ of Jan20 by the end of 2023. Instead, exploration & production (E&P) companies will continue to prioritize shareholders' interests. This means only profitable drilling supporting the free cashflow that allows E&Ps to return capital to shareholders will receive funding. US oil and gas companies have a long road back before they regain investors' trust (Chart 4).   Demand Growth To Slow We expect global demand to increase 5.04mm b/d y/y in 2021, down from last month's growth estimate of 5.4mm b/d. We have taken down our expectation for demand growth this year by ~ 360k b/d and moved it into 2022, because of reduced mobility and local lockdowns due to continuing difficulties in containing the COVID-19 Delta variant, particularly in Asia (Chart 5).2 We continue to expect the global rollout of vaccines to increase, which will allow mobility restrictions to ease, and will support demand. This has been the case in the US, EU and is expected to continue as Latin America and other EM economies receive more efficacious vaccines. Thus, as DM growth slows, EM oil demand should pick up (Chart 6). Chart 5COVID-19 Delta Variant's Spread Remains Public Health Challenge Chart 6EM Demand Growth Will Offset DM Slowdown Net, we continue to expect demand for crude oil and refined products to grind higher, and to be maintained into 2023, as mobility rises, and economic growth continues to be supported by accommodative monetary policy and fiscal support. If anything, the rapid spread of the Delta variant likely will predispose central banks to continue to slow-walk normalizing monetary policy and interest rates. Global Balances Mostly Unchanged Chart 7Oil Markets To Remain Balanced Although we have shifted part of the demand recovery into next year, at more than 5mm b/d of growth, our 2021 expectation is still strong. This is expected to continue next year and into 2023 although not at 2021-22 rates. Continued production restraint by OPEC 2.0 and the price-taking cohort outside the coalition will keep the market balanced (Chart 7). We expect OPEC 2.0's core group of producers – Kuwait, the UAE, Iraq, KSA and Russia – will continue to abide by the reference production levels laid out in 18 July 2021 OPEC communique. Capital markets can be expected to continue constraining the price-taking cohort's misallocation of resources. These factors underpin our call for balanced markets (Table 1), and our view inventories will continue to draw (Chart 8). Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) To Dec23Our balances assessment leaves our price expectations unchanged from last month, with Brent's price trajectory to end-2023 intact (Chart 9). We expect Brent crude oil to average $70, $73 and $80/bbl in 2H21, 2022 and 2023, respectively. WTI is expected to trade $2-$3/bbl lower over this interval. Chart 8Inventories Will Continue To Draw Chart 9Brent Prices Trajectory Intact   Investment Implications Balanced oil markets and continued inventory draws support our view Brent and refined-product forward curves will continue to backwardate, even if the evolution of this process is volatile. As a result, we remain long the S&P GSCI and the COMT ETF, which is optimized for backwardation. We continue to wait for a sell-off to get long the SPDR S&P Oil & Gas Exploration & Production ETF (XOP ETF).   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish The US EIA expects natural gas inventories at the end of the storage-injection season in October to be 4% below the 2016-2020 five-year average, at 3.6 TCF. At end-July, inventories were 6% below the five-year average (Chart 10). Colder-than-normal weather this past winter – particularly through the US Midwest and Texas natural gas fields – affected production and drove consumption higher this past winter, which forced inventories lower. Continued strength in LNG exports also are keeping gas prices well bid, as Asian and European markets buy fuel for power generation and to accumulate inventories ahead of the coming winter. Base Metals: Bullish The main worker’s union at Chile's Escondida mine, the largest in the world, and BHP reached an agreement on Friday to avoid a strike. The mine is expected to constitute 5% of total mined global copper supply for 2021. China's refined copper imports have been falling for the last three months (Chart 11). Weak economic data – China reported slower than expected growth in retail sales and manufacturing output for July – contributed to lower import levels.  Precious Metals: Bullish Gold has been correcting following its recent decline, ending most days higher since the ‘flash crash’ last Monday, facilitated by a drop in real interest rates. The Jackson Hole Symposium next week will provide insights to market participants regarding the Fed’s future course of action and if it is in fact nearing an agreement to taper asset purchases. According to the Wall Street Journal, some officials believe the program could end by mid-2022 on the back of strong hiring reports. This was corroborated by minutes of the FOMC meeting which took place in July, which suggested a possibility to begin tapering the program by year-end. While the Fed stressed there was no mechanical relationship between the tapering and interest rate hikes, this could be bearish for gold, as real interest rates and the bullion move inversely. On the other hand, political uncertainty and a potential economic slowdown in China will support gold prices. Ags/Softs: Neutral Grain and bean crops are in slightly worse shape this year vs the same period in 2020, according to the USDA. The Department reported 62% of the US corn crop was in good to excellent condition for the week ended 15 August 2021, compared to 69% for the same period last year. 57% of the soybean crop was in good-to-excellent shape for the week ending on the 15th vs 72% a year ago. Chart 10 Chart 11 Footnotes 1 Please see our report of 22 July 2021, OPEC 2.0's Forward Guidance In New Baselines, which discusses the longer-term implications of this meeting and the subsequent communique containing the OPEC 2.0 core group's higher reference production levels. It is available at ces.bcareserch.com. 2 S&P Global Platts notes China's most recent mobility restrictions throughout the country will show up in oil demand figures in the near future. We expect similar reduced mobility as public health officials scramble to get more vaccines distributed. Please see Asia crude oil: Key market indicators for Aug 16-20 published 16 August 2021 by spglobal.com. Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed In 2021 Summary of Closed Trades

Dear Client, This week, the US Bond Strategy service is hosting its Quarterly Webcast (August 17 at 10:00 AM EDT, 15:00 PM BST, 16:00 PM CEST and August 18 at 9:00 HKT, 11:00 AEST). In addition, we are sending this Quarterly Chartpack that provides a recap of our key recommendations and some charts related to those recommendations and other areas of interest for US bond investors. Please tune in to the Webcast and browse the Chartpack at your leisure, and do let us know if you have any questions or other feedback. To view the Quarterly Chartpack PDF please click here. Scheduling Note: There will be no US Bond Strategy report next week. The following week (August 31), clients will receive a report written by our Global Fixed Income Strategist Rob Robis. The regular US Bond Strategy publication schedule will resume on September 8 with the publication of September’s Portfolio Allocation Summary. Best regards, Ryan Swift, US Bond Strategist

Highlights Going into the new crop year, we expect the course of the broad trade-weighted USD to dictate the path taken by grain and bean prices (Chart of the Week). Higher corn stocks in the coming crop year, flat wheat stocks and lower rice stocks will leave grain markets mostly balanced vs the current crop year.  Soybean stocks and carryover estimates from the USDA and International Grains Council (IGC) are essentially unchanged year-on-year (y/y). In the IGC's estimates, changes in production, trade, and consumption for the major grains and beans largely offset each other, leaving carryovers unchanged. Supply-demand fundamentals leave our outlook for grains and beans neutral.  This does not weaken our conviction that continued global weather volatility will tip the balance of price risk in grains and beans over the coming year to the upside. Our strategically bearish USD view also tips the balance of price risk in grains – and commodities generally – to the upside. We believe positioning for higher-volatility weather events and a lower US dollar is best done with index products like the S&P GSCI and the COMT ETF, which tracks a version of the GSCI optimized for backwardation.  Feature Chart of the WeekUSD Will Drive Global Grain Markets Chart 2Opening, Closing Grain Stocks Will Be Largely Unchanged Going into the new crop year, opening and closing stocks are expected to remain flat overall vs the current crop years, with changes in production and consumption largely offsetting each other in grain and bean markets (Chart 2).1 This will leave overall prices a function of weather – which no one can predict – and the path taken by the USD over the coming year. The IGC's forecast calls for mostly unchanged production and consumption for grains and beans globally, with trade volumes mostly flat y/y. This leaves global end-of-crop-year carryover stocks essentially unchanged at 594mm tons. The USDA expects wheat ending stocks at the end of the '21/22 crop year up a slight 0.5%; rice down ~ 4.5%, and corn up ~ 4%. Below we go through each of the grain and bean fundamentals, and assess the impact of COVID-19 on global trade in these commodities. We then summarize our overall view for the grain and bean complex, and our positioning recommendations. Rice The IGC forecasts higher global rice production and consumption, and, since they expect both to change roughly by the same amount, ending stocks are projected to remain unchanged in the '21/22 crop year relative to the current year (Chart 3). The USDA, on the other hand, is expecting global production to increase by ~ 1mm MT in the new crop year, with consumption increasing by ~ 8mm MT. This leaves ending inventories for the new crop year just under 8mm MT below '20/21 ending stocks, or 4.5%. Chart 3Global Rice Balances Roughly Unchanged Corn The IGC forecasts global corn production will rise 6.5% to a record high in the '21/22 crop year, while global consumption is expected to increase 3.6%. Trade volumes are expected to fall ~ 4.2%, leaving global carryover stocks roughly unchanged (Chart 4). In the USDA's modelling, global production is expected to rise 6.6% in the '21/22 crop year to 1,195mm MT, while consumption is projected to rise ~ 2.4% to 1,172mm MT. The Department expects ending balances to increase ~ 11mm MT, ending next year at 291.2mm MT, or just over 4% higher. Chart 4Corn Balances Y/Y Remain Flat Wheat The IGC forecasts global wheat production in the current crop year will increase by ~ 16mm MT y/y, which will be a record if realized. Consumption is expected to rise 17mm MT, with trade roughly unchanged. This leaves expected carryover largely unchanged at ~ 280mm MT globally (Chart 5). The USDA's forecast largely agrees with the IGC's in its ending-stocks assessment for the new crop year. Global wheat production is expected to increase 16.6mm MT y/y in '21/22, and consumption will rise ~ 13mm MT, or 1.7% y/y. Ending stocks for the new crop year are expected to come in at just under 292mm MT, or 0.5% higher. Chart 5Ending Wheat Stocks Mostly Unchanged Soybeans Both the IGC and USDA expect increases in soybean ending stocks for the '21/22 crop year. However, the USDA’s estimates for ending stocks are nearly double the IGC projections.2 We use the IGC's estimates in Chart 6 to depicts balances. USDA - 2021/22 global soybean ending stocks are set to increase by ~3 mm MT to 94.5 mm MT, as higher stocks from Brazil and Argentina are partly offset by lower Chinese inventories. US production is expected to make up more than 30% of total production, rising 6% year-on-year. Chart 6Higher Bean Production Meets Higher Consumption Impact Of COVID-19 On Ags Trade Global agricultural trade was mostly stable throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. China was the main driver for this resilience, accounting for most of the increase in agricultural imports from 2019 to 2020. Ex-China, global agricultural trade growth was nearly zero. During this period, China was rebuilding its hog stocks after an outbreak of the African Swine Flu, which prompted the government to grant waivers on tariffs in key import sectors, which increased trade under the US-China Phase One agreement. As a result, apart from COVID-19, other factors were influencing trade. Arita et. al. (2021) attempted to isolate the impact of COVID on global agricultural trade.3 Their report found that COVID-19 – through infections and deaths – had a small impact on global agricultural trade. Government policy restrictions and reduced mobility in response to the pandemic were more detrimental to agricultural trade flows than the virus itself in terms of reducing aggregate demand. Policy restrictions and lower mobility reduced trade by ~ 10% and ~ 6% on average over the course of the year. Monthly USDA data shows that the pandemic was not as detrimental to agricultural trade as past events. Rates of decline in global merchandise trade were sharper during the Great Recession of 2007 – 2009 (Chart 7). Many agricultural commodities are necessities, which are income inelastic. Furthermore, shipping channels for these types of commodities did not require substantial human interactions, which reduced the chances of this trade being a transmission vector for the virus, when governments declared many industries using and producing agricultural commodities as necessities. This could explain why agricultural trade was spared by the pandemic. Amongst agricultural commodities, the impact of the pandemic was heterogenous. For necessities such as grains or oilseeds, there was a relatively small effect, and in few instances, trade actually grew. For example, trade in rice increased by ~4%. The value of trade in higher-end items, such as hides, Chart 7COVID-19 Spares Ag Trade Chart 8Grains Rallied During Pandemic tobacco, wine, and beer fell during the pandemic. This was further proof of the income inelasticity of many agricultural products which kept global trade in this sector resilient. Indeed, the UNCTAD estimates global trade for agriculture foods increased 18% in 1Q21 relative to 1Q19. Over this period, Bloomberg's spot grains index was up 47.08% (Chart 8). Investment Implications We remain neutral grains and beans based on our assessment of the new crop-year fundamentals. That said, we have a strong-conviction view global weather volatility will tip the balance of price risk in grains over the coming year to the upside. Our strategically bearish USD view also tips the balance of price risk in grains – and commodities generally – to the upside. Weather-induced grain and bean prices volatility is supportive for our recommendations in the S&P GSCI and the COMT ETF, which tracks a version of the GSCI optimized for backwardation. These positions are up 5.8% and 7.9% since inception, and are strategic holdings for us.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com   Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish US natural gas prices remain well supported by increased power-generation demand due to heat waves rolling through East and West coasts, lower domestic production and rising exports. The US EIA estimates natgas demand for July rose 3.9 bcf/d vs June, taking demand for the month to 75.8 bcf/d. Exports – pipeline and LNG – rose 0.4 bcf/d to 18.2 bcf/d, while US domestic production fell to 92.7 bcf/d, down 0.2 bcf/d from June's levels. As US and European distribution companies and industrials continue to scramble for gas to fill inventories, we expect natgas to remain well bid as the storage-injection season winds down. We remain long 1Q22 call spreads, which are up ~214% since the position was recommended April 8, 2021 (Chart 9). Base Metals: Bullish Labor and management at BHP's Escondida copper mine – the largest in the world – have a tentative agreement to avoid a strike that would have crippled an already-tight market. The proposed contract likely will be voted on by workers over the next two days, according to reuters.com. Separately, the head of a trade group representing Chile's copper miners said prices likely will remain high over the next 2-3 years as demand from renewables and electric vehicles continues to grow. Diego Hernández, president of the National Society of Mining (SONAMI), urged caution against expecting a more extended period of higher prices, however, mining.com reported (Chart 10). We remain bullish base metals generally, copper in particular, which we expect to remain well-bid over the next five years. Precious Metals: Bullish US CPI for July rose 0.5% month-over-month, suggesting the inflation spike in June was transitory. While lower inflation may reduce demand for gold, it will allow the Fed to continue its expansionary monetary policy. The strong jobs report released on Friday prompted markets and some Fed officials to consider tapering asset purchases sooner than previously expected. The jobs report also boosted an increasing US dollar. A strong USD and an increase in employment were negative for gold prices on Monday. There also were media reports of a brief “flash crash” caused by an attempt to sell a large quantity of gold early in the Asian trading day, which swamped available liquidity at the time. This also was believed to trigger stops and algorithmic trading programs, which exacerbated the move. The potential economic impact of the COVID-19 Delta variant is the only unequivocally supportive development for gold prices. Not only will this increase safe-have demand for gold, but it will also prevent the Fed from being too hasty in tapering its asset purchases and subsequently raising interest rates. Chart 9 Chart 10 Footnotes 1     The wheat crop year in the US begins in June; the rice crop year begins this month; and the corn and bean crop years begin in September. 2     Historical data indicate this difference is persistent, suggesting different methods of calculating ending stocks.  The USDA estimates ending stocks for the '21/22 crop year will be 94.5mm tons, while the IGC is projecting a level of 53.8mm.  3    Please refer to ‘Has Global Agricultural Trade Been Resilient Under Coronavirus (COVID-19)? Findings from an Econometric Assessment. This is a working paper published by Shawn Arita, Jason Grant, Sharon Sydow, and Jayson Beckman in May 2021.   Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2021 Summary of Closed Trades

Highlights Since 2008, the 10-year T-bond yield has struggled to exceed the earnings yield on technology stocks minus a constant of 2.5 percent. Based on the current technology earnings yield of 3.8 percent, and the 10-year T-bond yield at 1.3 percent, stock markets are on the edge of rationality. But at the limit, the elastic can briefly stretch by around 0.5 percent before it eventually snaps back. Hence, the 10-year T-bond yield could make a brief trip to 1.8 percent before reversing. The labour market participation rate for African Americans dropped sharply in July to 2.3 percent below its pre-pandemic benchmark level. The weakest performing demographic group could set the employment condition for the Fed’s lift-off, making it later than the market is pricing. The next shock will drive down the T-bond yield to its ultimate low, and the stock market’s valuation to its ultimate high. Fractal analysis: NOK/GBP, Hong Kong versus the world, and Netherlands versus New Zealand. Feature Chart of the WeekSince 2008, The 10-Year T-Bond Yield Has Struggled to Exceed the Earnings Yield On Tech (Minus A Constant Of 2.5 Percent) Since 2008, a remarkable financial relationship has held true. The 10-year T-bond yield has struggled to exceed the earnings yield on technology stocks minus a constant of 2.5 percent. The 10-year T-bond yield has struggled to exceed the earnings yield on technology stocks minus a constant of 2.5 percent. T-bond yield ≤ technology forward earnings yield – 2.5% (Chart I-1). The upshot is that whenever, as now, the yields on tech and other high-flying growth stocks have become depressed – which is to say highly valued – the upper limit to the bond yield has been established not by the economy, but by the financial markets. On the occasions that the bond yield has attempted to breach its stock market-set upper limit, it has unleashed a self-correcting sequence of events. It has pulled up the tech sector earnings yield, which is to say pulled down the tech sector’s valuation and price. Then, to contain and reverse this sharp sell-off, the bond yield has quickly unwound its short-lived spike. Stock Markets Are On The Edge Of Rationality Earlier this year in The Rational Bubble Is Turning Irrational we highlighted that the T-bond yield was at its stock market-set upper limit. And in the subsequent six months, the markets have behaved exactly as predicted. First, tech stocks declined sharply through February-March. Then, bond yields declined sharply through May-July, allowing tech stocks to claw back their declines and then reach new highs. Indeed, since mid-February, the T-bond yield and tech stocks have moved as a near-perfect mirror image (Chart I-2). Chart I-2The T-Bond Yield And Tech Stocks Have Moved As A Near-Perfect Mirror Image In the long run, a depressed earnings yield relative to the bond yield – which is to say a high valuation – can normalise as earnings go up. But in the short term, the adjustment must come from either the equity price declining or the bond yield declining. Or some combination of the two. With the tech earnings yield now at 3.8 percent – and assuming the post-GFC 2.5 percent minimum gap still holds true – it would set the upper limit of the 10-year T-bond yield at 1.3 percent, close to where it is trading today. Still, at the limit, the elastic can briefly stretch before it eventually snaps back. Over the last thirteen years, the maximum stretch has been around 0.5 percent. This means that, based on the current earnings yield of the tech sector, the 10-year T-bond yield could make a brief trip to 1.8 percent before reversing. For equity investors, a higher T-bond yield would support the value versus growth trade. But given that it would be a brief trip, the opportunity would not be cyclical (12-month) but merely tactical (3-month), as has been the case over the past ten years. Since 2012, cyclical opportunities to overweight value versus growth have been virtually non-existent, but there have been several good tactical opportunities (Chart I-3 and Chart I-4). Chart I-3Cyclical Opportunities To Overweight Value Versus Growth Have Been Virtually Non-Existent... Chart I-4...But There Have Been Several Good Tactical Opportunities We await a fractal signal that T-bonds are overbought to initiate this tactical trade. Stay tuned. The Truth About The Jobs Recovery At first glance, last week’s US employment report appeared strong. The unemployment rate continued its plunge from 14.8 percent in April 2020 to 5.4 percent in July 2021, constituting the fastest jobs recovery of all time. But the first glance doesn’t tell the true story.   Unlike in previous recessions, the number of workers put on furlough or ‘temporary layoff’ surged and then plunged as the pandemic let rip and then was brought under control. Hence, to get the true story of the jobs recovery, we must strip out the furloughed workers and focus on the unemployment rate based on those ‘not on temporary layoff’ (Chart I-5). Chart I-5To Get The True Story Of The Jobs Recovery, Focus On Those 'Not On Temporary Layoff' Based on this truer measure of labour market slack, the pace of the current recovery in jobs looks remarkably like the recoveries that followed previous downturns in 1974/75, the early 1980s, the early 1990s, dot com bust, and the GFC. The true story is that the US is little more than a third of the way on the journey to full employment (Chart I-6). Chart I-6The Pace Of The Current Jobs Recovery Looks Remarkably Like Previous Recoveries This is significant, because unlike in previous recoveries, the Federal Reserve is now explicitly targeting full employment before it lifts the policy interest rate. Furthermore, the employment recovery must be broad and inclusive of minority demographic groups, which adds further conditionality for the Fed. While the market is focussing on the aggregate employment market, it is the weakest performing demographic group that could set the condition for the Fed’s lift-off. On this note, the labour market participation rate for African Americans dropped sharply in July to 2.3 percent below its pre-pandemic benchmark level (Chart I-7). This raises an interesting point. While the market is focussing on the aggregate employment market, it is the weakest performing demographic group that could set the condition for lift-off, if the Fed stays true to its promise of inclusivity. Which would push back lift-off to later than the market is pricing. Chart I-7The Labour Market Participation Rate For African Americans Dropped Sharply In July Shocks Do Not Have A Cycle According to the recovery in jobs then, we are still ‘early cycle.’ Some people argue that early cycle implies that a recession is a distant prospect, that stocks only underperform in a recession, and therefore that the bull market in stocks has further to run. The investment conclusion is right, but the reasoning is wrong, on two counts. First, nobody can predict the precise timing of recessions or shocks. Second, recessions or shocks do not have a ‘cycle.’ Shocks can come in quickfire succession such as the back-to-back GFC in 2008 and the euro debt crisis which started in 2010, or the back-to-back votes for Brexit and Trump in 2016 (Chart I-8). Chart I-8Shocks Do Not Have A Cycle Yet, while we cannot predict the precise timing of shocks, The Shock Theory Of Bond Yields tells us that we can predict their statistical distribution very accurately. The upshot is that in any 5-year period, the probability of (at least) one shock is an extremely high 81 percent, and in any 10-year period, it is a near-certain 96 percent.  Given the tight feedback from bond yields to stocks and then back to bond yields, we can say with high conviction that the next shock will drive down the T-bond yield to its ultimate low. This will happen directly from a deflationary shock, or indirectly from an initially inflationary shock that drives up bond yields through the upper limit set by stock valuations. The resulting sharp correction in stocks will then cause bond yields to reverse to the ultimate low. The next shock will drive down the T-bond yield to its ultimate low, and the stock market’s valuation to its ultimate high. In turn, the ultimate low in the T-bond yield will mark the ultimate high in the stock market’s valuation, and the end of the structural bull market in stocks. Until then, long-term investors should own stocks. Fractal Analysis Update This week’s fractal analysis highlights three recent price moves that are at risk of reversal because of fragile fractal structures. First, the recent sell-off in NOK/GBP has become fragile on its 65-day fractal structure implying a likelihood of a countertrend move based on similar recent signals (Chart I-9). Chart I-9NOK/GBP Is Oversold Second, the sell-off following China’s aggressive crackdown on its technology and private education sectors has created fragility in Hong Kong’s relative performance on its composite 65-day/130-day fractal dimension. Assuming the worst of the policy crackdown is over, this would imply a countertrend reversal based on similar signals over the past decade. The recommended trade is long Hong Kong versus developed world (MSCI indexes), setting the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 4 percent (Chart I-10). Chart I-10Hong Kong Versus The World Is Oversold Finally, the massive outperformance of tech-heavy Netherlands versus healthcare and utility-heavy New Zealand has reached the limit of fragility on its 260-day fractal structure that signalled major turning points in 2011, 2015, 2016, and 2018 (Chart I-11). Hence the recommended trade is short Netherlands versus New Zealand, setting the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 13 percent. Chart I-11Netherlands Versus New Zealand Is Overbought   Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Equity Market Performance   Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations