Oil

Highlights The global fight against the Delta variant of COVID-19 continued to show progress in the month of September, but not without cost. Growth in services activity slowed meaningfully, which has likely delayed the return to potential output in the US until March of next year (at the earliest). However, even with this revised timeline, maximum employment remains a very possible outcome by next summer, barring a further extension of the pandemic in advanced economies. In this regard, the Fed’s likely decision at its next meeting to taper the rate of its asset purchases makes sense and is consistent with a first rate hike in the second half of 2022. The rise in long-maturity bond yields following this month’s Fed meeting is consistent with the view that 10-year Treasurys are overvalued and that yields will trend higher over the coming year. Fixed-income investors should stay short duration. The degree to which global shipping costs are being driven by the forces of supply versus demand will affect the Fed's criteria for liftoff next year, via changes in goods prices as well as consumer expectations for inflation. In our view, a detailed examination of shipping prices over the past 18 months points to a future pace of inflation that is not dangerously above-target, but does meet the Fed’s liftoff criteria. A mix-shift in consumer spending, away from goods and toward services, is not a threat to economic activity or S&P 500 earnings – so long as the decline in the former is not outsized relative to the rise in the latter. It will, however, disproportionately impact China, and could be the trigger for meaningful further easing by Chinese policymakers. In the interim, a catalyst for EM stocks may remain elusive. We continue to recommend an overweight stance toward value versus growth stocks and global ex-US versus the US, particularly in favor of developed markets ex-US. Investors should remain cyclically overweight stocks versus bonds, although it is possible that both assets will post negative returns for a short period at some point over the coming 12 months in response to higher long-maturity bond yields. Still, we expect both stock prices and the stock-to-bond ratio to be higher a year from today. Feature The global fight against the Delta variant of COVID-19 continued to show progress in the month of September. Chart I-1 highlights that an estimate of the reproduction rate of the disease in developed economies has fallen below one, and the weekly change in hospitalizations in both the US and UK – the two countries at the epicenter of the Delta wave that have not reintroduced widespread COVID-19 control measures – have fallen back into negative territory. In addition, we estimate that approximately 6% of the world’s population received vaccines against COVID-19 in September, with now 45% of the globe having received a first dose and 33% now fully vaccinated. Pfizer’s announcement last week that it has found a “favorable safety profile and robust neutralizing antibody responses” from its vaccine trial in children five to eleven years of age suggests that the FDA may grant emergency use authorization within weeks, which would likely raise the vaccination rate in the US (and ultimately other advanced economies) by at least 5 percentage points in fairly short order. This would also further reduce the impact of school/classroom closures on the labor market, via both an increased participation rate and increased hiring in the education sector. This fight, however, has not been without cost. US jobs growth slowed significantly in August, manufacturing and services PMIs continued to slow in September, and, as Chart I-2 highlights, the normalization in transportation use that was well underway in the first half of the year has clearly inflected in both the US and UK in response to the spread of Delta. Consensus market expectations for Q3 growth have been cut in the US, and to a lesser extent in the euro area, and the Fed reduced its forecast for 2021 real GDP growth from 7% to 5.9% following the September FOMC meeting. Chart I-1The Delta Wave Continues To Abate... Chart I-2...But At A Cost To Economic Activity   The Path Toward Eventually Tighter Monetary Policy It has been surprising to some investors that the Fed has moved forward with their plans to taper the rate of its asset purchases against this backdrop of slowing near-term growth – an event that now seems likely to occur at its next meeting barring a disastrous September payroll report. In our view, this is not especially surprising, given that the Fed has expressed a desire for net purchases to reach zero before they raise interest rates for the first time. Chair Powell noted during last week’s press conference that FOMC participants felt a “gradual tapering process that concludes around the middle of next year is likely to be appropriate”, underscoring that the Fed wants the flexibility to raise interest rates in the second half of next year. The timing of the first Fed rate hike is entirely subject to the evolution of the economic data over the next year, and is not, in any way, calendar-based. But we presented in last month's Special Report why the Fed’s maximum employment criteria may be met as early as next summer,1 and the Fed’s projections for the pace of tapering are consistent with our analysis. Chart I-3Maximum Employment Remains A Very Possible Outcome By Next Summer The Fed’s most recent Summary of Economic Projections (“SEP”) also seemingly confirmed Fed Vice Chair Richard Clarida’s view that a 3.8% unemployment rate is consistent with maximum employment, barring any issues with the “breadth and inclusivity” of the labor market recovery. We noted in last month’s report that these issues are unlikely in a scenario where jobs growth is sufficiently high to bring down the unemployment rate below 4%. Chart I-3 highlights that both the Fed’s forecast and Bloomberg consensus expectations imply a closed output gap by March, even after factoring in the near-term impact of the Delta variant. Consequently, maximum employment remains a very possible outcome by next summer, barring a further extension of the pandemic in advanced economies. Long-maturity bond yields rose following the Fed meeting, which is also not especially surprising given how low yields have fallen relative to the fair value implied by the Fed’s SEP forecasts even assuming a December 2022 initial rate hike. Chart I-4 highlights that the fair value of the 10-year Treasury yield today is roughly 2% using this approach, rising to 2.15% by next summer. Ironically, the September SEP update modestly lowered the fair value shown in Chart I-4 relative to what would otherwise have been the case, as it implied that the Fed is expecting to raise interest rates at a pace of approximately three hikes per year – rather than the four that prevailed prior to the pandemic. Investors should also note that the fair value for the 10-year yield is nontrivially lower based on market participant and primary dealer estimates of the terminal Fed funds rate (also shown in Chart I-4), although they still imply that long-maturity yields should trend higher over the coming year. Global Trade, Inflation, And The Fed A return to maximum employment will likely signal the onset of monetary policy tightening, as long as the Fed's inflation criteria for liftoff have been met. For now, inflation is signaling a green light for hikes next year, even after excluding the prices of COVID-impacted services and cars (Chart I-5). In fact, more recently, CPI ex-direct COVID effects has been pointing in the “non-transitory” direction, which continues to prompt questions from investors about whether the Fed will be forced to hike earlier than it currently expects for reasons other than a return to maximum employment. Chart I-4US Long-Maturity Bond Yields Are Set To Move Higher Over The Coming Year Chart I-5For Now, Inflation Is Signaling A Green Light For Hikes Next Year   At least some portion of the current pace of increase in consumer goods prices is tied to surging import costs, which have run well in-excess of what would be predicted by the relationship with the US dollar (Chart I-6). This, in turn, is being driven by an explosion in shipping costs that has occurred since the onset of the pandemic, which is being driven both by demand and supply-side factors (Chart I-7). Chart I-6US CPI Is Being Affected By Surging Import Prices... Chart I-7...Which Are Being Driven By An Explosion In Shipping Costs   The degree to which global shipping costs are being driven by the forces of supply versus demand will affect the Fed's criteria for liftoff next year, via changes in goods prices as well as consumer expectations for inflation. To the extent that demand side factors are mostly responsible, investors should have higher confidence that the recent surge in consumer prices is transitory, because a shift away from above-trend goods spending and toward below-trend services spending is likely over the coming year. If supply-side factors are mostly responsible, then it is conceivable that the global supply chain impact on consumer goods prices will persist for longer than would otherwise be the case, potentially raising the odds of a larger or more sustained rise in inflation expectations. In our view, a detailed examination of shipping prices over the past 18 months points to a mix of both demand and supply effects, even since the beginning of 2021. However, as we highlight below, several facts point toward the view that supply-side factors will be the dominant driver over the coming year, and that they are more likely to exert a disinflationary/deflationary rather than inflationary effect: Chart I-8 breaks down the cumulative change in the overall Freightos Baltic Index by route since December 2019. The chart makes it clear that shipping costs from China/East Asia to the West Coast of the US have risen far more than any other route, underscoring that US demand for goods has been an important part of the rise in shipping costs. Chart I-8US Demand For Goods Is An Important Part Of The Shipping Cost Story Chart I-9US Goods Spending Has Clearly Been Boosted By US Fiscal Policy Chart I-9 shows the level of real US personal consumption expenditures on goods relative to its pre-pandemic trendline, underscoring both that goods spending is currently well-above trend, and that there have been two distinct phases of rising goods spending: from May to October 2020 following the passage of the CARES act, and from January to March 2021 following the December 2020 extension of UI benefits and in anticipation of the passage of the American Rescue Plan. Since March, US real goods spending has trended lower, a pattern that we expect will continue over the coming year. Chart I-10 highlights that while the global supply chain struggled heavily last year in response to surging demand and the lagging effects of labor shortages and factory shutdowns during the earliest phase of the pandemic, there were some signs of supply-side normalization in the first half of 2021. The chart highlights that the number of ships at anchor at the Los Angeles and Long Beach ports declined meaningfully from February to June, and global shipping schedule reliability tentatively improved in March. The chart also shows that shipping costs from China/East Asia to the West Coast of the US continued to rise in Q2 seemingly as a lagged response to the Jan-Mar rise in goods spending, but they were still low at the end of June compared to today’s levels. Chart I-10Supply-Side Factors Seem To Have Driven A Majority Of This Year's Increase In Shipping Costs In Q3, circumstances drastically changed. Shipping costs between China/East Asia to the West Coast of the US rapidly doubled, and the number of ships at anchor at the LA/LB ports exploded well past its peak in early February. This rise in China/US shipping costs since late-June has accounted for nearly 60% of the cumulative rise since the pandemic began, and cannot be attributed to increased demand. Instead, the increase in prices and the surge in port congestion in Q3 appears to have been caused by the one-month closure of the Port of Yantian that began in late-May, in response to an outbreak of COVID-19 in Guangdong province. Yantian is the fourth largest port in the world and exports a sizeable majority of global electronics given its close proximity to Shenzhen, underscoring the impact that its closure likely had on an already bottlenecked logistical system. There are two key points emanating from our analysis of global shipping costs. First, demand has been an important effect driving costs higher, but it does not appear to have driven most of the increase in shipping costs this year. Still, over the coming year, goods demand in advanced economies is likely to wane as consumer spending shifts from goods to services spending, which will help ease clogged global trade channels and lower shipping costs. Second, the (brief) evidence of supply-side normalization in the first half of 2021, when consumer demand was actually strengthening, suggests that the supply-side of the global trade system will turn disinflationary over the coming year if further COVID-related labor market shocks can be avoided. What does this mean for the Fed and the prospect of monetary policy tightening next year? In our view, the combination of a positive output gap, stable but normalized inflation expectations, and disinflation (or outright deflation) in COVID-related goods and services (including import prices) is likely to lead to a pace of inflation that meets the Fed’s liftoff criteria. Chart I-11 highlights that important longer-term inflation expectations measures have recently been well-behaved, despite a surge in actual inflation and shorter-term expectations for inflation. Aided by disinflation/deflation in certain high-profile COVID-related goods and services prices, this argues against meaningful upside risks to inflation. However, the current level of long-term expectations and the fact that the output gap is set to turn positive in the first half of next year argues against the notion that inflation will fall below target outside of COVID-related effects. As such, we continue to expect that the Fed will raise interest rates next year, potentially as early as next summer, driven by the progress towards maximum employment. Spending Shifts And The Equity Market We noted above, and in previous reports, that consumer spending in advanced economies is likely to continue to shift away from goods and toward services over the coming year. This raises the question of whether a contraction in goods spending will weigh disproportionately on the economy and equity earnings, given the close historical correlation between manufacturing activity and the business cycle. Chart I-12 illustrates this risk: in a hypothetical scenario in which real goods spending were to return to the trendline shown in Chart I-9 by March of next year, it would contract on the order of 10% on a year-over-year basis, on par with what occurred last year and vastly in excess of what even normally occurs during a recession. Chart I-11Longer-Term Inflation Expectations Remain Well-Behaved Chart I-12A Contraction In Goods Spending Is Likely Over The Coming Year   Chart I-12 is a hypothetical scenario and not a forecast, as there is some evidence that consumers are currently deferring durable goods purchases on the expectation that prices will become more favorable. In addition, a positive output gap next year implies that goods spending may settle above its pre-pandemic trendline. Nevertheless, the prospect of a potentially significant slowdown in goods spending has unnerved some investors, even given the prospect of improved services spending. Chart I-13highlights that this fear is understandable given how the US economy normally behaves. The top panel of the chart shows the year-over-year contribution to real GDP growth from real goods and services spending, and the bottom panel shows these contributions in absolute terms to better illustrate their relative magnitudes. The chart makes it clear that goods spending is normally a more forceful driver of economic activity than is the case for services spending, which ostensibly supports concerns that a significant slowdown in the former may be destabilizing for overall activity. Chart I-13Normally, Goods Spending Predominantly Drives Activity. Not This Cycle. However, Chart I-13 also highlights that the magnitude of the recent contribution to growth from services spending has been absolutely unprecedented in the post-WWII economic environment. This is not surprising given the nature of the COVID-19 pandemic, but it is important because it underscores that investors should not rely excessively on typical rules of thumb about how modern economies tend to function over the course of the business cycle. In terms of the impact on overall economic activity, investors should focus on the net impact of goods plus services spending. It is certainly possible that the former will slow at a pace that is not fully compensated by the latter, but our sense is that this is not likely to occur barring a further extension of the pandemic in advanced economies. Chart I-14Over The Past 5 Years, S&P 500 Sales Have Been More Correlated With Services Than Goods Spending Chart I-14 presents a similar conclusion for the US equity market. The chart highlights the historical five-year correlation between the quarterly growth of nominal spending and S&P 500 sales per share. The chart shows that S&P 500 revenue was more sensitive to goods versus services spending prior to the 1990s, when the US was more manufacturing-oriented and goods were more likely to be produced domestically than is the case today. Another gap in the correlation emerged following the global financial crisis when the US household sector underwent several years of deleveraging. But over the past five years, Chart I-14 highlights that S&P 500 revenue growth has actually been more strongly correlated with US services spending than goods spending. Some of this increased correlation might reflect technology-related services spending which could suffer in a post-pandemic environment, but the bottom line from Chart I-14 is that there is not much empirical support for the view that US equity fundamentals will be disproportionately impacted by a slowdown in goods spending, so long as services spending rises in lockstep. China: Exacerbating An Underlying Trend Chart I-15China Will Be Disproportionately Affected By Slowing DM Goods Spending China, on the other hand, will be disproportionately affected by slower goods spending in advanced economies, because its exports have disproportionately benefited from the surge in spending on goods over the past year. Chart I-15 highlights that Chinese export volume growth has exploded this year, and that current export growth is running at a pace of 10% in volume terms – significantly higher than has been the case on average over the past decade. Several problems in China have been in the headlines over the past few months: a regulatory crackdown by Chinese authorities on new economy companies, the situation with Evergrande and, more recently, power shortages that have forced factories in several key manufacturing hubs to curtail production as a result of China’s ban on coal imports from Australia (Chart I-16). However, the key point for investors is that these are not truly new risks to China’s growth outlook; rather, they are developments that have the potential to magnify the impact of an already established trend: the ongoing slowdown in China’s economy that has clearly been caused by a decline in its credit impulse (Chart I-17). In turn, China’s decelerating credit impulse has been caused by tighter regulatory and monetary policy. Chart I-16Power Outages: The Latest Negative Headline From China Chart I-17China Is Slowing Because Policymakers Have Tightened   BCA’s China Investment Strategy service has provided a detailed analysis of the ongoing Evergrande saga.2 In short, our view is that the government will likely restructure Evergrande’s debt to prevent the company’s crisis from evolving into a systemic financial risk. As such, Beijing may rescue the stakeholders of Evergrande, but likely not its shareholders. However, in terms of stimulating the broader economy, it is still not clear that Chinese policymakers are willing to engage in more than gradual or piecemeal stimulus, given a higher pain threshold for a slower economy and a lower appetite for leverage. This may change once Chinese export growth slows in response to a shift in DM spending from goods to services, as policymakers will no longer be able to rely on the external sector for support. This potentially offsetting nature of eventual Chinese stimulus and global goods spending underscores both the importance of a normalization in DM services spending as an impulse for global growth, as well as the fact that a catalyst for EM stocks may remain elusive over the tactical horizon. Investment Conclusions In Section 2 of this month’s report, we explain why the performance of US stocks may be flat versus their global peers over a structural time horizon. We also highlighted that US stocks are likely to earn low annualized total returns over the coming 10 years (between 1.8 - 4.7%), which would fall well short of the absolute return goals of many investors. Chart I-18Losses From Both Stocks And Bonds Are Rare, But Are Linked To Higher Rates Over the coming 6-12 month time horizon, we continue to recommend an overweight stance towards value vs. growth stocks and global ex-US vs. US, particularly in favor of developed markets ex-US. The relative performance of value vs. growth stocks is likely to benefit from the transition to a post-pandemic state and a rise in long-maturity bond yields, as monetary policy shifts towards the point of tightening. Regional equity trends have been closely correlated with style over the past two years, and the underperformance of growth strongly implies US equity underperformance. From an asset allocation perspective, investors should remain overweight stocks versus bonds over the coming year, although it is possible that both assets will post negative returns for a short period at some point over the coming 12 months. Chart I-18 highlights that outside of the context of recessions, months with negative returns from both stocks and long-maturity bonds are quite rare, but they tend to be associated with periods of monetary policy tightening (or in anticipation of such periods). Fundamentally, we do not see a rise in bond yields to any of the levels shown in Chart I-4 as being threatening to economic growth or necessarily implying lower equity market multiples. But the speed of adjustment in bond yields could unnerve equity investors, and there are open questions as to how far the equity risk premium can fall before T.I.N.A. – “There Is No Alternative” – becomes a less persuasive argument. As such, we would not rule out a brief correction in stocks at some point over the coming several months, but we expect both stock prices and the stock-to-bond ratio to be higher a year from today. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst September 30, 2021 Next Report: October 28, 2021 II. The “Invincible” US Equity Market: The Longer-Term Outlook For US Stocks In Relative And Absolute Terms Since 2008, US equity outperformance versus global ex-US stocks has not been driven by stronger top-line growth. Instead, it has been caused by a narrowly-based increase in profit margins, the accretive impact of share buybacks on the EPS of US growth stocks, and an outsized expansion in equity multiples. To a lesser extent, the dollar has also boosted common currency relative performance. There are significant secular risks to these sources of US equity outperformance over the past 14 years. Elevated tech sector profit margins are likely to lead to increased competition and higher odds of regulatory action, leveraging has reduced the ability of US companies to continue to accrete EPS through changes to capital structure, relative multiples are not justified by relative ROE, and the US dollar is expensive and is likely to fall over a multi-year horizon. In absolute terms, we forecast that US stocks will earn annualized nominal total returns of between 1.8 - 4.7% over the coming decade, assuming 4-5% annual revenue growth, flat profit margins, a constant 2% dividend yield, and a constant equity risk premium. Long-maturity bond yields are below their equilibrium levels and are likely to rise in real terms over time, which will weigh on elevated equity multiples. Over the coming 6-12 months, our view that US 10-Year Treasury yields are likely to rise argues for an underweight stance toward growth versus value stocks. In turn, this implies that US stocks will underperform global stocks, especially versus developed markets ex-US. The risks that we have highlighted to the sources of US outperformance suggest that US stocks may be flat versus their global peers over the long-term, arguing for a neutral strategic allocation. It also suggests that investors should be prepared to accept more volatility in order to reduce the gap between expected and desired returns, and should look towards riskier investments and asset classes (such as real estate and alternative investments) as potential portfolio return enhancements. Chart II-1The US Has Massively Outperformed Other Equity Markets Since The Global Financial Crisis The US equity market has vastly outperformed its peers since the 2008/2009 global financial crisis. Chart II-1 highlights that an investment in US stocks at the end of 2007 is now worth over 4 times the invested amount, versus approximately 1.6 times for global ex-US stocks (when measured in US dollar terms). The chart also shows that USD-denominated total returns have been roughly the same for developed markets ex-US as they have been for emerging markets, highlighting the exceptional nature of US equities. In this report we provide a deep examination of the sources of US equity performance, their likely sustainability, and what this implies for long-term investor return expectations. US stocks have not outperformed because of stronger top-line (i.e. revenue) growth, and instead have benefitted from a narrowly-based increase in profit margins, active changes to capital structure that have benefitted stockholders, an outsized expansion in equity multiples relative to global stocks, and a structural appreciation in the US dollar. We conclude that there are significant risks to all of these sources of outperformance, and that a neutral strategic allocation to US equities is now likely warranted. We also highlight that, while a strategic overweight stance is still warranted toward stocks versus bonds, investors should no longer count on US stocks to deliver returns that are in line with or above commonly-cited absolute return expectations. This argues for a greater tolerance of volatility, and the pursuit of riskier investments and asset classes (such as real estate and alternative investments) as potential portfolio return enhancements. A Deep Examination Of US Outperformance Since 2008 Breaking down historical total return performance is the first step in judging whether US equities are likely to outperform their global ex-US peers on a structural basis. Below we deconstruct US and global total return performance over the past 14 years into six different components, and analyze the impact of some of these components on a sector-by-sector basis. The six components presented are: Total revenue growth for each equity market, in local currency terms The change in profit margins The impact of changes in capital structure and index composition The change in the trailing P/E ratio The income return from dividends The impact of changes in foreign exchange The sum of the first three factors explains the total growth in earnings per share over the period, and the addition of the fourth factor explains each market’s local currency price return. Income returns are added to explain total return over the period, with the sixth factor then explaining common currency total return performance. The FX effect for US stocks is zero by construction, given that we measure common currency performance in US$ terms. Chart II-2Strong US Returns Have Not Been Due To Strong Top Line Growth Chart II-2 presents the annualized absolute impact of these factors for the MSCI US index since 2008. The chart highlights that U.S. stock prices have earned roughly 11% per year in total return terms over the past 14 years, with significant contributions from revenue growth, multiple expansion, margins, and the return from dividends. Interestingly, however, Chart II-3 highlights that US equities have not significantly outperformed on the basis of the first factor, total local currency revenue growth, at least relative to overall global ex-US stocks (see Box II-1 for more details). DM ex-US stocks have experienced very weak revenue growth since 2008, but this has been compensated for by outsized EM revenue growth. It is also notable that US revenue growth has actually underperformed US GDP growth over the period, dispelling the notion that US equity outperformance has been due to strong top-line effects. Chart II-3The US Has Outperformed Due To Margins, Capital Structure, Multiples, And The Dollar Box II-1 Proxying The Impact Of Changes In Shares Outstanding We proxy the impact of changes in shares outstanding (and thus the impact of equity dilution / accretion) by dividing each index’s market capitalization by its stock price. This measure is not a perfect proxy, as changes in index composition (such as the addition/deletion of index constituents) will change the index’s market capitalization but not its stock price. We also calculate total revenue for each market by multiplying local currency sales per share by the market cap / stock price ratio, meaning that the total revenue growth figures shown in Chart II-3 should best be viewed as estimates that in some cases reflect index composition effects. However, Chart II-B1 highlights that adjusting the market cap / stock price ratio for the number of firms in the index does not meaningfully change our overall conclusions. This approach would imply a larger dilution effect for DM ex-US than suggested in Chart II-3, and a smaller effect for emerging markets (due to a significant rise in the number of EM index constituents since 2008). In addition, global ex-US revenue growth is modestly lower than US revenue growth when using this approach. But this gap would account for a fraction of US equity outperformance over the period, underscoring that the US has massively outperformed global ex-US stocks due to margin, capital structure, and multiple expansion effects. Chart II-B1The US Has Not Meaningfully Outperformed Due To Revenue Growth, No Matter How You Slice It Chart II-3 also highlights that global ex-US stocks have modestly outperformed the US in terms of the fifth factor, the income return from dividends. This has almost offset the negative FX return (the sixth factor) from a net rise in the US dollar over the period. What is clear from the chart is that the second, third, and fourth factors explain almost all of the difference in total return between US and global ex-US stocks since 2008. The US experienced a significant increase in profit margins versus a modest contraction for global ex-US, a modest fillip from changes in capital structure and index composition versus a substantial drag for ex-US stocks, and a sizable rise in equity multiples that has outpaced what has occurred around the globe in response to structurally lower interest rates. Chart II-4US Margin Outperformance Has Been Narrowly-Based The significant rise in aggregate US profit margins over the past 14 years has often been attributed to the strong competitiveness of US companies, but Chart II-4 highlights that the aggregate change mostly reflects a narrow sector composition effect. The chart shows the change in US and global ex-US profit margins by level 1 GICS sector since 2008, and underscores that overall profit margins outside of the US have fallen mostly due to lower oil prices. Conversely, in the US, profit margins have substantially risen in only three out of ten sectors: health care, information technology, and communication services. Chart II-5 highlights that global ex-US equity multiples have risen in a majority of sectors since 2008, but not by the same magnitude as what has occurred in the US. De-rating in the resource sector partially explains the gap, but stronger US multiple expansion in the heavily-weighted consumer discretionary, information technology, and communication services sectors appears to explain most of the gap in multiple expansion. Chart II-5Multiples Have Risen Globally, But More So For Broadly-Defined US Tech Stocks Finally, Charts II-6 & II-7 highlights that there has been a strong growth versus value dimension to the impact of changes in capital structure and index composition on regional equity performance. The charts show that equity dilution and other changes to index composition have caused a similar drag on the returns from value stocks in the US and outside the US. However, the charts also highlight that the more important effect has been the accretive impact of share buybacks on the EPS of US growth stocks, which has not been matched by growth stocks outside of the US. As noted in Box II-1, part of this gap may be explained by an increase in the number of companies included in the MSCI Emerging Markets index, but Chart II-8 highlights that the global ex-US ratio of market capitalization to stock price has still risen significantly over the past 14 years, in contrast to that of the US even after controlling for the number of index components. Chart II-6There Has Been A Strong Style Dimension… Chart II-7…To The Impact Of Changes In Capital Structure And Index Composition Chart II-8The Accretive Impact Of US Growth Stock Buybacks Has Not Been Matched Globally The bottom line for investors is that there have been multiple factors contributing to US equity outperformance since 2008, but aggregate top-line growth has not been one of them. Broadly-defined technology companies (including media & entertainment and internet retail firms) have been responsible for nearly all of the relative rise in profit margins and most of the relative expansion in multiples over the past 14 years, and US growth stocks have benefitted from the accretive impact of share buybacks to a larger degree than what has occurred globally. The Relative Secular Return Outlook For US Stocks We present below several structural risks to the continued outperformance of US equities for the factors that have been most responsible for this performance over the past 14 years. In some cases, these risks speak to the potential for US outperformance to end, not necessarily that the US will underperform. But even the cessation of US outperformance along one or more of these factors would be significant, as it would imply a potential inflection point in the most consequential trend in regional equity performance since the 2008/2009 global financial crisis. Profit Margins Chart II-9 presents the 12-month trailing combined profit margin for the US consumer discretionary, information technology, and communication services sector versus that of the remaining sectors. The chart underscores the points made by Chart II-4 in time series form, namely that the net increase in overall US profit margins since 2008 has been narrowly based. Chart II-9The US Profit Margin Expansion Has Been Driven By Broadly-Defined Tech Stocks Over a 6-12 month time horizon, the clear risk to US profit margins is an end to the COVID-19 pandemic. The profitability of broadly-defined tech stocks has surged during the pandemic, in response to a significant shift toward online goods purchases and elevated spending on tech equipment. A durable end to the pandemic is likely to reverse some of these spending patterns, which will likely weigh on margins for broadly-defined tech stocks. Chart II-10The Regulatory Risks Facing Big Tech Are Real Over the longer term, the risk is that extremely elevated profit margins are likely to increase the odds of regulatory action from Washington and invite competition. On the former point, our US Political Strategy service has highlighted that a bipartisan consensus in public opinion holds that Big Tech needs tougher regulation (Chart II-10), and this consensus grew substantially over the controversial 2020 political cycle.3 This regulatory pressure is currently best described as a “slow boil,” as not all surveys show strong majorities in favor of regulation, and Republicans and Democrats disagree on the aims of regulation. But the bottom line is that Big Tech is likely to remain in the hot seat after the various controversies of the pandemic and 2016-2020 elections, just as big banks faced tougher regulation in the wake of the subprime mortgage crisis. This underscores that a “slow boil” may turn into a faster one at some point over the secular horizon, which would very likely weigh on profit margins. Elevated tech sector profit margins makes regulatory action more likely because policymakers will perceive a stronger ability for these firms to weather a “regulatory shock.” On the latter point about competition, it is true that broadly-defined tech stocks follow a “platform” business model that will be difficult to supplant. These companies benefit from powerful network effects that have taken years to accrue, suggesting that they will not be rapidly replaced by competitors. Still, the experience of Microsoft in the years following its meteoric rise in the second half of the 1990s provides a cautionary tale for broadly-defined tech stocks today. In the late-1990s, it was difficult for investors to envision how Microsoft’s near-total product dominance of the PC ecosystem could ever be displaced, but it eventually lost market share due to the rise of mobile devices and their competing operating systems. In addition, Microsoft’s fundamental performance suffered even before the rise of the modern-day smartphone & mobile device market. Chart II-11 highlights the annualized components of Microsoft’s price return from 1999-2007 versus the late-1990s period, which underscores that changes in margins, changes in multiples, and stock price returns may be persistently negative in a scenario in which revenue growth slows (even if revenue growth itself remains positive). Chart II-11Microsoft Offers A Cautionary Tale For Dominant Business Models Some of the reversal of Microsoft’s fortunes during this period were self-inflicted, and the firm also suffered from an economy-wide slowdown in tech equipment spending as a result of the 2001 recession that persisted into the early years of the subsequent recovery. But the key point for investors is that company and sector dominance may wane, and the fact that broadly-defined tech sector profit margins are extremely elevated raises the risk that further increases may not materialize. Capital Structure And Index Composition As noted above, the beneficial impact from changes in capital structure and index composition for US equities has occurred due to the accretive impact of share buybacks on the EPS of US growth stocks, which has not been matched by growth stocks outside of the US. In our view, this accretive impact has occurred for two reasons. First, US growth stocks have taken advantage of historically low interest rates and leverage to shift their capital structure to be more debt-focused over the past 14 years. Second, this shift has been aided by the fact that US growth stocks have experienced stronger cash flows than their global peers, which have been used to service higher debt payments. However, Charts II-12 and II-13 suggest that this process may be in its late innings. Chart II-12 highlights that the US nonfinancial corporate sector debt service ratio (DSR) did indeed fall below that of the euro area following the global financial crisis, but that this reversed in 2016. At the onset of the pandemic, the US nonfinancial corporate sector DSR was rising sharply, and was approaching its early-2000 highs. During the pandemic, the corporate sector DSR has continued to rise in both regions, but this almost exclusively reflects a (temporary) decline in operating income, not a surge in corporate sector debt or a rise in interest rates. Not all of the pre-pandemic rise in the US corporate sector DSR was concentrated in broadly-defined tech stocks, but some of it likely was. The key point for investors is that the US nonfinancial corporate sector had a lower capacity to leverage itself relative to companies in the euro area at the onset of the pandemic, which implies a less accretive impact on relative earnings per share in the future. Chart II-13 reinforces this point by highlighting that the uptrend in relative cash flow for US growth stocks, versus global ex-US, appears to have ended in 2015. The uptrend has continued in per share terms, but this appears to be flattered by the impact of buybacks itself. Chart II-12Can The US Continue To Accrete EPS Through Stock Buybacks? Chart II-13US Growth Companies Are No Longer Generating More Cash Than Their Global Peers   Admittedly, we see no basis to conclude that the persistent earnings dilution that has occurred in emerging markets over the past 14 years will end, or even slow, over the secular horizon. This underscores that emerging markets will need to generate stronger revenue growth to prevent the dilution effect from acting as a continued drag on EM vs. US equity performance, and it is an open question as to whether this will occur. Thus, for now, we have more conviction in the view that capital structure and index composition changes may contribute less to US equity outperformance versus developed markets ex-US over the coming several years. Equity Multiples There are three arguments against the idea that US equity multiples will continue to expand relative to those of global ex-US stocks. First, Chart II-14 highlights a point that we have made in previous Bank Credit Analyst reports, which is that aggressive multiple expansion in the US has now rendered US stocks to be the most dependent on low long-maturity bond yields than at any point since the global financial crisis. Chart II-14US Stocks Are The Most Dependent On Low Bond Yields In Over A Decade Over the coming 6- to 12-months, we strongly doubt that US 10-year Treasury yields will rise outside of the range that would be consistent with the US equity risk premium from 2002 to 2007 (discussed in further detail in the next section). But the chart also shows that this range is now clearly below trend nominal GDP growth, suggesting that higher interest rates on a structural basis may cause outright multiple contraction for US stocks. This is particularly true for growth stocks, which have been responsible for a significant portion of US equity outperformance, given their comparatively long earnings duration. Chart II-15US Multiples Are Not Justified By Higher Return On Equity Second, it has been often argued by some investors that a premium is warranted for US stocks given their comparatively high return on equity, but Chart II-15 highlights that this is not the case. The chart shows the relative price-to-book ratio for the US versus global and developed markets ex-US compared with regression-based predicted values based on relative return on equity. The chart clearly highlights that the US price-to-book ratio is meaningfully higher than it should be relative to global stocks, especially when compared to other developed markets. Versus DM ex-US, the only comparable period that saw a relative P/B – relative ROE deviation of this magnitude occurred in the late-1980s, when US stocks were meaningfully less expensive than relative ROE would have suggested. This relationship completely normalized in the years that followed, which would imply a substantial relative multiple contraction for US stocks over the coming several years were the gap shown in Chart II-15 to close. Third, Chart II-16 presents the share of US stock market capitalization accounted for by the largest 10% of stocks by size. The chart highlights that the concentration of US market capitalization has risen to an extreme level that has only been reached in two other cases over the past century. Historically, prior stock market concentration has been associated with future increases in the equity risk premium, underscoring that broadly-defined US tech sector concentration bodes poorly for future returns. Chart II-16The US Stock Market Is Now Extremely Concentrated The Foreign Exchange Effect As a final point, Chart II-17 illustrates the degree to which US relative performance has meaningfully benefitted from a rise in the US dollar since 2008. The chart highlights that an equity market-weighted dollar index has risen 20% from its late-2007 level, which has boosted US common currency relative performance. The US dollar was arguably modestly undervalued just prior to the 2008/2009 global financial crisis, but Chart II-18 highlights that it is now meaningfully overvalued versus other major currencies. Over a multi-year horizon, this argues against further relative common currency gains for US stocks from the foreign exchange effect. Chart II-17The US Dollar Has Helped US Common Currency Performance... Chart II-18…And Is Now Expensive   The Absolute Secular Return Outlook For US Stocks Over a secular horizon, the most common method for forecasting equity returns is to predict whether earnings are likely to grow faster or slower than nominal potential GDP growth, and whether equity multiples are likely to rise or fall. For the reasons described above, we have no plausible basis on which to forecast that US profit margins are inclined to rise further over time given how extended they have become. This suggests that a reasonable long-term earnings forecast should be closely linked to one’s forecast for revenue growth. Chart II-19S&P 500 Revenue Is Low Relative To US GDP, And May Rise Over The Next Decade Chart II-19 presents S&P 500 revenue as a percent of nominal GDP, and underscores a fact that we noted above: revenue growth for US equities has underperformed US GDP since the global financial crisis. This undoubtedly has been linked to the fallout from the crisis and other exogenous shocks like the massive decline in energy prices in 2014/2015, which are unlikely to be repeated. Over the next ten years, the US Congressional Budget Office is forecasting nominal potential growth of roughly 4%; allowing for a potential rise in US equity revenue to GDP suggests that investors should expect earnings growth on the order of 4-5% per year over the coming decade, if extremely elevated profit margins are sustained. Chart II-20Multiples Seem To Predict Future Returns Well… Unfortunately for equity investors, there are slim odds that US equity multiples will continue to rise or even stay at their current level. Equity valuation has been shown to have nearly zero ability to predict stock returns over a 6-12 month time horizon or even over the following 3-5 years, but 10-year regressions relating current valuations on future 10-year compound returns tend to be highly predictive (Chart II-20). Utilizing this approach, today’s 12-month forward P/E ratio would imply a 10-year future total return of just 2.9% (Chart II-21). That, in turn, would imply a annual drag of 3-4% from multiple contraction over the coming decade, given our 4-5% earnings growth forecast and a historically average dividend yield of roughly 2%. One problem with the method shown in Charts II-20 and II-21 is the fact that the relationship between today’s P/E ratio and 10-year future returns captures more than the impact of potentially mean-reverting multiples. It also includes any correlation between the starting point of valuation and subsequent earnings growth, which is likely to be spurious. This effect turns out to be important: we can see in Chart II-21 that the strong fit of the relationship is influenced by the fact that the global financial crisis occurred roughly 10-years after the equity market bubble of the late-1990s. Chart II-21...But That Depends Heavily On The Tech Bubble / GFC Relationship Astute investors may infer a legitimate causal link between these two events, via too-easy monetary policy. But from the perspective of forecasting, predicting future returns based on prevailing equity multiples confusingly mixes together three effects: the relative timing of business cycles, the impact of changes in interest rates, and the potential mean-reverting nature of the equity risk premium. In order to disentangle these effects for the purposes of forecasting, we present a long-history estimate of the US equity risk premium based on Robert Shiller’s Irrational Exuberance dataset (Chart II-22). We define the equity risk premium as earnings per share (as reported) as a percent of the S&P 500, minus the real long-maturity interest rate. We calculate the real rate by subtracting the BCA adaptive inflation expectations model – essentially an exponentially smoothed version of actual inflation – from the nominal long-term bond yield. Chart II-22The US ERP Seems Normal Based On A Very Long Term History... The chart highlights that this estimate of the ERP is currently exactly in line with its median value since 1872. Chart II-23 presents essentially the same conclusion, based on data since 1979, using the forward operating P/E ratio for the S&P 500 and the same definition for real bond yields. This implies that, if interest rates were at equilibrium levels, investors would have a reasonable basis to conclude that equity multiples would be unchanged over a secular investment horizon. However, as we have highlighted several times in previous reports, long-maturity government bond yields are likely well below equilibrium levels. Chart II-24 highlights that long-maturity US government bond yields have not been this low relative to trend growth since the late-1970s. Chart II-23...And Based On The Forward Earnings Yield Over The Past Four Decades Chart II-24Interest Rates Are Well Below Equilibrium, And Are Likely To Rise Over Time   We presented in an April report why a gap between interest rates and trend rates of growth was indeed justified for a few years following the global financial crisis, but that a decline in the equilibrium real rate of interest (“r-star”) only appeared to be permanent due to persistent, non-monetary policy shocks to aggregate demand that occurred over the course of the last economic cycle.4 In a scenario where the US output gap turns positive, inflation rises modestly above target, and where permanent damage to the labor market from the pandemic is relatively limited over the coming 6-18 months, it seems reasonable to conclude that the narrative of secular stagnation may ultimately be challenged and that investor expectations for the neutral rate may converge toward trend rates of economic growth. This would weigh on equity multiples, and thus lower equity total returns from the 6-7% implied by our earnings forecast and income return assumption. Chart II-25US Stocks Are Likely To Earn Annual Total Returns Between 1.8-4.7% Over The Next Decade Were real long-maturity bond yields to rise by 100-200bps over the coming decade, this would imply annualized total returns of between 1.8 - 4.7% from US stocks, assuming 4-5% annual revenue growth, flat profit margins, a constant 2% dividend yield, and a constant ERP (Chart II-25). While this would beat the returns offered by bonds, implying that investors should still be structurally overweight equities versus fixed-income assets, it would also fall meaningfully short of the average pension fund return objective (Chart II-26), as well as the absolute return goals of many investors. Chart II-26Future Returns From US Stocks Will Greatly Disappoint Investors Investment Conclusions Chart II-27Over The Coming Year, Favor Value And Global Ex-US Stocks Over the coming 6-12 months, our view that 10-year US Treasury yields are likely to rise supports an overweight stance toward value versus growth stocks. Chart II-27 highlights that the underperformance of growth argues for an underweight stance toward US stocks within a global equity portfolio, especially versus developed markets ex-US. Over a longer-term horizon, there are two key investment implications from our research. First, the risks that we have highlighted to the sources of US outperformance over the past 14 years suggests that investors should not bank on a continuation of this trend over the next decade. We have not made the case in this report for the outperformance of global ex-US stocks, merely that the continued outperformance of US stocks now rests on an unreliable foundation. This may suggest that US relative performance will be flat over the structural horizon, arguing for a neutral strategic allocation. But even the cessation of US outperformance would be a significant development, as it would end the most consequential trend in regional equity performance in the post-GFC era. Second, investors should expect meaningfully lower absolute returns from US stocks over the next decade than what they have earned since 2008/2009, barring a continued rise in the already stretched profit margins of broadly-defined tech stocks. A structurally overweight stance is still warranted toward equities versus fixed-income, but even a 100% equity allocation is unlikely to meet investor return expectations in the high single-digits. As a consequence, global investors should be prepared to accept more volatility in order to reduce the gap between expected and desired returns, and should look towards riskier investments and asset classes (such as real estate and alternative investments) as potential portfolio return enhancements. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst III. Indicators And Reference Charts BCA’s equity indicators highlight that the “easy” money from expectations of an eventual end to the pandemic have already been made. Our technical, valuation, and sentiment indicators remain very extended, highlighting that investors should expect positive but modest returns from stocks over the coming 6-12 months. Our monetary indicator has retreated below the boom/bust line, although this mostly reflects the use of producer prices to deflate money growth. In nominal terms, the supply of money continues to grow. Still, the retreat in the indicator highlights that the monetary policy stance is likely to shift in a tighter direction over the coming year. Forward equity earnings are pricing in a substantial further rise in earnings per share, and there is no meaningful sign of waning forward earnings momentum as net revisions and positive earnings surprises remain near record highs. Bottom-up analyst earning expectations are now almost certainly too high, but stocks are likely to be supported by robust revenue growth over the coming year. Within a global equity portfolio, global ex-US equities have underperformed alongside cyclical sectors, banks, and value stocks more generally. On a 12-month time horizon, we would recommend that investors position for the underperformance of financial assets that are negatively correlated with long-maturity government bond yields. The US 10-Year Treasury yield has broken above its 200-day moving average, beginning its recovery after falling sharply since mid-March. After a decline initially caused by waning growth momentum and the impact of the Delta variant of SARS-COV-2, long-maturity bond yields appear to be responding to the interest rate guidance that the Fed has been providing. 10-Year Treasury Yields remain below the fair value implied by a late-2022 rate hike scenario, underscoring that 10-Year Yields are set to trend higher over the coming year. The extreme rise in some commodity prices over the past several months has eased. Lumber prices have almost fully normalized, whereas the pace of advance in industrial metals prices has eased. Global shipping costs have exploded due to supply-side constraints, but are likely to ease over the coming year if further COVID-related labor market shocks can be avoided. US and global LEIs remain very elevated but have started to roll over. Our global LEI diffusion index has declined very significantly, but this likely reflects the outsized impact of a few emerging market countries (whose vaccination progress is still lagging). Still-strong leading and coincident indicators underscore that the global demand for goods is robust, and that output is below pre-pandemic levels in most economies because of very weak services spending. The latter will recover significantly at some point over the coming year, as social distancing and other pandemic control measures disappear. EQUITIES: Chart III-1US Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3US Equity Sentiment Indicators   Chart III-4US Stock Market Breadth Chart III-5US Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6US Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance   FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9US Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected US Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets   CURRENCIES: Chart III-16US Dollar And PPP Chart III-17US Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18US Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals   COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning   ECONOMY: Chart III-28US And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29US Macro Snapshot Chart III-30US Growth Outlook Chart III-31US Cyclical Spending Chart III-32US Labor Market Chart III-33US Consumption Chart III-34US Housing Chart III-35US Debt And Deleveraging   Chart III-36US Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China   Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Footnotes 1  Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "The Return To Maximum Employment: It May Be Faster Than You Think," dated August 26, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2  Please see China Investment Strategy "A Quick Take On Embattled Evergrande," dated September 21, 2021, and China Investment Strategy "The Evergrande Saga Continues," dated September 29, 2021, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see US Political Strategy "Forget Biden's Budget," dated June 2, 2021, available at usps.bcaresearch.com 4     Please see The Bank Credit Analyst “R-star, And The Structural Risk To Stocks,” dated March 31, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com

Highlights Asian and European natural gas prices will remain well bid as the Northern Hemisphere winter approaches. An upgraded probability of a second La Niña event this winter will keep gas buyers scouring markets for supplies (Chart of the Week). The IEA is pressing Russia to make more gas available to European consumers going into winter. While Russia is meeting contractual commitments, it is also trying to rebuild its inventories. Gas from the now-complete Nord Stream 2 pipeline might not flow at all this year. High natgas prices will incentivize electric generators to switch to coal and oil. This will push the level and costs of CO2 emissions permits higher, including coal and oil prices. Supply pressures in fossil-fuel energy markets are spilling into other commodity markets, raising the cost of producing and shipping commodities and manufactures. Consumers – i.e., voters – experiencing these effects might be disinclined to support and fund the energy transition to a low-carbon economy. We were stopped out of our long Henry Hub natural gas call spread in 1Q22 – long $5.00/MMBtu calls vs short $5.50/MMBtu calls in Jan-Feb-Mar 2022 – and our long PICK ETF positions with returns of 4.58% and -10.61%. We will be getting long these positions again at tonight's close. Feature European natural gas inventories remain below their five-year average, which, in the event of another colder-than-normal winter in the Northern Hemisphere, will leave these markets ill-equipped to handle a back-to-back season of high prices and limited supply (Chart 2).1 The probability of a second La Niña event this winter was increased to 70-80% by the US Climate Prediction Center earlier this week.2 This raises the odds of another colder-than-average winter. As a result, markets will remain focused on inventories and flowing natgas supplies from the US, in the form of Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) cargoes, and Russian pipeline shipments to Europe as winter approaches. Chart of the WeekSurging Natural Gas Prices Intensify Competition For Supplies Chart 2Natgas Storage Remains Tight US LNG supplies are being contested by Asian buyers, where gas storage facilities are sparse, and European buyers looking for gas to inject into storage as they prepare for winter. US LNG suppliers also are finding ready bids in Brazil, where droughts are reducing hydropower availability. In the first six months of this year, US natgas exports averaged 9.5 bcf/d, a y/y increase of more than 40%. Although Russia's Nord Stream 2 pipeline has been completed, it still must be certified to carry natgas into Germany. This process could take months to finish, unless there is an exemption granted by EU officials. Like the US and Europe, Russia is in the process of rebuilding its natgas inventories, following a colder-than-normal La Niña winter last year.3 Earlier this week, the IEA called on Russia to increase natgas exports to Europe as winter approaches. The risk remains no gas will flow through Nord Stream 2 this year.4 Expect Higher Coal, Oil Consumption As other sources of energy become constrained – particularly UK wind power in the North Sea, where supplies went from 25% of UK power in 2020 to 7% in 2021 – natgas and coal-fired generation have to make up for the shortfall.5 Electricity producers are turning more towards coal as they face rising natural gas prices.6 Increasing coal-fired electric generation produces more CO2 and raises the cost of emission permits, particularly in the EU's Emissions Trading System (ETS), which is the largest such market in the world (Chart 3). Prices of December 2021 ETS permits, which represent the cost of CO2 emissions in the EU, hit an all-time high of €62.75/MT earlier this month and were trading just above €60.00/MT as we went to press. Chart 3Higher CO2 Emissions Follow Lower Renewables Output Going into winter, the likelihood of higher ETS permit prices increases if renewables output remains constrained and natgas inventories are pulled lower to meet space-heating needs in the EU. This will increase the price of power in the EU, where consumers are being particularly hard hit by higher prices (Chart 4). The European think tank Bruegel notes that even though natgas provides about 20% of Europe's electricity supply, it now is setting power prices on the margin.7 Chart 4EU Power Price Surge Is Inflationary Elevated natgas prices are inflationary, according to Bruegel: "On an annual basis, a doubling of wholesale electricity prices from about €50/megawatt hour to €100/MWh would imply that EU consumers pay up to €150 billion (€50/MWh*3bn MWh) more for their electricity. … Drastic increases in energy spending will shrink the disposable income of the poorest households with their high propensity to consume." This is true in other regions and states, as well. Is the Natgas Price Surge Transitory? The odds of higher natgas and CO2 permit prices increase as the likelihood of a colder-than-normal winter increases. Even a normal winter likely would tax Europe's gas supplies, given the level of inventories, and the need for Russia to replenish its stocks. However, at present, even with the odds of a second La Niña event this winter increasing, this is a probable event, not a certainty. The global natgas market is evolving along lines similar to the crude oil market. Fungible cargoes can be traded and moved to the market with the highest netback realization, after accounting for transportation. High prices now will incentivize higher production and a stronger inventory-injection season next year. That said, prices could stay elevated relative to historical levels as this is occurring. Europe is embarked on a planned phase-out of coal- and nuclear-powered electricity generation over the next couple of years, which highlights the risks associated with the energy transition to a low-carbon future. China also is attempting to phase out coal-fired generation in favor of natgas turbines, and also is pursuing a buildout of renewables and nuclear power. Given the extreme weather dependence on prices for power generated from whatever source, renewables will remain risky bets for modern economies as primary energy sources in the early stages of the energy transition. When the loss of wind, for example, must be made up with natgas generation and that market is tight owing to its own fundamental supply-demand imbalance, volatile price excursions to high levels could be required to destroy enough demand to provide heat in a cold winter. This would reduce support for renewables if it became too-frequent an event. This past summer and coming winter illustrate the risk of too-rapid a phase out of fossil-fueled power generation and space-heating fuels (i.e., gas and coal). Frequent volatile energy-price excursions, which put firms and households at risk of price spikes over an extended period of time, are, for many households, material events. We have little doubt the commodity-market effects will be dealt with in the most efficient manner. As the old commodity-market saw goes, "High prices are the best cure for high prices, and vice versa." All the same, the political effects of another very cold winter and high energy prices are not solely the result of economic forces. Inflation concerns aside, consumers – i.e., voters – may be disinclined to support a renewable-energy buildout if the hits to their wallets and lifestyles become higher than they have been led to expect. Investment Implications The price spike in natgas is highly likely to be a transitory event. Another surge in natgas prices likely would be inflationary while supplies are rebuilding – so, transitory.  Practically, this could stoke dissatisfaction among consumers, and add a political element to the transition to a low-carbon energy future. This would complicate capex decision-making for incumbent energy suppliers – i.e., the fossil-fuels industries – and for the metals suppliers, which will be relied upon to provide the literal building blocks for the renewables buildout.   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 crude oil inventories fell 3.5mm barrels in the week ended 17 September 2021, according to the US EIA. Product inventories built slightly, led by a 3.5mm-build in gasoline stocks, which was offset by a 2.6mm barrel draw in distillates (e.g., diesel fuel). Cumulative average daily crude oil production in the US was down 7% y/y, and stood at 10.9mm b/d. Cumulative average daily refined-product demand – what the EIA terms "Product Supplied" – was estimated at 19.92mm b/d, up almost 10% y/y. Brent prices recovered from an earlier sell-off this week and were supported by the latest inventory data (Chart 5). Base Metals: Bullish Iron ore prices have fallen -55.68% since hitting an all-time high of $230.58/MT in May 12, 2021 (Chart 6). This is due to sharply reduced steel output in China, as authorities push output lower to meet policy-mandated production goals and to conserve power. Even with the cuts in steel production, overall steel output in the first seven months of the year was up 8% on a y/y basis, or 48mm MT, according to S&P Global Platts. Supply constraints likely will be exacerbated as the upcoming Olympic Games hosted by China in early February approach. Authorities will want blue skies to showcase these events. Iron ore prices will remain closer to our earlier forecast of $90-$110/MT than not over this period.8 Precious Metals: Bullish The Federal Open Market Committee is set to publish the results of its meeting on Wednesday. In its last meeting in June, more hawkish than expected forecasts for interest rate hikes caused gold prices to drop and the yellow metal has been trading significantly lower since then. Our US Bond Strategy colleagues expect an announcement on asset purchase tapering in end-2021, and interest rate increases to begin by end-2022.9 Rate hikes are contingent on the Fed’s maximum employment criterion being reached, as expected and actual inflation are above the Fed criteria. Tapering asset purchases and increases in interest rates will be bearish for gold prices. Chart 5 Chart 6       Footnotes 1     Equinor, the Norwegian state-owned energy-supplier, estimates European natgas inventories will be 70-75% of their five-year average this winter.  Please see IR Gas Market Update, September 16, 2021. 2     Please see "ENSO: Recent Evolution, Current Status and Predictions," published by the US Climate Prediction Center 20 September 2021.  Earlier this month, the Center gave 70% odds to a second La Niña event in the Northern Hemisphere this winter.  Please see our report from September 9, 2021 entitled NatGas: Winter Is Coming for additional background. 3    Please see IEA calls on Russia to send more gas to Europe before winter published by theguardian.com, and Big Bounce: Russian gas amid market tightness.  Both were published on September 21, 2021. 4    Please see Nord Stream Two Construction Completed, but Gas Flows Unlikely in 2021 published 14 September 2021 by Jamestown.org. 5    Please see The U.K. went all in on wind power. Here’s what happens when it stops blowing, published by fortune.com on 16 September 2021.  Argus Media this week reported wind-power output fell 56% y/y in September 2021 to just over 2.5 TWh. 6    Please see UK power firms stop taking new customers amid escalating crisis, published by Aljazeera; Please see UK fires up coal power plant as gas prices soar, published by BBC. 7     Please see Is Europe’s gas and electricity price surge a one-off?, published by Bruegel 13 September 2021. 8    Please see China's Recovery Paces Iron Ore, Steel, which we published on November 5, 2020. 9    Please see 2022 Will Be All About Inflation and Talking About Tapering, published on September 22, 2021 and on August 10, 2021 respectively.     Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2021 Summary of Closed Trades

Highlights The odds of a stronger recovery in EM oil demand next year are rising, as vaccines using mRNA technology are manufactured locally and become widely available.1 This will reduce local lock-down risks in economies relying on less efficacious COVID-19 vaccines – or lacking them altogether – thereby increasing mobility, economic activity and oil demand. Our global crude oil balances estimates are little changed to the end of 2023, which leaves our price expectations mostly unchanged: 4Q21 Brent prices are expected to average $70.50/bbl, while 2022 and 2023 prices average $75 and $80/bbl, respectively (Chart of the Week). The balance of risks to the crude oil market remain to the upside in our estimation. In addition to a higher likelihood of better-than-expected EM demand growth, we expect OPEC 2.0 production discipline to hold, and for the price-taking cohort outside the coalition to continue prioritizing investors' interests. We remain long commodity index exposure – S&P GSCI and COMT – and, at tonight's close, will be getting long the DFA Dimensional Emerging Core Equity Market ETF (DFAE) on the back of increasing local mRNA vaccine production in EM economies. Feature As local production of COVID-19 vaccines employing mRNA technology spreads throughout EM economies, the odds of a stronger-than-expected recovery in oil demand next year will increase. The buildout of production and distribution facilities for this technology is progressing quickly in Asia – e.g., Chinese mRNA tech joint ventures are expected to be in production mode in 4Q21 – Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East.2 Accelerated availability of more efficacious vaccines globally will address the "fault lines" identified by the IMF in its July 2021 update. In that report, the Fund notes a major downside risk to its global GDP growth expectation of 6% this year remains slower-than-expected vaccine rollouts to emerging and developing economies.3 The other major risk identified by the Fund is too-rapid a winddown of policy support in DM economies, which would lead to tighter financial conditions globally. Our global demand expectation is driven by GDP estimates from the IMF and World Bank. The implication of that assumption is the powerful recovery in DM oil demand seen this year will slow while EM demand picks up next year (Chart 2). We proxy DM oil demand with OECD oil consumption and EM demand with non-OECD consumption. We continue to expect overall oil demand to recover by just over 5.0mm b/d this year and 4.4mm b/d next year (Table 1). Chart of the WeekOil Forecasts Hold Steady Chart 2Higher EM Oil Demand Expected in 2022 Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) To Dec23 Global Oil Supply To Remain Steady Hurricane Ida will have removed ~ 30mm barrels of US offshore oil output by the time losses are fully tallied, based on IEA estimates. Even so, in line with the US EIA, we expect offshore US oil production will recover from the damage caused by the storm in 4Q21 and be back at ~ 1.7mm b/d on average over the quarter. This will allow oil prices to ease slightly from current elevated levels over the balance of the year. Inland, US shale-oil output remains on track to average ~ 9.06mm b/d this year, 9.55mmb/d in 2022 and 9.85mmb/d in 2023, in our modeling (Chart 3). We expect production in the Lower 48 states of the US to remain mostly steady going forward. Production from finishing drilled-but-uncompleted (DUCs) shale-oil wells is the lowest it's been since 2013.  Output from these wells will remain relatively low for the rest of the year. This supply was developed during the COVID-19 pandemic, as it was cheaper to bring on than new drilling. For 2022 and 2023 overall, our model points to a slow build-up in US shale-oil output as drilling increases. Going into 2022, we expect continued production discipline from OPEC 2.0, and for the coalition to continue to manage output in line with actual demand it sees from its customers. The 400k b/d being returned monthly to the market over August 2021 to mid-2022 will accommodate demand increases. However, it will be monitored closely in the event demand fails to materialize, as has been OPEC 2.0's wont over the course of the pandemic. Chart 3US Shale-Oil Output Mostly Stable Oil Markets To Remain Balanced We see markets remaining balanced to the end of 2023, with OPEC 2.0 maintaining its production-management strategy – keeping the level of supply just below the level of demand – and the price-taking cohort led by US shale-oil producers remaining focused on maintaining margins so as to provide competitive returns to investors. On the demand side, EM growth will pick up as DM growth slows. Given our fundamental view, global crude oil balances estimates are little changed to the end of 2023 (Chart 4). This allows inventories to continue to draw this year and next, then to slowly rebuild as production increases toward the end of 2023 (Chart 5). Falling inventories will keep the Brent forward curve backwardated – i.e., prompt-delivery oil will trade higher than deferred-delivery oil. Chart 4Markets Remain Balanced... Chart 5...And Oil Inventory Continues To Draw The backwardated forward curve means OPEC 2.0 producers will continue to realize higher delivered prices on their crude oil than the marginal shale-oil producer, which hedges its production 1-2 years forward to stabilize revenue. This is the primary benefit to the member states in the producer coalition: a backwardated curve pricing closer to marginal cost limits the amount of revenue available to shale-oil producers, and thus restrains output to that which is profitable at the margin. Investment Implications Our supply-demand outlook keeps our price expectations mostly unchanged from last month's forecast. We expect 4Q21 Brent prices to average $70.50/bbl, while 2022 and 2023 prices average $75 and $80/bbl, respectively, as can be seen in the Chart of the Week. WTI prices will continue to trade $2-$4/bbl below Brent over this interval. With fundamentals continuing to support a backwardated forward curve in Brent and WTI, we continue to favor long commodity-index exposure, which benefits from this structure.4 Therefore, we remain long the S&P GSCI and the COMT ETF, which is an optimized version of the GSCI that concentrates on positioning in backwardated futures contracts. The upside risk to oil prices resulting from increasing local production of mRNA vaccines in EM economies that had relied on less efficacious vaccines undoubtedly will increase mobility and raise oil demand, if, as appears likely, the impact of this localization is realized in the near term. This also could boost commodity demand generally, if it allows trade and GDP growth to accelerate in EM economies, which supports our long commodity-index view. The rollout of mRNA technology into EM economies also suggests EM GDP growth could increase at the margin with locally produced mRNA vaccines becoming more available. This would redound to the benefit of trade and economic activity generally.5 It also could help unsnarl the movement of goods globally. The wider implications of a successful expansion of locally produced mRNA vaccines leads us to recommend EM equity exposure on a tactical basis. At tonight's close, we will be getting long the DFA Dimensional Emerging Core Equity Market ETF (DFAE). As this is tactical, we will use a tight stop (10%) for this recommendation.   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 Natural gas demand is surging globally. Record-breaking heat waves in the US are driving demand for gas-fired generation required to meet space-cooling demand. In addition, in the June-August period, the US saw record LNG exports. Europe and Asia are competing for the fuel as both prepare for winter. Brazil also has been a strong bid for LNG, as drought there has reduced hydropower supplies. In Europe, natural gas inventories were drawn hard this past winter as LNG supplies were bid away to Asia to meet space-heating demand. This is keeping Europe well bid now as winter approaches (Chart 6). The US Climate Prediction Center last week gave 70-80% odds of a second La Niña for the Northern Hemisphere winter. Should it materialize, it could again drive cold artic air into their markets, as it did last winter, and push natgas demand higher. Our recommendation to get long 1Q22 $5.00/MMBtu calls vs short 1Q22 $5.50/MMBtu calls last week was up 17% as of Tuesday's close. We remain long. Base Metals: Bullish The slide in iron ore prices from its ~ $230/MT peak earlier this year can be attributed to weak Chinese demand, and the possibility of its persistence through the winter and into next year (Chart 7). The world’s largest steel-producing nation is aiming to limit steel output to no higher than 2020 levels, in a bid to reduce industrial pollution. According to mining.com, provincial governments have directly asked local steel mills to curb output. Regulation in this sector in China will continue to reduce prices of iron ore, a key raw material in steel production. Precious Metals: Bullish The lower-than-expected reading on the US core CPI earlier this week weighed on the USD, and propelled gold prices above the $1,800/oz mark. While markets expected lower consumer prices for August to diminish the Fed’s resolve to taper asset purchases by year-end, we do not think the lower month-on-month CPI number will delay tapering. The timing of the Fed's initial rate hike – expected by markets to occur after the tapering of the central bank's asset-purchase program – will depend on the US labor force reaching "maximum employment." According to BCA Research's US Bond Strategy, this criterion will be met in late-2022 or early-2023. Low-interest rates, coupled with persistent inflation until then, will be bullish for gold prices. Chart 6 Chart 7   Footnotes 1     Please see Everest to bring Canadian biotech's potential Covid shots to China, other markets published on September 13, 2021 by indiatimes.com. 2     Examples of this include Brazil's Eurofarma to make Pfizer COVID-19 shots for Latin America, published by reuters.com; Biovac Institute to be first African company to produce mRNA vaccines, published be devex.com; and mRNA Vaccines Mark a New Era in Medicine, posted by supertrends.com. The latter report also discusses the application of mRNA technology to other diseases like malaria. 3    Please see Fault Lines Widen in the Global Recovery published 27 July 2021 by the Fund. 4    Backwardation is the source of roll yield for long-index exposure.  This is due to the design of these index products, which buy forward then – in backwardated markets – roll out of futures contract as they approach physical delivery at a higher level and re-establish their exposure in a deferred contract. 5    The lower realized efficacy of Sinopharm and Sinovac COVID-19 vaccines and high reinfection rates in economies using these vaccines are one of the key risks to our overall bullish commodity view.  Please see Assessing Risks To Our Commodity Views, which we published on July 8, 2021. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com.   Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2021 Summary of Closed Trades

Highlights An Iran crisis is imminent. We still think a US-Iran détente is possible but our conviction is lower until Biden makes a successful show of force. Oil prices will be volatile. Fiscal drag is a risk to the cyclical global macro view. But developed markets are more fiscally proactive than they were after the global financial crisis. Elections will reinforce that, starting in Germany, Canada, and Japan. The Chinese and Russian spheres are still brimming with political and geopolitical risk. But China will ease monetary and fiscal policy on the margin over the coming 12 months. Afghanistan will not upset our outlook on the German and French elections, which is positive for the euro and European stocks. Feature Chart 1Bull Market In Iran Tensions Iran is now the most pressing geopolitical risk in the short term (Chart 1). The Biden administration has been chastened by the messy withdrawal from Afghanistan and will be exceedingly reactive if it is provoked by foreign powers. Nuclear weapons improve regime survivability. Survival is what the Islamic Republic wants. Iran is surrounded by enemies in its region and under constant pressure from the United States. Hence Iran will never ultimately give up its nuclear program, as we have maintained. Chart 2Biden Unlikely To Lift Iran Sanctions Unilaterally However, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei could still agree to a deal in which the US reduces economic sanctions while Iran allows some restrictions on uranium enrichment for a limited period of time (the 2015 nuclear deal’s key provisions expire from 2023 through 2030). This would be a stopgap measure to delay the march into war. The problem is that rejoining the 2015 deal requires the US to ease sanctions first, since the US walked away from the deal in 2018. Iran would need domestic political cover to rejoin it. Biden has the executive authority to ease sanctions unilaterally but after Afghanistan he lacks the political capital to do so (Chart 2). So Biden cannot ease sanctions until Iran pares back its nuclear activities. But Iran has no reason to pare back if the US does not ease sanctions. Iran is now enriching some uranium to a purity of 60%. Israeli Defense Minister Benny Gantz says it will reach “nuclear breakout” capability – enough fissile material to build a bomb – within 10 weeks, i.e. mid-October. Anonymous officials from the Biden administration told the Associated Press it will be “months or less,” which could mean September, October, or November (Table 1). Table 1Iran Nearing "Breakout" Nuclear Capability Meanwhile the new Iranian government of President Ebrahim Raisi, a hardliner who is tipped to take over as Supreme Leader once Ali Khamenei steps down, is implying that it will not rejoin negotiations until November. All of these timelines are blurry but the implication is that Iran will not resume talks until it has achieved nuclear breakout. Israel will continue its campaign of sabotage against the regime. It may be pressed to the point of launching air strikes, as it did against nuclear facilities in Iraq in 1981 and Syria in 2007 under what is known as the “Begin Doctrine.” Chart 3Israel Cannot Risk Losing US Security Guarantee The constraint on Israel is that it cannot afford to lose America’s public support and defense alliance since it would find itself isolated and vulnerable in its region (Chart 3). But if Israeli intelligence concludes that the Iranians truly stand on the verge of achieving a deliverable nuclear weapon, the country will likely be driven to launch air strikes. Once the Iranians test and display a viable nuclear deterrent it will be too late. Four US presidents, including Biden, have declared that Iran will not be allowed to get nuclear weapons. Biden and the Democrats favor diplomacy, as Biden made clear in his bilateral summit with Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett last week. But Biden also admitted that if diplomacy fails there are “other options.” The Israelis currently have a weak government but it is unified against a nuclear-armed Iran. At very least Bennett will underscore red lines to indicate that Israel’s vigilance has not declined despite hawkish Benjamin Netanyahu’s fall from power. Still, Iran may decide it has an historic opportunity to make a dash for the bomb if it thinks that the US will fail to support an Israeli attack. The US has lost leverage in negotiations since 2015. It no longer has troops stationed on Iran’s east and west flanks. It no longer has the same degree of Chinese and Russian cooperation. It is even more internally divided. Iran has no guarantee that the US will not undergo another paroxysm of nationalism in 2024 and try to attack it. The faction that opposed the deal all along is now in power and may believe it has the best chance in its lifetime to achieve nuclear breakout. The only reason a short-term deal is possible is because Khamenei may believe the Israelis will attack with full American support. He agreed to the 2015 deal. He also fears that the combination of economic sanctions and simmering social unrest will create a rift when he dies or passes the leadership to his successor. Iran has survived the Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” sanctions but it is still vulnerable (Chart 4). Chart 4Supreme Leader Focuses On Regime Survival Moreover Biden is offering Khamenei a deal that does not require abandoning the nuclear program and does not prevent Iran from enhancing its missile capabilities. By taking the deal he might prevent his enemies from unifying, forestall immediate war, and pave the way for a smooth succession, while still pursuing the ultimate goal of nuclear weaponization. Bringing it all together, the world today stands at a critical juncture with regard to Iran and the unfinished business of the US wars in the Middle East. Unless the US and Israel stage a unified and convincing show of force, whether preemptively or in response to Iranian provocations, the Iranians will be justified in concluding that they have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to pursue the bomb. They could sneak past the global powers and obtain a nuclear deterrent and regime security, like North Korea did. This could easily precipitate a war. Biden will probably continue to be reactive rather than proactive. If the Iranians are silent then it will be clear that Khamenei still sees the value in a short-term deal. But if they continue their march toward nuclear breakout, as is the case as we go to press, then Biden will have to make a massive show of force. The goal would be to underscore the US’s red lines and drive Iran back to negotiating table. If Biden blinks, he will incentivize Iran to make a dash for the bomb. Either way a crisis is imminent. Israel will continue to use sabotage and underscore red lines while the Iranians will continue to escalate their attacks on Israel via militant proxies and attacks on tankers (Map 1). Map 1Secret War Escalates In Middle East Bottom Line: After a crisis, either diplomacy will be restored, or the Middle East will be on a new war path. The war path points to a drastically different geopolitical backdrop for the global economy. If the US and Iran strike a short-term deal, Iranian oil will flow and the US will shift its strategic focus to pressuring China, which is negative for global growth and positive for the dollar. If the US and Iran start down the war path, oil supply disruptions will rise and the dollar will fall. Implications For Oil Prices And OPEC 2.0 The probability of a near-term conflict is clear from our decision tree, which remains the same as in June 2019 (Diagram 1). Diagram 1US-Iran Conflict: Critical Juncture In Our Decision Tree Shows of force and an escalation in the secret war will cause temporary but possibly sharp spikes in oil prices in the short term. OPEC 2.0 remains intact so far this year, as expected. The likelihood that the global economic recovery will continue should encourage the Saudis, Russians, Emiratis and others to maintain production discipline to drain inventories and keep Brent crude prices above $60 per barrel. OPEC 2.0 is a weak link in oil prices, however, because Russians are less oil-dependent than the Gulf Arab states and do not need as high of oil prices for their government budget to break even (Chart 5). Periodically this dynamic leads the cartel to break down. None of the petro-states want to push oil prices up so high that they hasten the global green energy transition. Chart 5OPEC 2.0 Keeps Price Within Fiscal Breakeven Oil Price Chart 6Oil Price Risks Lie To Upside Until US-Iran Deal Occurs As long as OPEC 2.0 remains disciplined, average Brent crude oil prices will gradually rise to $80 barrels per day by the end of 2024, according to our Commodity & Energy Strategy (Chart 6). Imminent firefights will cause prices to spike at least temporarily when large amounts of capacity are taken offline. Global spare capacity is probably sufficient to handle one-off disruptions but an open-ended military conflict in the Persian Gulf or Strait of Hormuz would be a different story. After the next crisis, everything depends on whether the US and Israel establish a credible threat and thus restore diplomacy. Any US-Iran strategic détente would unleash Iranian production and could well motivate the Gulf Arabs to pump more oil and deny Iran market share. Bottom Line: Given that any US-Iran deal would also be short-term in nature, and may not even stabilize the region, some of the downside risks are fading at the moment. The US and China are also sucking in more commodities as they gear up for great power struggle. The geopolitical outlook is positive for oil prices in these respects. But OPEC 2.0 is the weak link in this expectation so we expect volatility. Global Fiscal Taps Will Stay Open Markets have wavered in recent months over softness in the global economic recovery, COVID-19 variants, and China’s policy tightening. The world faces a substantial fiscal drag in the coming years as government budgets correct from the giant deficits witnessed during the crisis. Nevertheless policymakers are still able to deliver some positive fiscal surprises on the margin. Developed markets have turned fiscally proactive over the past decade. They rejected austerity because it was seen as fueling populist political outcomes that threatened the established parties. Note that this change began with conservative governments (e.g. Japan, UK, US, Germany), implying that left-leaning governments will open the fiscal taps further whenever they come to power (e.g. Canada, the US, Italy, and likely Germany next). Chart 7Global Fiscal Taps Will Stay Open Chart 7 updates the pandemic-era fiscal stimulus of major economies, with light-shaded bars highlighting new fiscal measures that are in development but have not yet been included in the IMF’s data set. The US remains at the top followed by Italy, which also saw populist electoral outcomes over the past decade. Chart 8US Fiscal Taps Open At Least Until 2023 The Biden administration is on the verge of passing a $550 billion bipartisan infrastructure bill. We maintain 80% subjective odds of passage – despite the messy pullout from Afghanistan. Assuming it passes, Democrats will proceed to their $3.5 trillion social welfare bill. This bill will inevitably be watered down – we expect a net deficit impact of around $1-$1.5 trillion for both bills – but it can pass via the partisan “budget reconciliation” process. We give 50% subjective odds today but will upgrade to 65% after infrastructure passes. The need to suspend the debt ceiling will raise volatility this fall but ultimately neither party has an interest in a national debt default. The US is expanding social spending even as geopolitical challenges prevent it from cutting defense spending, which might otherwise be expected after Afghanistan and Iraq. The US budget balance will contract after the crisis but then it will remain elevated, having taken a permanent step up as a result of populism. The impact should be a flat or falling dollar on a cyclical basis, even though we think geopolitical conflict will sustain the dollar as the leading reserve currency over the long run (Chart 8). So the dollar view remains neutral for now. Bottom Line: The US is facing a 5.9% contraction in the budget deficit in 2022 but the blow will be cushioned somewhat by two large spending bills, which will put budget deficits on a rising trajectory over the course of the decade. Big government is back. Developed Market Fiscal Moves (Outside The US) Chart 9German Opinion Favors New Left-Wing Coalition Fiscal drag is also a risk for other developed markets – but here too a substantial shift away from prudence has taken place, which is likely to be signaled to investors by the outperformance of left-wing parties in Germany’s upcoming election. Germany is only scheduled to add EUR 2.4 billion to the 25.6 billion it will receive under the EU’s pandemic recovery fund, but Berlin is likely to bring positive fiscal surprises due to the federal election on September 26. Germany will likely see a left-wing coalition replace Chancellor Angela Merkel and her long-ruling Christian Democrats (Chart 9). The platforms of the different parties can be viewed in Table 2. Our GeoRisk Indicator for Germany confirms that political risk is elevated but in this case the risk brings upside to risk assets (Appendix). Table 2German Party Platforms While we expected the Greens to perform better than they are in current polling, the point is the high probability of a shift to a new left-wing government. The Social Democrats are reviving under the leadership of Olaf Scholz (Chart 10). Tellingly, Scholz led the charge for Germany to loosen its fiscal belt back in 2019, prior to the global pandemic. Chart 10Germany: Online Markets Betting On Scholz Chart 11Canada: Trudeau Takes A Calculated Risk In June, the cabinet approved a draft 2022 budget plan supported by Scholz that would contain new borrowing worth EUR 99.7 bn ($119 billion). This amount is not included in the chart above but it should be seen as the minimum to be passed under the new government. If a left-wing coalition is formed, as we expect, the amount will be larger, given that both the Social Democrats and the Greens have been restrained by Merkel’s party. Canada turned fiscally proactive in 2015, when the institutional ruling party, the Liberals, outflanked the more progressive New Democrats by calling for budget deficits instead of a balanced budget. The Liberals saw a drop in support in 2019 but are now calling a snap election. Prime Minister Trudeau is not as popular in general opinion as he is in the news media but his party still leads the polls (Chart 11). The Conservatives are geographically isolated and, more importantly, are out of step with the median voter on the key issues (Table 3). Table 3Canada: Liberal Agenda Lines Up With Top Voter Priorities Nevertheless it is a risky time to call an election – our GeoRisk Indicator for Canada is soaring (Appendix). Granting that the Liberals are very unlikely to fall from power, whatever their strength in parliament, the key point is that parliament already approved of CAD 100 billion in new spending over the coming three years. Any upside surprise would give Trudeau the ability to push for still more deficit spending, likely focused on climate change. Chart 12Japan: Suga Will Go, LDP Will Stimulate Japanese politics are heating up ahead of the Liberal Democrats’ leadership election on September 29 and the general election, due by November 28. Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga’s sole purpose in life was to stand in for Shinzo Abe in overseeing the Tokyo Olympics. Now they are done and Suga will likely be axed – if he somehow survives the election, he will not last long after, as his approval rating is in freefall. The Liberal Democrats are still the only game in town. They will try to minimize the downside risks they face in the general election by passing a new stimulus package (Chart 12). Rumor has it that the new package will nominally be worth JPY 10-15 trillion, though we expect the party to go bigger, and LDP heavyweight Toshihiro Nikai has proposed a 30 trillion headline number. It is extremely unlikely that the election will cause a hung parliament or any political shift that jeopardizes passage of the bill. Abenomics remains the policy setting – and consumption tax hikes are no longer on the horizon to impede the second arrow of Abenomics: fiscal policy. Not all countries are projecting new spending. A stronger-than-expected showing by the Christian Democrats would result in gridlock in Germany. Meanwhile the UK may signal belt-tightening in October. Bottom Line: Germany, Canada, and Japan are likely to take some of the edge off of expected fiscal drag next year. Emerging Market Fiscal Moves (And China Regulatory Update) Among the emerging markets, Russia and China are notable in Chart 7 above for having such a small fiscal stimulus during this crisis. Russia has announced some fiscal measures ahead of the September 19 Duma election but they are small: $5.2 billion in social spending, $10 billion in strategic goals over three years, and a possible $6.8 billion increase in payments to pensioners. Fiscal austerity in Russia is one reason we expect domestic political risk to remain elevated and hence for President Putin to stoke conflicts in his near abroad (see our Russian risk indicator in the Appendix). There are plenty of signs that Belarussian tensions with the Baltic states and Poland can escalate in the near term, as can fighting in Ukraine in the wake of Biden’s new defense agreement and second package of military aid. China’s actual stimulus was much larger than shown in Chart 7 above because it mostly consisted of a surge in state-controlled bank lending. China is likely to ease monetary and fiscal policy on the margin over the coming 12 months to secure the recovery in time for the national party congress in 2022. But China’s regulatory crackdown will continue during that time and our GeoRisk Indicator clearly shows the uptick in risk this year (Appendix). Chart 13China Expands Unionization? The regulatory crackdown is part of a cyclical consolidation of Xi Jinping’s power as well as a broader, secular trend of reasserting Communist Party and centralization in China. The latest developments underscore our view that investors should not play any technical rebound in Chinese equities. The increase in censorship of financial media is especially troubling. Just as the government struggles to deal with systemic financial problems (e.g. the failing property giant Evergrande, a possible “Lehman moment”), the lack of transparency and information asymmetry will get worse. The media is focusing on the government’s interventions into public morality, setting a “correct beauty standard” for entertainers and limiting kids to three hours of video games per week. But for investors what matters is that the regulatory crackdown is proceeding to the medical sector. High health costs (like high housing and education costs) are another target of the Xi administration in trying to increase popular support and legitimacy. Central government-mandated unionization in tech companies will hurt the tech sector without promoting social stability. Chinese unions do not operate like those in the West and are unlikely ever to do so. If they did, it would compound the preexisting structural problem of rising wages (Chart 13). Wages are forcing an economic transition onto Beijing, which raises systemic risks permanently across all sectors. Bottom Line: Political and geopolitical risk are still elevated in China and Russia. China will ease monetary and fiscal policy gradually over the coming year but the regulatory crackdown will persist at least until the 2022 political reshuffle. Afghanistan: The Refugee Fallout September 2021 will officially mark the beginning of Taliban’s second bout of power in Afghanistan. Will Afghanistan be the only country to spawn an outflux of refugees? Will the Taliban wresting power in Afghanistan trigger another refugee crisis for Europe? How is the rise of the Taliban likely to affect geopolitics in South Asia? Will Afghanistan Be The Last Major Country To Spawn Refugees? Absolutely not. We expect regime failures to affect the global economy over the next few years. The global growth engine functions asymmetrically and is powered only by a fistful of countries. As economic growth in poor countries fails to keep pace with that of top performers, institutional turmoil is bound to follow. This trend will only add to the growing problem of refugees that the world has seen in the post-WWII era. History suggests that the number of refugees in the world at any point in time is a function of economic prosperity (or the lack thereof) in poorer continents (Chart 14). For instance, the periods spanning 1980-90 and 2015-20 saw the world’s poorer continents lose their share in global GDP. Unsurprisingly these phases also saw a marked increase in the number of refugees. With the world’s poorer continents expected to lose share in global GDP again going forward, the number of refugees in the world will only rise. Chart 14Refugee Flows Rise When Growth Weak In Poor Continents Citizens of Syria, Venezuela, Afghanistan, South Sudan, and Myanmar today account for two-thirds of all refugees globally. To start with, these five countries’ share in global GDP was low at 0.8% in the 1980s. Now their share in global GDP is set to fall to 0.2% over the next five years (Chart 15). Chart 15Refugee Exporters Hit All-Time Low In Global GDP Share Per capita incomes in top refugee source countries tend to be very low. Whilst regime fractures appear to be the proximate cause of refugee outflux, an economic collapse is probably the root cause of the civil strife and waves of refugee movement seen out of the top refugee source countries. Another factor that could have a bearing is the rise of multipolarity. Shifting power structures in the global economy affect the stability of regimes with weak institutions. Instability in Afghanistan has been a direct result of the rise and the fall of the British and Russian empires. American imperial overreach is just the latest episode. If another Middle Eastern war erupts, the implications are obvious. But so too are the implications of US-China proxy wars in Southeast Asia or Russia-West proxy wars in eastern Europe. Bottom Line: With poorer continents’ economic prospects likely to remain weak and with multipolarity here to stay, the world’s refugee problem is here to stay too. Is A Repeat Of 2015 Refugee Crisis Likely In 2021? No. 2021 will not be a replica of 2015. This is owing to two key reasons. First, Afghanistan has long witnessed a steady outflow of refugees – especially at the end of the twentieth century but also throughout the US’s 20-year war there. The magnitude of the refugee problem in 2021 will be significantly smaller than that in 2015. Secondly, voters are now differentiating between immigrants and refugees with the latter entity gaining greater acceptance (Chart 16). Chart 16DM Attitudes Permissive Toward Refugees Chart 17Refugees Will Not Change Game In German/French Elections Concerns about refugees will gain some political traction but it will reinforce rather than upset the current trajectory in the most important upcoming elections, in Germany in September and France next April. True, these countries feature in the list of top countries to which Afghan refugees flee and will see some political backlash (Chart 17). But the outcome may be counterintuitive. In the German election, any boost to the far-right will underscore the likely underperformance of the ruling Christian Democrats. So the German elections will produce a left-wing surprise – and yet, even if the Greens won the chancellorship (the true surprise scenario, looking much less likely now), investors will cheer the pro-Europe and pro-fiscal result. The French election is overcrowded with right-wing candidates, both center-right and far-right, giving President Macron the ability to pivot to the left to reinforce his incumbent advantage next spring. Again, the euro and the equity market will rise on the status quo despite the political risk shown in our indicator (Appendix). Of course, immigration and refugees will cause shocks to European politics in future, especially as more regime failures in the third world take place to add to Afghanistan and Ethiopia. But in the short run they are likely to reinforce the fact that European politics are an oasis of stability given what is happening in the US, China, Brazil, and even Russia and India. Bottom Line: 2021 will not see a repeat of the 2015 refugee crisis. Ironically Afghan refugees could reinforce European integration in both German and French elections. The magnitude of the Afghan crisis is smaller than in the past and most Afghan refugees are likely to migrate to Pakistan and Iran (Chart 17). But more regime failures will ensure that the flow of people becomes a political risk again sometime in the future. What Does The Rise Of Taliban Mean For India? The Taliban first held power in Afghanistan from 1996-2001. This was one of the most fraught geopolitical periods in South Asia since the 1970s. Now optimists argue that Taliban 2.0 is different. Taliban leaders are engaging in discussions with an ex-president who was backed by America and making positive overtures towards India. So, will this time be different? It is worth noting that Taliban 2.0 will have to function within two major constraints. First, Afghanistan is deeply divided and diverse. Afghanistan’s national anthem refers to fourteen ethnic groups. Running a stable government is inherently challenging in this mountainous country. With Taliban being dominated by one ethnic group and with limited financial resources at hand, the Taliban will continue to use brute force to keep competing political groups at bay. Chart 18Taliban In Line With Afghanis On Sharia At the same time, to maintain legitimacy and power, the Taliban will have to support aligned political groups operating in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan. Second, an overwhelming majority of Afghani citizens want Sharia law, i.e. a legal code based on Islamic scripture as the official law of the land (Chart 18). Hence if the Taliban enforces a Sharia-based legal system in Afghanistan then it will fall in line with what the broader population demands. It is against this backdrop that Taliban 2.0 is bound to have several similarities with the version that ruled from 1996-2001. Additionally, US withdrawal from Afghanistan will revive a range of latent terrorist movements in the region. This poses risks for outside countries, not least India, which has a long history of being targeted by Afghani terrorist groups. The US will remain engaged in counter-terrorism operations. To complicate matters, India’s North has an even more unfavorable view of Pakistan than the rest of India. With the northern voter’s importance rising, India’s administration may be forced to respond more aggressively to a terrorist event than would have been the case about a decade ago. It is also possible that terrorism will strike at China over time given its treatment of Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang. China’s economic footprint in Afghanistan could precipitate such a shift. Bottom Line: US withdrawal from Afghanistan is bound to add to geopolitical risks as latent terrorist forces will be activated. India has a long history of being targeted by Afghani terrorist movements. Incidentally, it will take time for transnational terrorism based in Afghanistan to mount successful attacks at the West once again, given that western intelligence services are more aware of the problem than they were in 2000. But non-state actors may regain the element of surprise over time, given that the western powers are increasingly focused on state-to-state struggle in a new era of great power competition.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Ritika Mankar, CFA Editor/Strategist ritika.mankar@bcaresearch.com   Section II: GeoRisk Indicator China Russia United Kingdom Germany France Italy Canada Spain Taiwan Korea Turkey Brazil Australia Section III: Geopolitical Calendar

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.  

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

Highlights Alternative energy is priced to deliver spectacular long-term earnings growth, but this will be a very tough ask. While alternative energy will take a greater share of the energy pie, the pie itself is shrinking, as is its price. At its current valuation, alternative energy does not meet the conditions to be in a long-term investment portfolio. As the Ethereum network becomes the ‘go to’ place to implement and execute smart contracts or decentralised finance, such services will have to be paid in ETH giving the token an economic value. ETH should certainly form a small part of a long-term investment portfolio. A near-term combination of valuation and technical constraints means that stocks will struggle to outperform ultra-long bonds. Fractal analysis: India versus China. Feature Chart of the WeekThe World Is Using Much Less Energy Per Unit Of Economic Output Alternative Energy Blues Alternative energy is the meme theme of the moment. Hardly a day passes without some exhortation to save the planet, by substituting fossil fuels with cleaner forms of energy. Yet this year, alternative energy stocks have performed dismally. Since January, the sector is down 30 percent in absolute terms, and almost 40 percent versus the broad market. Begging the question, how can one of the biggest themes of the moment be one of the worst investment performers? Last year, the forward earnings of the alternative energy sector rose by 35 percent, helped by post-pandemic stimulus measures that targeted the clean energy industry. But as investors fell in love with this meme theme, the bigger story was that the valuation paid for the sector skyrocketed from 13 times forward earnings to a nosebleed 42 times, an increase of 220 percent (Chart I-2 and Chart I-3). Chart I-2Alternative Energy Earnings Rose... Chart I-3...But The Valuation Skyrocketed To put the 42 into context, the peak multiple of the tech sector has reached ‘only’ 29 this cycle, meaning that alternative energy was trading at a near 50 percent premium even to the daddy of growth sectors! This year, as investors have pared back the nosebleed valuation, the alternative energy sector has underperformed. Nevertheless, it is still trading at a 25 percent premium to tech, meaning that its profits will have to deliver spectacular long-term growth to justify the sky-high valuation. Is this likely? We are not convinced. The world is using less energy per unit of economic output. A fundamental rule of long-term investment is that you shouldn’t own any sector whose sales are shrinking as a share of the economy. The problem for alternative energy is that it is, ultimately, energy (Chart I-4). And the world is using less energy per unit of economic output. Chart I-4Alternative Energy And Traditional Energy Show Similar Earnings Profiles In 1995, every $1000 of real GDP used 157 kilograms of oil equivalent energy. Today, that has plunged to 109 kilograms. Meaning that over the past 25 years, the world economy has reduced its energy intensity by 30 percent.1 And the downtrend persists (Chart I-1). Granted, over the past 25 years, the share of the energy pie taken by non-fossil fuels has increased from 13.4 to 16.9 percent, of which renewables have increased from 0.6 to 5.7 percent. But the marginal prices of wind, solar, and geothermal power generation are collapsing. As a recent report from the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) points out: Generation costs for onshore wind and solar photovoltaics (PV) have fallen between 3 percent and 16 percent yearly since 2010 – far faster than anything in our shopping baskets or household budgets… (and) auction results show these favourable cost trends continuing through the 2020s.2 Given that the alternative energy market is competitive rather than monopolistic or oligopolistic, a large part of these massive cost savings will be passed on to end-users. Constituting a long-term boon to consumers rather than to alternative energy profits. To repeat, with the alternative energy sector still trading at a 25 percent premium to tech, it must deliver spectacular long-term earnings growth. But this will be a very tough ask. Energy sector profits tightly track the value of energy produced, meaning volume times price (Chart I-5). The risk is that while alternative energy will take a greater share of the energy pie, the pie itself is shrinking, as is its price. Chart I-5Energy Sector Profits Tightly Track The Value Of Energy Produced (Volume Times Price) We conclude that with an ambiguous outlook for long-term earnings growth, alternative energy does not meet the conditions to be in a long-term investment portfolio at its still nosebleed valuation multiple of 32 times forward earnings.  Now let’s turn to an investment that you should have in a long-term investment portfolio. The London Hard Fork Is A Boon For The Ethereum Network The Ethereum network’s London hard fork – an event that passed under most radar screens – marks the shape of things to come for the blockchain and the cryptocurrency space. Crucially, it signals an ongoing sea-change that favours the Ethereum network’s users at the expense of its cryptocurrency miners. For those interested in the nerdy details, we direct you to Ethereum Improvement Protocol (EIP) 1559. But to cut to the chase, the fork has drastically reduced the profitability of Ethereum mining while “ensuring that only ETH can ever be used to pay for transactions on Ethereum, cementing the economic value of ETH within the Ethereum platform.” Only ETH can ever be used to pay for transactions on Ethereum, cementing the economic value of ETH within the Ethereum platform. The statements of intent address, and will ultimately alleviate, two of the biggest investment concerns about cryptocurrencies – first, that cryptocurrency mining is a prodigious user of energy, particularly dirty energy; and second, that as cryptocurrencies cannot be readily exchanged for goods and services, they have no value other than that from other investors believing they have value. Addressing the first concern, mining becomes irrelevant if the blockchain users employ the skin in the game ‘proof-of-stake’ protocol to validate transactions rather than the energy-intensive ‘proof-of-work’ protocol that relies on external miners. Which is where Ethereum is headed with the fully proof-of-stake Ethereum 2.0. Addressing the second concern, if the Ethereum network becomes the ‘go to’ place to implement and execute smart contracts or decentralised finance, then such services will have to be paid in ETH, giving the tokens an economic value. Hence, the key structural question is, which blockchain networks will become the go to places for decentralised intermediation? Ethereum is an excellent candidate. Note that the lending arm of the EU, the European Investment Bank, has effectively endorsed the Ethereum network by issuing a €100 million digital bond on it. And although the principal “is expected to be repaid in euros”, the intermediators get paid in ETH. Crucially, the token of a successful blockchain network will become the de-facto currency of the network, exchangeable for intermediation services on that network. With a value independent of speculative investments, investors can also justifiably own these tokens as a ‘digital gold.’ Clearly, cryptocurrencies experience a higher volatility than gold, but this can be adjusted through position sizing. To equalise drawdowns in digital gold versus gold, investors should own $1 of cryptocurrency for every $3 of gold (Chart I-6). On this relative risk basis, cryptocurrencies should constitute at least one quarter ($3.8 trillion) of the $15 trillion ‘anti-fiat’ market that gold currently dominates.  Chart I-6Cryptocurrency Drawdowns Are Becoming Less Severe Therefore, if Ethereum became the dominant cryptocurrency based on its network size, it would command a market capitalisation of at least $1.9 trillion, a more than five-fold increase from today. ETH should certainly form a small part of a long-term investment portfolio. Stocks Versus Bonds Face A Double Constraint Since mid-March the world stock market (MSCI All Country World Index) has rallied by 10 percent, but the ultra-long bond (30-year T-bond) has done even better, rallying by 14 percent. Hence stocks to bonds have drifted gently lower, for which there are two reasons. First, the valuation of the most highly-rated parts of the stock market have reached the limit that has held in the post-GFC era. Specifically, tech’s earnings yield premium versus the 10-year T-bond has reached its 2.5 percent lower bound (Chart I-7). Chart I-7Tech Reached Its Post-GFC Valuation Limit Versus Bond Yields Second, the groupthink in overweighting stocks versus bonds reached an extreme. All investors up to 260-day investment horizons are already in the trade, and this level of extreme groupthink correctly signalled stocks versus bonds major-tops in 2010 and 2013 (as well as major-bottoms in 2008 and 2020) (Chart I-8). Chart I-8The Groupthink In Overweighting Stocks Versus Bonds Reached An Extreme This near-term combination of valuation and technical constraints means that stocks will struggle to outperform ultra-long bonds. In the near term, stocks will struggle to outperform ultra-long bonds. Nevertheless, if bonds rally, it will support stocks. But if bonds sell off, it will undermine stocks. The implication of the above is that a bond sell-off – should it even occur – will be self-limiting. As we explained last week in Stocks, Not The Economy, Will Set The Upper Limit To Bond Yields, the upper limit to the 10-year T-bond yield is 1.8 percent. India Trading At A Precarious Premium This week’s fractal analysis highlights that the spectacular outperformance of India versus China has reached the limit of fragility on its 260-day fractal structure that marked previous major-tops in 2014, 2016, and 2019 (as well as major bottoms in 2015, 2018, and 2020) (Chart I-9). Chart I-9The Outperformance Of India Versus China Is Fragile In effect, as China’s tech sector has recently corrected, tech stocks in India are now trading at a precarious 60 percent premium to those in China (Chart I-10). Chart I-10India Is Trading At A Precarious Premium To China The recommended trade is to short India versus China (MSCI indexes), setting the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 19 percent. Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Source: World Bank, and BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2021 2 Source: Renewable Power Generation Costs In 2019, International Renewable Energy Agency 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  

Highlights The chaotic US withdrawal from Afghanistan is symbolic – the US is conducting a strategic pivot to Asia Pacific to confront China. US-Iran negotiations are the linchpin of this pivot. If they fail, war risk will revive in the Middle East and the US will remain entangled in the region. At the moment, there is no deal, so investors should brace for a geopolitical risk premium in oil prices. That is, as long as global demand holds up despite COVID-19, and as long as the OPEC 2.0 cartel remains disciplined. We think they will in the short run. The US and Iran still have fundamental reasons to agree to a deal. If they do, the US will regain global room for maneuver while China’s and Russia’s window of opportunity will close. The implication is that markets face near-term oil supply risks – and long-term geopolitical risks due to Great Power rivalry in Eastern Europe and East Asia. Feature Events in Afghanistan have little macroeconomic significance but the geopolitical changes underway are profound and should be viewed through the lens of our second key view for 2021: the US strategic pivot to Asia. Chart 1The US Pivot To Asia Runs Through Iran Not Afghanistan As we go to press the Taliban is reconquering swathes of Afghanistan while US armed forces evacuate embassy staff and civilians. The chaotic scenes are reminiscent of the US’s humiliating flight from Saigon, Vietnam in 1975. As with Vietnam, the immediate image is one of American weakness but the reality over the long run is likely to be different. Over the past decade we have chronicled the US’s efforts to disentangle itself from wars of choice in the Middle East and South Asia. In accordance with US grand strategy, Washington is refocusing its attention on its rivalries with Russia and especially China, the only power capable of supplanting the US as a global leader (Chart 1). The US has struggled to conduct this “pivot to Asia” over the past decade but the underlying trajectory is clear: while trying to manage its strategic interests in the Middle East through naval power, the US will need to devote greater resources and attention to shoring up its economic and military ties in Asia Pacific (Map 1). The Middle East still plays a critical role – notably through China’s energy import needs – but primarily via the Persian Gulf. Map 1The US Seeks Balance In Middle East In Order To Pivot To Asia And Confront China Thus the critical geopolitical risks today stem from Iran and the Middle East on one hand, and China on the other. They do not stem from the US’s belated and messy exit from Afghanistan, which has limited market relevance outside of South Asia. First, however, we will address the political impact in the United States. US Political Implications Chart 2Americans Agree With Biden And Trump On Exit From Afghanistan American popular opinion has long turned against the “forever wars” in Iraq and Afghanistan, which cumulatively have cost $6.4 trillion and about 7,000 American troops dead1 (Chart 2). Three presidents, from two political parties, campaigned and won election on the basis of winding down these wars. The only presidential candidate since Republicans George W. Bush and John McCain who took a hawkish stance for persistent military engagement, Hillary Clinton, nearly lost the Democratic nomination and did lose the general election to a Republican, President Trump, who had reversed his party’s stance to advocate strategic withdrawal. War hawks have been sidelined in both parties. This is notable even if it were not the case that the current President Biden, whose son Beau fought in Afghanistan, had opposed the troop surge there under Obama. True, Biden will use drones, surgical strikes, and limited troop rotations to manage the aftermath in Afghanistan, both militarily and politically. Americans are still concerned about terrorism in general and any sign of a resurgent terrorist threat to the US homeland will be politically potent (Chart 3). But neither Biden nor the US can roll back the Taliban’s latest gains or achieve anything in Afghanistan that has not been achieved over the past twenty years.   Chart 3American Public Cares About Terrorism, Not Afghanistan Per Se True, Biden will suffer a political black eye from Afghanistan. His approval rating has already fallen to 49.6%, slipping beneath 50% for the first time, in the face of the Delta variant of COVID-19 and the Afghan debacle. In both cases his early optimistic statements have now become liabilities. Biden is also 79 years old, which will make the 2024 campaign questionable, and he faces mounting problems in other areas, from lax border security and immigration enforcement to rising domestic crime. Nevertheless, Biden still has sufficient political capital to push through one or both of his major domestic legislative proposals by the end of the year, despite thin majorities in both the House and Senate. Afghanistan will not affect that, for three reasons: 1. The US economy is likely to continue to recover despite hiccups due to the lingering pandemic, since the vaccines so far are effective. The labor market is recovering and business capex and government support are robust. Setbacks, such as volatile consumer confidence, will help Biden pass bills designed to shore up the economy. 2. The public fundamentally agrees with Biden (and Trump) on military withdrawal, as mentioned. Voters will only turn against him if a major attack reinforces an image of weakness on terrorism. A major attack based in Afghanistan is not nearly as likely to succeed as it was prior to the September 11, 2001 attacks. But Biden also faces an imminent increase in tensions in the Middle East that could result in attacks on the US or its allies, or other events that reinforce any image of foreign policy failure. 3. Biden has broad popular support for his infrastructure deal, which also has bipartisan buy-in, with 19 Republican Senators already having voted for it. Further, the Democratic Party has a special fast-track mechanism for passing his social spending agenda, though conviction levels must be modest on this $3.5 trillion bill, which is controversial and will have to be winnowed to pass on a partisan vote in the Senate. If we are correct that Afghanistan will not derail Biden’s legislative efforts then it will not fundamentally affect US fiscal policy or the global macro outlook. Note, however, that a failure of Biden’s bills would be significant for both domestic and global economy and financial markets as it would suggest that US fiscal policy is dysfunctional even under single party rule and would thus help to usher back in a disinflationary context. Might Afghanistan affect the midterm elections and hence the US policy setup post-2022? Not decisively. Republicans are more likely than not to retake at least the House of Representatives regardless. This is a cyclical aspect of US politics driven by voter turnout and other factors. Democrats are partly shielded in public opinion due to the Trump administration’s attempts to pull out of foreign wars. But surely a black eye on terrorism or foreign policy would not help. Similarly, a major failure to manage the Middle East, South Asia, and the pivot to Asia Pacific would marginally hurt the Democrats in 2024, but that is a long way off. Geopolitical Implications The Taliban’s reconquest of Afghanistan has very little if any direct significance for global financial markets. Pakistan and India are the two major markets most likely to be directly affected – and their own geopolitical tensions will escalate as a result – yet both equity markets have been outperforming over the course of the Taliban’s military gains (Chart 4). Afghanistan’s impacts are indirect at best. However, the US withdrawal connects with major geopolitical currents, with both macro and market significance. Afghanistan often marks the tendency of empires to overreach. Russia’s failure in Afghanistan contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union, though Russia’s command economy was unsustainable anyway. British failures in Afghanistan in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries did not lead to the British empire’s decline – that was due to the world wars – but Afghanistan did accentuate its limitations. Since 9/11 and the US’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US public’s economic malaise, political polarization, and loss of faith in public institutions have gotten worse. In turn, political divisions have impeded the government’s ability to respond cogently to financial and economic crisis, the resurgence of Russia, the rise of China, nuclear proliferation, constitutional controversies, and the COVID-19 pandemic. Once again Afghanistan marked imperial overreach. It is natural for investors to be concerned about the stability of the United States. And yet the US’s global power has recently stabilized (Chart 5). The US survived the 2020 stress test and innovated new vaccines for the pandemic. It is passing laws to upgrade its domestic technological, manufacturing, and infrastructural base and confronting its global rivals. Chart 4If Indo-Pak Markets Shrug Off Taliban Wins, So Can You Chart 5US Geopolitical Power Is Stabilizing Chart 6US Not Shrinking From Global Role The US is not retreating from its global role, judging by defense spending or trade balances (Chart 6). While the desire to phase out wars could theoretically open the way to defense cuts, the reality is that the great power confrontation with China and Russia will demand continued large defense spending. The US also continues to run large trade deficits, due to its shortage of domestic savings, which gives it influence as a consumer and provider of dollar liquidity across the world. The critical geopolitical problem is Iran, where events have reached a critical juncture: To create a semblance of a balance of power in the Middle East, the US needs an understanding with Iran, which is locked in a struggle with Saudi Arabia over the vulnerable buffer state of Iraq. President Biden was not able to rejoin the 2015 détente with Iran prior to the inauguration of the new president, Ebrahim Raisi, who is a hawk and whose confrontational policies will lead to an escalation of Middle Eastern geopolitical risk in the short term – and, if no US-Iran deal is reached, over the long term. Iran recognizes the US’s war-weariness, as demonstrated by withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan. It was also exposed to economic sanctions after the US’s 2018-19 abrogation of the 2015 nuclear deal – it cannot trust the US to hold to a deal across administrations. Still, both the US and Iran face substantial strategic forces pressuring them to conclude a deal. The US needs to pivot to Asia while Iran needs to improve its economy and reduce social unrest prior to its looming leadership succession. But the time frame for negotiation is uncertain. Any failure to agree would revive the risk of a major war that would keep the US entangled in the region. Thus the pivot to Asia could be disrupted again, with major consequences for global politics, not because of Afghanistan but because of a failure to cut a deal with Iran. If the US succeeds in reducing its commitments to the Middle East and South Asia, the window of opportunity that China and Russia have enjoyed since 2001 will close. They will face a United States that has greater room for maneuver on a global scale. This is a threat to their own spheres of influence. But neither Beijing nor Moscow has an interest in a nuclear-armed Iran, so a US-Iran deal is still possible. Unless and until the US and Iran normalize relations, the Middle East is exposed to heightened geopolitical risk and hence oil supply risk. Global oil spare capacity is sufficient to swallow small disturbances but not major risks to stability, such as in Iraq or the Strait of Hormuz. Investment Takeaways Chart 7Near-Term US-Iran Risks Help Oil...Long-Term US-China Risks Help Dollar Back in 2001, the combination of American war spending, and conflict in the Middle East, combined with China’s massive economic opening after joining the WTO, led to a falling US dollar and an oil bull market. Today the US’s massive budget deficits and current account deficits present a structural headwind to the US dollar. Yet the greenback has remained resilient this year. While the pandemic will fade as long as vaccines continue to be effective, China’s potential growth is slowing even as it faces an unprecedented confrontation with the US and its allies. Until the US and Iran normalize relations, geopolitics will tend to threaten Middle Eastern oil supply and put upward pressure on oil prices. However, if the US manages the pivot to Asia, China will face more resolute opposition in its sphere of influence, which will tend to strengthen the dollar. The dollar and oil still tend to move in opposite directions. These geopolitical trends will be influential in determining which direction prevails (Chart 7). Thus geopolitics poses an upward risk to oil prices for now.     Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Please see Crawford, Neta, "United States Budgetary Costs and Obligations of Post 9/11 Wars Through FY 2020: $6.4 trillion", Watson Institute, Brown University.