Asset Allocation

Special Report

Highlights We update our assumptions for the likely 10-15 year return for a wide range of different asset classes. Our methodology is basically unchanged from our last Return Assumptions report published in 2019, though we have refined our analysis and use of data in some areas. Returns over the next decade will be very low compared to history. We project that a standard global portfolio (50% equities, 30% bonds, and 20% alternatives) will return only 3.0% a year in nominal terms. That compares to a historic return of 6.3%. There are still some assets that will produce better returns, most notably small caps (4.9% a year in the US) and alternatives (6.2% for private equity, for example). But they also carry higher risk. Spreadsheets are available with detailed data. Introduction This is the third edition of our work on return assumptions. Since publishing the previous reports in November 2017 and June 2019, we have had many opportunities to discuss our methodologies with clients and in the Global Asset Allocation course at the BCA Academy. This has allowed us to test and, in many cases, refine our approach. We believe the methodologies we use have stood the test of time. We have always emphasized that this sort of capital markets assumptions (CMA) analysis is an art, not a precise science. We continue to prefer to project returns over a somewhat undefined 10-15 year period, since this allows us to think about the underlying trend of likely returns. Many other CMA papers use five (or even three) year time horizons which, in our view, are problematical since they rely heavily on a forecast of the timing, length, and severity of the next recession. Our approach is based on the concept that the return on the risk-free long-term government bond is the cornerstone to projecting asset returns, and that this return is rather predictable: It is approximately the current yield. Most other asset returns can be built up from that – the return on high-yield bonds, for example, by assuming that their historic spread over government bonds, and default and recovery rates will continue in the future. For equities, we continue to use six different methodologies, which are based on a mixture of valuation and projected earnings growth. This approach – that assumed returns can be built up from a combination of current yield plus forecast future growth in capital values – also works for most alternative asset classes, for example real estate. We have made a few minor changes to our methodology in this edition. We have, for example, made our use of historical data (for spreads, profit margins, growth relative to GDP, etc.) more consistent, using the 20-year average where possible. The biggest change this time is that clients can download here a spreadsheet with all the data in this report in order, for example, to use the data as inputs into their own optimizers. In addition, we have set up our detailed spreadsheet to allow clients to see the underlying inputs, the formulae behind our methodologies, and to input their own assumptions. This will also allow us to update the results of our analysis as often as needed. Please let us know here if you would like more details about this additional service. This Special Report is structured as follows. First, we analyze the overall results: What is the probable return from each asset class over the next 10-15 years, and how do these differ from historical returns. Next, we describe in detail the methodologies we use, for (1) economic growth, (2) fixed-income instruments, (3) equities, and (4) 12 different alternative asset classes. Then, we describe our way of forecasting currency returns, and show the return assumptions in different base currencies. Finally, we update the numbers for volatility and correlations, which many investors need as inputs into optimization programs. The summary of our results is shown in Table 1. The results are all average annual nominal total returns, in local currency terms (except for global indexes, which are in US dollars). The data is updated to end-April 2021 (except for some alternative asset classes where only quarterly data is available). Table 1BCA Assumed Returns Overall Results Returns over the coming decade are likely to be very disappointing compared to history. Our assumptions suggest a typical global portfolio, consisting of 50% large-cap equities, 30% bonds, and 20% alternatives, will produce an annual nominal return of only 3.0%, compared to an average of 6.3% over the past 20 years. A US-only portfolio with a similar composition is likely to produce only a 3.1% return, compared to 7% in history. The reason is simple: Valuations currently are very stretched in almost every asset class. The risk-free rate (the 10-year government bond yield) in the US is 1.6% (compared to a 20-year average of 3.1%). It is negative in the euro area (in nominal terms) and zero in Japan. These rates are the anchor for the returns of all other asset classes, which are theoretically priced off the risk-free rate plus a risk premium. We have long argued that valuations are not a good timing tool for investors. An asset can remain very expensive or very cheap for a considerable period. But all the evidence shows that the valuation at the starting point is a very powerful indicator of long-run returns. The yield on government bonds, for example, has a strong correlation with their 10-year return (Chart 1). In the equity market, the Shiller PE has historically had little correlation with the return over one or two years, but has a 90% correlation with the return over the subsequent 10 years (Chart 2). Chart 1Starting Yield Determines Bond Returns Chart 2Valuation Drive Long-Run Equtiy Returns     With valuations in equity markets now expensive relative to history (for example, forward PE for US stocks of 22x compared to a 20-year average of 16x, and 18x in the euro zone compared to 13x), investors should expect that equity market returns will be low relative to history. Our assumptions point to a 2.6% annual return from US stocks, 2.3% from the euro zone, and 1.6% from Japan (compared to 8.5%, 3.9%, and 3.5% over the past 20 years). Our assumptions are significantly lower than when we last published our analysis in 2019; then we projected 5.6% for US stocks, 4.7% for the euro zone, and 6.2% for Japan. The difference is that equity multiples have risen and risk-free rates have fallen significantly since then. So what should investors do? They have only two choices: Lower their return assumptions, or increase their weightings in riskier asset classes. Chart 3Hard To See How US Pension Funds Will Achieve Their Targets The average US public pension fund (Chart 3) still assumes a return of 7% a year, and private pension funds’ assumption is not much lower. And yet corporate pension funds have been pushed by their consultants in recent years to increase their weighting in bonds, to more closely match their liabilities (Chart 4). It is almost mathematically impossible to achieve their targets with that sort of portfolio. In other countries, such as Australia or Canada, pension funds’ return targets are typically inflation or cash plus 3-4 percentage points. But even those targets are challenging.   Chart 4...Especially With Over 50% In Bonds There are asset classes which will produce higher returns. For example, we project a return of 4.9% from US small-cap stocks – and 9.7% from UK small caps. US high-yield bonds should produce a return of 3.2% a year (even after defaults) and Emerging Markets local currency sovereign debt 2.7% (in USD terms) – not exactly exciting, but at least a pick-up over other fixed-income securities. The projected returns from illiquid alternative assets continue to look relatively attractive. An equal-weighted portfolio of the 12 alternatives we cover is projected to return 5.7% a year, not much lower than the forecast of 6.1% from our 2019 report (and compared to an average of 7.1% of the past 20 years). There are some alt assets where returns have started to trend down: Private equity, for instance, is projected to return 6.2% a year, compared to 11.1% in history, and hedge funds 4.5%, compared to 5.9%. But the illiquidity premium should not disappear completely, even if the move of alternative investments to become more mainstream has reduced it to a degree. So adding more risky assets to a portfolio is an answer, at least for those investors with a long enough time-horizon that allows them to bear the inevitable big drawdowns that come with having a more volatile portfolio. And, unfortunately, lower returns mean that the incremental return gained for each unit of risk taken has declined compared to the past 10 or 20 years (Chart 5) – the efficient frontier has flattened significantly. Chart 5You Need To Take More Risk To Produce Return How We Came Up With The Assumptions GDP Growth Several of our methodologies use assumptions (for example, in equity methods (2) and (3), based on projections of earnings growth, real-estate capital-value growth, and commodities prices) which require estimates of nominal GDP growth in each country and region. To make these forecasts, we assume that nominal GDP growth can be decomposed into: (1) growth of the working-age population, (2) productivity growth, and (3) inflation. This ignores capital intensity, but it has been relatively stable over history and is difficult to forecast. Table 2 shows the assumptions we use, and our forecasts for real and nominal GDP in each country and region. Table 2Calculations Of Trend GDP Growth For population growth we use the United Nations’ median forecast of annual growth in the population aged 25-54 between 2020 and 2040. This ranges from -1% in Japan to +1% in Emerging Markets – although note that the range of forecast population growth in EM varies widely from 1.2% in India to -1.1% in Korea (and in China, too, is negative at -0.7%). This estimate is reasonably reliable, although it does miss some possible factors, such as changes in the female participation rate, hours worked, and changing openness to immigration. Productivity is much harder to forecast. Over the past 10 to 20 years, productivity growth has trended down in most countries (Charts 6A & B). We take a slightly more optimistic view, assuming that productivity growth over the next 10-15 years will equal the 20-year average. We base this on the belief that part of the decline in productivity since the Global Financial Crisis is due to cyclical reasons which are now dissipating, and also to expectations that new technologies coming through (artificial intelligence, big data, automation, robotics etc) will boost productivity in the coming years. Others take a more pessimistic view. The Congressional Budget Office’s forecast of trend real US GDP growth in 2022-2031 of 1.8%, for example, is lower than our estimate of 2.2% mainly because of its more cautious estimate of productivity growth. Chart 6AProductivity Growth (I) Chart 6BProductivity Growth (II)   To derive nominal GDP growth, we assume that inflation over the next 10 years will be on average the same as over the past 20 years, for example 2% in the US, 1.6% in the euro area, 0.1% in Japan, and 3.9% in Emerging Markets (using a weighted average of EM by equity market cap). This estimate, too, has a high degree of uncertainty. One could imagine a scenario whereby inflation picks up significantly over the next decade due to excessively easy monetary policy, overly generous fiscal spending, growth in protectionism, rising labor pressure for wage increases, and the effects of a rising dependency ratio (the ratio of non-working people, especially retirees, to total population).1 But another scenario of continued “secular stagnation” and disinflation, caused by automation-driven job losses and a chronic lack of aggregate demand, is also conceivable. We think our middle-path forecast is the most sensible one to use in projecting likely asset returns, but investors might also want to plan based on these alternative scenarios too. Note that for Emerging Markets, we continue to show two different scenarios, which vary according to different projections of productivity growth. EM productivity growth has been declining steadily since around 2010, and in all major emerging economies, not just China. Our first scenario assumes that this decline ends and that, as in our assumption for developed economies, productivity growth reverts to the 20-year average. The more pessimistic (and, in our view, more likely) scenario assumes that the deterioration in productivity continues and that in 10 years’ time, EM productivity is the same as the average of developed economies. Which scenario will be correct depends on whether emerging economies, not least China, are able to implement structural reforms over the next decade, for example liberalizing the labor market, allowing a greater role for the private sector, improving corporate governance, and institutionalizing more orthodox fiscal and particularly monetary policy. Fixed Income Our anchor for calculating assumed returns is the return on long-term risk-free assets, specifically the 10-year government bond in the strongest countries. It is a reasonable assumption that an investor who buys, for example, a 10-year Treasury bond today and holds it for 10 years will make 1.6% a year in nominal US dollar terms. While this is not perfectly mathematically correct (since it ignores reinvested interest payments, for instance), empirically the return on government bonds has been very closely linked to the yield at the start-point in history (see Chart 1). From this starting-point in each country, we can easily build up the return for other fixed-income assets. These assumptions and the results are shown in Table 3. Table 3Fixed-Income Return Calculations Government bonds in most countries have an average duration of less than 10 years. Over the past five years, in the US it has averaged 6.4 years, and in the euro area 8.0 years. Only in the UK is the average over 10 years: 12.4 years to be precise. To calculate the return from the government bond index for each country we therefore assume that the shape of the yield curve (using the spread between 7-year and 10-year bonds) in future will be the same as the historic 20-year average. Cash. We assume that over the next 10 years the yield on cash will gradually revert to an equilibrium level. We calculate a market-implied real long-term neutral rate from the 10-year historical average of 5-year/5-year OIS implied forwards deflated by the 5-year/5-year implied CPI swap rate. This is a change from the methodology we used in 2019, when we based this off the neutral rate, r*, as calculated by the Holston Laubach-Williams model. But the New York Fed has temporarily stopped updating its calculation of this due to pandemic-induced volatility in the data, and anyway it was not available for every country. We turn the real cash rate into a total nominal return using our assumption for inflation described in detail in the GDP section above, the 20-year historical average of CPI. For inflation-linked securities, such as TIPS, we take the average yield over the past 10 years (a 20-year average was not available in many markets) and add the assumption for inflation described above. Corporate credit. We assume that spreads, and default and recovery rates, while highly volatile over the cycle, remain stable in the long run (Chart 7). We use 20-year averages for these, except that data for investment-grade default rates in Japan, the UK, Canada, and Australia are not available and so we use the average of the US and the euro zone. High-yield default rates are not available for the UK either, and so we do the same. Other bonds. For government-related debt (which is a big part of some bond indexes, 28% in the US for example) we assume that the 20-year historical average of the option-adjusted spread over government bonds will apply in the future too. We use the same methodology for securitized debt (for example, mortgage- and asset-based bonds): The 20-year average spread over the return on government bonds. Emerging Market debt. The assumptions and results for the three categories of EM debt (US dollar sovereign debt, US dollar corporate debt, and local currency sovereign debt) are shown in Table 4. We here assume that the 20-year average historical spread will continue in future. Default and recovery rates are a little harder to calculate, due to a lack of data. For USD sovereign debt (where defaults are rare and so hard to project), we use the rating-based default rate, calculated by Aswath Damodaran of NYU Stern School of Business.2 For USD-denominated EM corporate debt, we use the historical average, calculated by Moody's 2.5%.3 For local-currency debt, we use the same rating-based default rate as for USD sovereign debt. To translate the return into hard currency, we assume that currencies will move in line with the inflation differential between Emerging Markets and the US. For EM inflation we use an average of the IMF’s inflation forecasts for the nine largest emerging markets weighted by their weights in the J.P. Morgan GBI-EM Global Diversified local government bond index, and compare this to our US inflation forecast. This produces an EM inflation forecast of 2.9% a year, compared to 2.2% for the US, thus lowering the USD-based return from local EM debt by 0.7 percentage point. (See a more detailed discussion of forecasting long-term EM currency changes in the Currency section below). Index returns. Table 3 also shows the assumed return for the Bloomberg Barclays bond index for each country and for the global bond index, based on a weighted average of our assumption for each fixed-income asset class and country. Chart 7ACredit Spreads & Default Rates (I) Chart 7BCredit Spreads & Default Rates (II)   Table 4Emerging Market Debt   Equities The assumptions and detailed results for seven different equity markets are shown in Table 5. We have not made any substantial changes to our methodology for equities. We continue to use the average of six different methods to calculate the probable equity returns over the next 10-15 years. These are: Equity Risk Premium (ERP). The return from equities equals the yield on government bonds (we use 10-year bonds) plus an equity risk premium. For the US, we use an equity risk premium of 3.5%. This is based on work by Dimson, Marsh and Staunton4 showing that this is approximately the average excess return of equities over bonds in developed economies since 1900. We scale the equity risk premium for other countries using their average beta to the US market over the past 10 years. This varies from 0.66 for Japan (giving an ERP of 2.3%) and 1.2 in the euro area (ERP is 4.2%). Growth model. Here we assume that the return from equities equals the current dividend yield plus dividend growth. We need to adjust the dividend yield, however, to take into account that in some countries, particularly the US, it is more tax efficient for companies to do buybacks than to pay out dividends. We do this by adding equity withdrawals to the dividend yield. But this needs to be done on a net basis (taking into account equity issuance). We calculate this using the average annual change in the index divisor over the past 10 years. For the US, this is -0.8%, meaning there are more buybacks than new share issues. But in all other regions, the number is positive, and as high as 5.9% a year for Emerging Markets. This dilution is something that many calculations of assumed equity returns miss. For dividend growth, we assume that the dividend payout ratio remains stable, and that earnings growth is correlated with nominal GDP growth. However, history shows that earnings grow more slowly than GDP (logically so, when you consider that companies usually grow fastest before they list on a stock exchange). So we deduct 1% from nominal GDP growth to derive our earnings growth assumption. Note that for Emerging Markets, we use two different measures of dividend growth, depending on future productivity growth, as detailed above in our explanation of the GDP projections. Growth model (with reversion to mean). To take into account that valuations and profit margins typically revert to mean over the long run, we adjust the standard growth model (No. 2 above) by assuming that the current 12-month forward PE ratio and forward net profit margin for each country gradually revert over the next 10 years to their 20-year average. In the US, for example, that would mean that the current 12-month forward PE of 22.5x falls back to 16.0x, and profit margin of 12.5% falls to 10.7%. In every country and region, the profit margin is currently above the long-run average, and in all except the UK the PE is too. Note that we have changed from using the trailing PE and margin, because to use these now would be misleading given the big pandemic-driven decline in profits in 2020. Earnings yield. An intrinsically intuitive (and empirically demonstrable) way of estimating future returns is to use the earnings yield. This is based on the idea that an investor’s return from owning a stock comes either from the company paying a dividend, or from it investing retained earnings and paying a dividend in future. In the US, for example, a forward PE of 22.5x translates into an earnings yield of 4.4%. Again, here we switched this time to using 12-month forward forecast earnings yield, rather the trailing. Shiller PE. There is a strong correlation between valuation at the starting-point and the subsequent return from equities, at least over the long-run, although not over a period of less than 3-5 years (Chart 2). We regressed the Shiller PE (current price divided by average real earnings over the past 10 years) against the return from equities over the subsequent 10 years for each country and region. Composite valuation metric. The Shiller PE has its detractors. Using a fixed 10-year period does not reflect the different lengths of recessions and bull markets. It may say more about the mean-reverting nature of earnings than about whether the current price level is too high. So we also use the BCA Compositive Valuation Metric, which comprises eight indicators including, besides standard valuation measures such as price/sales and price/book, more esoteric ones such as market cap/GDP and Tobin’s Q. Again, we regress the metric against the subsequent 10-year return. Table 5Equity Return Calculations Alternative Assets Real Estate & REITs. We use the same basic methodology for both: The current yield (cap rate or dividend yield) plus projected capital value appreciation (linked to GDP growth). For US direct real estate, for example, we use the simple average cap rate of the five categories of commercial real estate (CRE), apartments, office, retail, industrial, and hotels in major cities: 6.1%. We also use the simple average of available city and category data for other countries. Cap rates are notoriously hard to estimate precisely; our data include a range of real estate, not just prime locations. We assume that capital values will grow in line with nominal GDP growth (using the same assumptions for this as we used for equities, 4.2%). We then deduct 0.5% for maintenance. This produces an expected return of 9.8% for the US. The only difference for REITs is that we do not deduct maintenance since this should already be reflected in the dividend yield. US REITs have a dividend yield currently of 3.5%, which produces an assumed return of 7.7% (Table 6). One risk with this methodology is that in the post-pandemic world, work and life practices might change. This will hurt office and residential real estate in major cities (which are overrepresented in investible CRE), though smaller cities and rural areas might benefit. As a result, capital values might fall. Table 6Alternatives Return Calculations Farmland & Timberland. Our methodology is similar to that for real estate: Current yield plus projected growth in capital values. For farmland, we use the farmland renter yield, sourced from the US Department of Agriculture. To estimate future land values, we take the gap between land value growth over the past 40 years (3.7%) and nominal growth of world GDP over that time (5.2%), assume that gap will continue and so deduct it from our estimate of global nominal GDP growth going forward (3.6%). This gives a result of 6.5%. For timberland, we assume that annualized returns in the future are the same as over the past 20 years. This produces a return assumption of 5.7%, which is (logically) moderately lower than our assumed return for farmland. Private Equity & Venture Capital. We project the return for private equity (PE) using the 30-year time-weighted average of the three-year rolling annualized return of PE over US large-cap equities, 3.6% (Chart 8). This produces an assumed return of 6.2%. For venture capital (VC), we use the same historical average for VC over PE (0.4%) to arrive at an assumed return of 6.6%. Hedge Funds. We use the 20-year time-weighted return of the Hedge Fund Composite Index over cash, 3.5% (Chart 9). This projects a future annual nominal return of 4.5%. Commodities. We previously used a methodology based on the idea that commodities’ bear markets in history have been rather fairly consistent, lasting on average 17 years, with an average decline of 50%, and that the current bear market began in 2012 (Chart 10). However, there are arguments that a new “commodities super-cycle” may be starting, driven by government infrastructure spending, and investment in alternative energy.5 We are agnostic for now on whether that will be the case, but it makes sense to switch to a neutral methodology, more in line with what we use for other assets classes: The return from commodities relative to GDP over the long run. Specifically, the CRB Raw Industrials Index has risen by an annualized 1.6% since 1951, during which time US nominal GDP growth averaged 6% (Chart 11). We assume that the differential will continue in future (although we calculate growth using global, not US, GDP), giving an annual return from commodities over the next 10-15 years of -0.9%. Gold. We calculate this using a regression of the gold price against nominal GDP growth and the annual change in the real 10-year yield over the past 40 years. For the forward-looking return assumption, we use a forecast of real rates (based on the equilibrium cash rate plus the average historical spread between the 10-year yield and cash) and a forecast of global nominal GDP growth. This produces an assumed return of 3.8%. Structured products. This asset class consists mainly of mortgage-backed and other asset-backed securitized instruments. In the US, these have historically returned 0.6% over US Treasurys. We assume that this premium continues, producing a total future return of 1.1% a year. Chart 8Private Equity Premium Chart 9Hedge Fund Return Over Cash     Chart 10Commodity Prices In History Chart 11Commodity Prices Vs. GDP Growth     Currencies Chart 12Currencies Tend To Revert To PPP To translate our local currency returns into an investor’s base currency, we need to arrive at some projections for FX movements over the next decade. Fortunately, for developed market currencies at least, it is relatively straightforward to use purchasing power parities (PPP) to do this since, over the long run, all the major currencies have tended to revert to PPP (Chart 12). We assume that in 10 years’ time all currencies will trade at PPP. We use the IMF’s estimate of today’s PPP for each currency to calculate the current under- or over-valuation. We assume that PPP will change in future years according to the relative inflation between each country and the US. The IMF provides five-year inflation forecasts and we assume that inflation will continue at this rate until 2031. For the euro zone, we calculate the PPP of the euro using the GDP-weighted PPPs of the five largest economies. The results (Table 7) suggest that the US dollar is currently overvalued and, given the forecast of higher inflation in the US than elsewhere in the future, will depreciate significantly against all major currencies except the Australian dollar. The USD is projected to depreciate by 1.7% a year against the euro and 1.1% against the yen over the next 10 years. It is likely to appreciate by 1.3% a year against the AUD, however. Table 7Currency Return Calculations Emerging Markets (Table 8) are more complicated. There is no evidence that EM currencies move towards PPP over time. All the major EM currencies are currently very cheap versus PPP (varying from 34% undervalued for the Chinese yuan to 67% for the Indonesian rupiah) but they were 10 years ago, too, and have not significantly moved towards PPP over that time. Table 8EM Currencies To calculate likely EM currency moves against the USD, therefore, we carry out a regression of the nine largest EM currencies against their relative CPI inflation rate to US inflation in history. We assume an intercept of zero. The regression coefficients vary from +0.5 for China to -1.7 for Malaysia. Apart from China, Malaysia, Poland and South Africa, the coefficients were negative, meaning that historically the USD has strengthened against the EM currency at least partly in line with relative inflation. To calculate likely future currency movements, we use the IMF’s five-year inflation forecasts and assume that the same rate of inflation will continue for our whole projection period. This methodology points to moderate annual depreciation of most EM currencies against the USD, varying from 0.8% a year for the Russian ruble to 0.1% for the Indonesia rupiah. The Chinese yuan and Taiwanese dollar are projected to appreciate moderately. We calculate the average EM currency movement using the weights of these nine large economies in the EM J.P. Morgan GBI-EM Global Diversified local-currency sovereign bond index. This produces a small (0.1%) a year appreciation. However, the IMF’s EM inflation forecasts may be too optimistic. It forecasts, for example, that Brazilian inflation will be only 3.3% a year in future, compared to an average of 6.1% over the past 20 years, and Russian inflation 4.0% versus a historical average of 9.3%. This suggests that EM currency performance could be worse than our projections. Table 9 shows the returns for the major asset classes expressed in local currency terms for six base currencies, based on the calculations explained above. Table 9Returns In Different Base Currencies Correlation And Volatility Below, in Table 10, we provide correlations for clients who need these inputs for their optimization calculations. Table 10Long-Run Correlation Matrix Returns can be calculated using the sort of forward-looking methodologies we have described above. For volatility, we think it is reasonable to use historical average data (Table 1, far right column), since volatility does not tend to trend over the long run (Chart 13). But correlation is a different matter. Correlations have varied significantly in history due to structural changes or regime shifts. The correlation of equities to bonds, it is well known, has moved from positive in the 1980s and 1990s, to negative since 2000 – probably because inflation disappeared as a factor moving bond prices (Chart 14). The correlation between equity market has risen as a result of the globalization of investment flows, though note that it fell back in 2010-2019. Chart 13Volatility Is Fairly Stable In The Long Run Chart 14Correlations Are Not Stable   So what correlations should investors use in an optimizer? Our recommendation would be to use the longest period of history available. A US investor, for example, might take the average correlation between Treasury bonds and large-cap US equities since 1945, 0.1%. Table 10 shows the correlation since 1973 of all the major asset classes for which data is available. Unfortunately, this misses some important asset classes such as high-yield bonds and Emerging Market equities, whose history does not go back that far. The results are intuitive – and prudent. From these numbers, it would seem sensible to use an assumption of a small positive correlation between US Treasurys and US equities, for example. US investment-grade debt has a correlation of 0.4 against equities. Global equity markets are all fairly highly correlated to each other, ranging mostly from 0.4 to 0.7. The most non-correlated asset class is commodities, especially gold.   Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com   Amr Hanafy, Senior Analyst Global Asset Allocation amrh@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 These are themes that BCA Research has been writing about for several years. See, for example, please see Global Investment Strategy, "1970s-Style Inflation: Could It Happen Again? (Part 1)," dated August 10, 2018; and " 1970s-Style Inflation: Could It Happen Again? (Part 2)," dated August 24, 2018. 2 Please see http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/datafile/ctryprem.html 3 Annual Emerging Markets Default Study: Coronavirus Will Push Up Default Rates https://www.moodys.com/researchdocumentcontentpage.aspx?docid=PBC_1214906 4 Please see, for example, https://www.credit-suisse.com/media/assets/corporate/docs/about-us/research/publications/credit-suisse-global-investment-returns-yearbook-2021-summary-edition.pdf. 5 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy, "Industrial Commodities Super-Cycle Or Bull Market?", dated March 4, 2021.

Special Report

Highlights The selloff in crypto-currencies on May 19 may be overblown but the risk of government intervention is a rising headwind for this asset class. While environmental concerns are a threat to Bitcoin, the entire crypto-currency complex faces a looming confrontation over governance. Digital currencies are a natural evolution of money following coinage and paper. Moreover a sizable body of consumers is skeptical of governments and traditional banking. Loose monetary conditions are fueling a speculative mania. However, governments fought for centuries to gain a monopoly over money. As crypto-currencies become more popular, governments will step in to regulate and restrict them. Central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) threaten to remove the speed and transactional advantage of crypto-currencies, leaving privacy/anonymity as their main use-case. Feature The prefix “crypto” derives from the Greek kruptos or “hidden.” This etymology highlights one of the biggest problems confronting the crypto-currency craze in financial markets today. Speed and anonymity are the greatest assets of the digital tokens. But the former advantage is being eroded by competitors while the latter is becoming a political liability. In the 2020s, governments are growing stronger and more interventionist, not weaker and more laissez faire. Chart 1Loose Money Fuels Crypto Mania Bitcoin and rival crypto-currency Ethereum fell by 29.5% and 43.2% in intra-day trading on May 19, only to finish the day down by 13.8% and 27.2%, respectively. The market panicked on news that China’s central bank had banned firms from handling transactions in crypto-currencies. What really happened was that China’s National Internet Finance Association, China Banking Association, and Payment and Clearing Association issued a statement merely reiterating a 2013 and 2017 policy that already banned firms from handling transactions in crypto-currencies. These three institutions also warned about financial speculation regarding crypto-currencies.1 The crypto market suffered a spike in volatility because it is in the midst of a speculative mania. In the last five years, total market capitalization of crypto-currencies has risen from around $7 billion to $2.3 trillion,2 recording a 34,000% gain. Some crypto-currencies have even recorded returns in excess of that number over a shorter horizon. Price gains have been driven by retail buyers who may or may not know much about this new asset class (Chart 1). Prior to the May 19 selloff, prices had grown overextended and recent concerns over the environment, sustainability, and governance (ESG) had shaken confidence in Bitcoin and its peers. Chinese authorities have already banned financial firms from providing crypto services in a bid to deter ownership of crypto-currencies. And China is not alone. The latest market jitters are a warning sign that government interference in the crypto-currency market is a real threat. Regulation and sovereign-issued digital currencies are starting to enter the fray. While ultra-dovish central bank policies are not changing soon, and therefore crypto-currency price bubbles can continue to grow, crypto-currencies will remain subject to extreme volatility and precipitous crashes. In this report we argue that the fundamental problem with crypto-currencies is that they threaten the economic sovereignty of nation-states. Environmental degradation, financial instability, and black market crime, and other concerns about cryptos have varying degrees of merit. But they provide governments with ample motivation to pursue a much deeper interest in regulating a technological innovation that has the power to undermine state influence over the economy and society. Government scrutiny is a legitimate reason for crypto buyers to turn sellers. Does The World Need Crypto-Currencies? Broadly speaking, there are two primary justifications for crypto-currencies, centered on a transactional basis: speed and privacy/anonymity. The crux of crypto-currency creation rests on these two use cases.3 The speed of crypto-currencies comes from their ability to increase efficiency in local and global payment systems by facilitating financial transactions without the need of a third party (e.g. a financial institution). Cross-border settlement of traditional (fiat) currency transactions processed through the standard SWIFT communications system takes up to two business days. Most transactions involving crypto-currencies over a blockchain network are realized in less than an hour, cross-border or not.4 The fees involved with third-party payments are often more expensive than transacting with crypto-currencies. Simply put, excluding the “middleman” can save money. This is a selling point in a global market that expects to see retail cross-border transactions reach $3.5 trillion by the end of 2021, of which up to 5% are associated with transaction-based fees.5 But this breakthrough in payment system technology can be overstated and is not the main reason for using crypto-currency. Speculation drives current use, especially given that there is speculative behavior even among those who believe that cryptos are safe-haven assets or promising long-term investments (Chart 2). Chart 2Crypto-Currency Use Driven By Speculation Chart 3Consumers Growing Skeptical Of Banking Regulation If a person wants to buy an item from a company in a distant country, that person could use a crypto-currency just as he or she could use a credit card. Both parties would have a secure medium of exchange but, unlike with a credit card, both would avoid using fiat currencies. Neither party could conduct the same transaction using gold or silver. The crucial premise is the existence of an online community of individuals and firms who for one reason or another want to avoid fiat currencies. From a descriptive point of view, the crypto-currency phenomenon implies a lack of trust in modern governments, or at least their monetary systems, and an assertion of individual property rights. The list of crypto-currencies continues to grow. To date, there are approximately 9,800 of them. Some are trying to prove their economic value or use, while others have been created with no intended purpose or problem to solve. Even so, there has yet to be a crypto-currency that overwhelms the use of slower fiat money. In a recent Special Report, BCA Research’s Foreign Exchange Strategist Chester Ntonifor showed that crypto-currencies still have a long way to go to have a chance at replacing fiat monies. While crypto-currencies are showing signs of significant improvement as mediums of exchange, they still fall short as stores of value and units of account. The other primary case for crypto-currencies is privacy or anonymity. The bypassing of intermediaries implies a greater control of funds by the two parties of a transaction. Crypto-currencies are said to be more “private” compared to fiat money. Fiat money is controlled by governments and banks while crypto-currencies have only “owners.” Crypto-currencies are anonymous because they are stored in digital wallets with alphanumeric sequences – there is a limited personal data trail that follows crypto-currency compared to those of electronic fiat currency transactions. In a post-9/11, post-GFC, post-COVID world where a sizable body of consumers is growing more skeptical of government surveillance and regulation and banking industry practices (Chart 3), crypto-currencies give users more than just a means to transact with. However, privacy is not the same as security. Hacking and fraud can affect cryptos as well as other forms of money and attacks will increase with the value of the currencies. Bitcoin At The Helm Of Crypto-Currency Market Chart 4Bitcoin Slows Bitcoin has cemented its status as the number one currency in the crypto-verse.6 It is considered to be the first crypto-currency created, it is the most widely accepted, it is touted as a store of value or “digital gold,” and it is the most featured in quoting alternative crypto-currency pairs across crypto exchanges. As it stands, Bitcoin accounts for around 42% of total crypto-currency market capitalization.7 This share has declined from around 65% at the start of 2021 on the back of the frenzied rise of several alternative coins.8 But rising risks to Bitcoin’s standing will cause the entire crypto-market to retreat. In a Special Report penned in February, BCA Research’s Chief Global Strategist Peter Berezin argued that Bitcoin is more of a trend than a solution and that its usefulness is diminishing. Bitcoin’s transaction speed is slowing and its transaction cost is rising (Chart 4). Slowing speed and rising cost on the Bitcoin network are linked to a scalability problem. The crypto-currency’s network has a limited rate at which it can process transactions related to the fact that records (or “blocks”) in the Bitcoin blockchain are limited in size and frequency. This means that one of its fundamental justifications, transactional speed, will become less attractive over time, should the network not address these issues. Bitcoin also consumes a significant amount of energy, a controversy that is gaining traction in the crypto-currency market after Elon Musk, the “techno-king” of Tesla, cited environmental concerns in reversing his decision to accept Bitcoin payment for his company’s electric vehicles. Energy consumption rises as more coins are mined, since mining each new Bitcoin becomes more computer-power intensive. The need for computing power and energy will continue to increase until all 21 million Bitcoins (total supply) are mined, which is currently estimated to occur by the year 2140. Strikingly, the energy needed to mine Bitcoin over a year are comparable to a small country’s annual power consumption, such as Sweden or Argentina (Chart 5). Chart 5Bitcoin Consumes More Energy Than A Small Country … Bitcoin also generates significant quantities of electronic waste (Chart 6). Chart 6… And Generates A Lot Of Electronic Waste Bitcoin mining is heavily domiciled in China, which accounts for 65% of global mining activity (Figure 1). China’s energy mix is dominated by coal power, which makes up approximately 65% of the country’s total energy mix even after a decade of aggressive state-led efforts to reduce coal reliance. Of this, coal powered energy makes up approximately 60% of Bitcoin’s energy mix in China.9 With several countries aiming to minimize carbon emissions, and with approximately 60% of Bitcoin mining powered by coal-fired energy globally,10 Bitcoin imposes a major negative environmental impact. Figure 1Bitcoin Mining Well Anchored In Asia Bitcoin does not shape up well when compared to gold’s energy intensity either. Bitcoin mining now consumes more energy than gold mining over a single year. While the energy difference is not large, the economic value is. Gold’s energy consumption to economic value trade-off is lower than that of Bitcoin. The production value of gold in 2020 was close to $200 billion, while Bitcoin was measured at less than $25 billion (Chart 7A). On a one-to-one basis, gold even has a lower carbon footprint than Bitcoin (Chart 7B). Chart 7AGold Outshines Bitcoin On Production Value And Carbon Footprint Chart 7BGold Outshines Bitcoin On Production Value And Carbon Footprint Crypto-currency energy consumption and carbon footprint will attract the attention of government regulators. Of course, not all crypto-currencies are heavy polluters. But if the supply of cryptos is constrained by mining difficulties then they will require a lot of energy. If the supply is not constrained then the price will be low. Government Regulation Is Coming Environmental concerns point to the single greatest threat to crypto-currencies – the Leviathan, i.e. the state. In this sense the crypto market’s wild fluctuations on May 19, at the mere whiff of tougher Chinese regulation, are a sign of what is to come. Governments around the world have so far left crypto-currencies largely unregulated but this laissez-faire attitude is already changing. Environmental regulation has already been mentioned. Governments will also be eager to expand their regulatory powers to “protect” consumers, businesses, and banks from extreme volatility in crypto markets. But investors will underrate the regulatory threat if they focus on these issues. At the most basic level, governments around the world will not sit idly by and lose what could become significant control of their monetary systems. The ability to establish and control legal tender is a critical part of economic sovereignty. Governments won control of the printing press over centuries and will not cede that control lightly. If crypto-currencies are adopted widely, then finance ministries and central banks will lose their ability to manipulate the money supply and the general level of prices effectively. Politicians will lose the ability to stimulate the economy or keep inflation in check. Most importantly, while one may view such threats as overblown, it is governments, not other organizations, that will make the critical judgment on whether crypto-currencies threaten their sovereignty. Throughout the world, most crypto-currency exchanges are regulated to prevent money laundering. Crypto-currencies are not legal tender and, aside from Bitcoin, their use is mostly banned in China (Table 1). However, more specialized regulation that targets energy and economic use has yet to be brought into law across the world. Table 1World Governments Will Not Relinquish Hard-Fought Monopolies Over Money Supply In China, initial coin offerings (ICOs – the equivalent of an initial public offering on the stock market) and trading platforms are banned from engaging in exchanges between the yuan and crypto-currencies or tokens. In fact, China recognizes crypto-currencies only as virtual commodities or virtual property. India is another country where exchanges and ICOs are banned. While crypto-currencies are not banned, they are not legal tender. Indian policymakers have recently proposed banning crypto-currencies, however. The proposed legislation is one of the world’s strictest policies against crypto-currencies. It would criminalize possession, issuance, mining, trading, and transferring crypto-assets. If the ban becomes law, India would be the first major economy to make holding crypto-currency illegal. Even China, which has banned mining and trading, does not penalize possession. In the US, Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen has already expressed concerns regarding the illicit use of cryptos for supposed criminal gain.11 She is in alignment with European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde. Because of the anonymity of crypto-currencies, identifying users behind illicit transactions is difficult. This means regulators face headwinds in identifying transactions that are made for criminal gain, as compared to fiat transactions. Governments have long dealt with the anonymity of cash but they have ways of monitoring bank accounts and paper bills. Crypto-currencies are beyond their immediate sight of control and therefore will attract growing scrutiny and legislative action in this regard. The Colonial Pipeline ransomware attack on May 7, which temporarily shuttered about 45% of the fuel supply line for the eastern United States, illustrates the point. The DarkSide group of hackers who orchestrated the attack demanded a ransom payment of $4.4 million worth of Bitcoin, which Colonial Pipeline paid them on May 7. Shortly thereafter, unspecified “law enforcement agencies” clawed back the $4.4 million from the hackers’ account (transferring it to an unknown address) and DarkSide lost access to its payment server, DOS servers, and blog. This episode should not be underrated. It was a successful, large-scale cyber-attack on critical infrastructure in the world’s most powerful country. It highlighted the illicit uses to which crypto-currencies can be put. True, criminals demand ransoms in fiat money as well – and many crypto-currency operators will distance themselves from the criminal underworld. Nevertheless governments will give little slack to an emerging technology that presents big new law enforcement challenges and is not widely used by the general public. Ultimately governments will pursue their sovereign interests in controlling money, the economy, and trade, listening to their banking lobby, expanding their remit to “protect” consumers, and cracking down on illicit activity. Governments are not capable of abolishing crypto-currencies altogether, or the underlying technology of blockchain. But they will play a large and growing role in regulating them. Central Banks Advancing On Digital Currencies Central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) will leave crypto-currencies in the realm of speculative assets. CBDCs are a form of digital money denominated in a country’s national unit of account and represent a liability on a central bank’s balance sheet. This is different from current e-money that represents a claim on a private financial institution’s balance sheet. It is also different from crypto-currencies, because there is a central authority behind a CBDC, unlike with crypto-currencies due to their decentralized nature. In China, the People’s Bank of China (PBoC) has suggested its rollout of a digital yuan is “ready” despite no release to date. Beta testing is ongoing in several provinces. The PBoC’s justification for a digital yuan comes from China’s growing cashless economy. The transition away from cash is largely thanks to mobile payment platforms like Alibaba’s Alipay and Tencent’s WeChat Pay, which, between the two of them, control almost the entire mobile payments market of some 850 million users. There is a significant amount of systemic risk in this system – one reason why Chinese authorities have recently subjected these companies to new scrutiny and regulation. Should Alibaba or Tencent go bankrupt, the local payment system will crash. The PBoC’s efforts will increase competition in the local payments space and reduce this systemic risk. Policymakers are also concerned that as Chinese citizens choose to hold their money in digital wallets provided by Alibaba and Tencent instead of bank accounts, liquidity is being drained from the traditional banking system, putting deposit levels at banks under strain, and posing risks to liability matching. The digital yuan will still involve a third party, unlike crypto-currencies which do not. Doing away with commercial banks is not a reality – indeed the Chinese Communist Party seeks to buttress the state-owned commercial banks in order to maintain control of the economy. What the digital yuan does, and other CBDCs will do too, is utilize blockchain technology, which is faster and more secure than traditional payment networks. In the US, the Fed has been studying the viability of a CBDC US dollar. The Fed has stated that it is carefully exploring whether a CBDC will lead to “safer, less expensive, faster, or otherwise more efficient payments.” While the Fed has yet to find a single standout case for a CBDC US Dollar, Fed Chair Jerome Powell said last year that the US has a “competitive payments market” with “fast and cheap services, particularly in comparison to other nations exploring a CBDC.” To date, the Fed’s observation is that many of the challenges that CBDCs hope to address do not apply to the US, including disuse of physical cash, narrow reach or high concentration of banking, and weak infrastructure for payment systems. Rather, the Fed is more focused on developing the FedNow real-time payment system for private banks. This is much the same as in Europe, where physical cash still plays a major role in day-to-day economic activity and where local payment systems are fast and secure. But central banks around the world continue to engage in work centered around CBDCs (Charts 8A and 8B) – and China’s progress will encourage others to move faster. Advanced economies are mostly interested in creating a safer and more efficient payment system, while emerging and developed economies have interest across several areas such as financial stability, monetary policy setting, and inclusiveness of banking, as well as efficiency and safety (Chart 9). CBDCs are especially attractive to emerging market policy makers at targeting those who lack access to traditional banking. Chart 8ACentral Banks Advancing On CBDC Work Chart 8BCentral Banks Advancing On CBDC Work Chart 9Central Banks CBDC Interest Areas In remote areas, access to banking is scarce and expensive. CBDCs can help solve this problem. Individuals would have CBDC accounts directly on a central bank ledger. They could then access their money and transact through a digital wallet application that is linked to the CBDC account. Giving people access to digital currency would allow them to transact quickly, in remote settings, without the need of hard currency. Monetary policy transmission is also better in advanced economies. In emerging markets, there are bottlenecks in local financial markets. Looser central monetary policy does not always translate into cheaper financing across the economy. In remote and poverty stricken areas, monetary policy transmission is sticky, meaning high costs of borrowing can persist even through accommodative policy cycles. This is a smaller issue in advanced economies. Payment systems in advanced economies are due an overhaul in security and efficiency, and CBDCs and blockchain technology will provide this. CBDCs will prove to be just as efficient to transact with as any crypto-currencies available today. CBDCs will also be legal tender and accepted by all vendors. The anonymity factor will be lost but this will not be a problem for most users (whereas legal issues will become a problem for crypto-currencies). The probability of central banks issuing CBDCs in both the short and medium term, both in the retail and wholesale space, is rising. If advanced economies like those of the G7 issue CBDCs soon, policy makers will undoubtedly ensure the use of it over the currently circulating and partially accepted crypto-currencies. The endgame will leave crypto-currencies in the highly speculative asset class, perhaps even in the black market where anonymity is valued for transactions that wish not to be tracked. Investment Takeaways Prices of crypto-currencies may continue to rise given sky-high fiat money creation amid the COVID pandemic and ultra-low interest rates. Digitalization is the natural next step in the evolution of money from precious metals to paper banknotes to electronic coin. But the market leader, Bitcoin, is encountering more headwinds. The primary case for the use of Bitcoin is challenged due to slowing transaction speeds and rising transaction costs. The virtual currency is primarily mined using coal-powered energy, resulting in growing scrutiny from governments and consumers. Government regulation is entering the ring and policymakers will take an increasingly heavy-handed role in trying to ensure that cryptos do not undermine economic sovereignty, financial stability, and law and order. When central banks begin to rollout digital currencies, especially those domiciled in advanced economies, crypto-currencies as medium of exchange will lose much of their allure. Crypto-currencies will remain as anti-fiat currencies and speculative assets. Risks To The View Given the controversy surrounding crypto-currencies, it is only fair to state outright the risks to our view. We would also recommend clients read our colleague Dhaval Joshi’s latest bullish take on Bitcoin. First, scaling up Bitcoin’s network and processing transactions in batches instead of single transactions will resolve transaction time and cost risks, restoring efficiency. This is a clear solution to efficiency concerns. However, scaling and batching transactions are not on the immediate horizon of Bitcoin developers. Bitcoin’s network will still need to undergo another “halving” in order for this risk to subside and for the network to scale. A halving of the network will only occur again in 2024.12 Second, on the environment: Bitcoin mining is not solely dependent on fossil fuel energy that gives it a “dirty” footprint. Renewables already make up some 25% of Bitcoin mining. Increasing the use of renewables in Bitcoin’s energy mix will help lower its environmental impact. However, this is easier said than done. Global renewable energy has yet to scale up to a point where it can consistently out-supply existing fossil-fuel energy. Mining hardware also has its associated carbon footprint that would need to be addressed. And location matters too. Crypto-currency mining farms are large-scale projects. Simply uprooting operations to a country that could lower the carbon footprint of a mining farm or two is not viable due to the costs involved. Hence crypto-currency mining will probably continue to be a “dirty” operation but a rapid shift to renewables would challenge our thesis. Bitcoin’s network is also based off a “proof of work” protocol. Miners must prove that a certain amount of computational effort has been expended for confirming blocks on the network, allowing transactions to be processed. Proof of work is energy intensive. Other crypto-currencies, like Ethereum, will adopt a “proof of stake” protocol. Simply put, transactions are confirmed by users and their stake in the associated crypto-currency. Proof of stake is less energy intensive compared to proof of work. Third, as to government regulation, the longer policymakers take to enact legislation targeting crypto-currencies, the larger their market will grow. Regulation in China and India may set a benchmark for major economies but not all will follow in the Asian giants’ footsteps. Some governments have been slow to study crypto-currencies, meaning legislation aimed at governing or regulating them may still be long in coming. Innovation is a good thing and free economies will not wish to restrain crypto-currencies or blockchain technology unduly, for fear of missing out. Fourth, on CBDCs, some central banks may only adopt them based on their respective economic needs. However, rising crypto-currency populism drives associated economic risks which can force the hands of central banks to adopt CBDCs in lieu of said needs. Each country faces unique challenges. Some central banks may not want to be left behind even if they believe their policy framework is facilitating economic activity efficiently. While the Fed has stated that it will not adopt a CBDC for the primary reason of ensuring payment security since it believes it already has a safe system in place, this view will change. The Fed could justify a move to a CBDC US dollar on the single basis of transitioning to a more sophisticated technology for the future. The Fed will not want to be caught behind the curve considering the PBoC is priming its digital yuan for release soon. Technological leadership is a strategic imperative of the United States and that imperative applies to financial technology as well as other areas.   Guy Russell Research Analyst GuyR@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Muyao Shen, “China Reiterates Crypto Bans From 2013 and 2017”, coindesk, May 18, 2021, coindesk.com. 2 As of May 11, 2021. 3 There are several other reasons or “problems” that crypto-currencies are created for or to solve, but speed and privacy form the basis of crypto-currencies first coming into existence. 4 Not all crypto-currencies transact in less than an hour. But there are many that transact in several minutes and in some cases, mere seconds. As the leading crypto-currency, Bitcoin takes approximately one hour for a transaction to be fully verified over its network. 5 “McKinsey’s Global Banking Annual Review”, McKinsey, Dec. 9, 2020, mckinsey.com. 6 We use Bitcoin as an example to understand the risk and impact of forthcoming government regulation and competition. Because of Bitcoin’s status, any significant risks that threaten the crypto-currency’s standing as the number one currency will threaten the entire market. 7 As of May 20, 2021. Figure varies daily. See www.coinmarketcap.com for more information. 8 Alternative currencies such as Ethereum, Ripple, Binance Coin, Dogecoin, and Cardano have chipped away at Bitcoin’s crypto-market dominance through 2021. 9 According to The Center For Alternative Finance, The University Of Cambridge. 10 According to The Center For Alternative Finance, The University Of Cambridge. 11 Data on the use of crypto-currencies for illicit activitiessays otherwise. Of all crypto-currency transactions, it is estimated that only 2.1% are used for illicit activities. See “2021 Crypto Crime Report”, Chainalysis, chainalysis.com. 12 A Bitcoin halving is when the reward for mining Bitcoin transactions is cut in half. This event also cuts Bitcoin's inflation rate and the rate at which new Bitcoins enter circulation, in half. Bitcoin last halved on May 11, 2020.

Highlights Global oil markets will remain balanced this year with OPEC 2.0's production-management strategy geared toward maintaining the level of supply just below demand.  This will keep inventories on a downward trajectory, despite short-term upticks due to COVID-19-induced demand hits in EM economies and marginal supply additions from Iran and Libya over the near term. Our 2021 oil demand growth is lower – ~ 5.3mm b/d y/y, down ~ 800k from last month's estimate – given persistent weakness in realized consumption.  We have lifted our demand expectation for 2022 and 2023, however, expecting wider global vaccine distribution and increased travel toward year-end. The next few months are critical for OPEC 2.0: The trajectory for EM demand recovery will remain uncertain until vaccines are more widely distributed, and supply from Iran and Libya likely will increase this year.  This will lead to a slight bump in inventories this year, incentivizing KSA and Russia to maintain the status quo on the supply side. We are raising our 2021 Brent forecast back to $63/bbl from $60/bbl, and lifting our 2022 and 2023 forecasts to $75 and $78/bbl, respectively, given our expectation for a wider global recovery (Chart of the Week). Feature A number of evolving fundamental factors on both sides of the oil market – i.e., lingering uncertainty over the return of Iranian and Libyan exports and the strength of the global demand recovery – will test what we believe to be OPEC 2.0's production-management strategy in the next few months. Briefly, our maintained hypothesis views OPEC 2.0 as the dominant supplier in the global oil market. This is due to the low-cost production of its core members (i.e., those states able to attract capital and grow production), and its overwhelming advantage in spare capacity, which we reckon will average in excess of 7mm b/d this year, owing to the massive production cuts undertaken to drain inventories during the COVID-19 pandemic. Formidable storage assets globally – positioned in or near refining centers – and well-developed transportation infrastructures also support this position. We estimate core OPEC 2.0 production will average 26.58mm b/d this year and 29.43mm b/d in 2022 (Chart 2). Chart of the WeekBrent Prices Likely Correct Then Move Higher in 2022-23 Chart 2OPEC 2.0 Will Maintain Status Quo The putative leaders of the OPEC 2.0 coalition – the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia – have distinctly different goals. KSA's preference is for higher prices – ~ $70-$75/bbl (basis Brent) to the end of 2022. Higher prices are needed to fund the Kingdom's diversification away from oil. Russia's goal is to keep prices closer to the marginal cost of the US shale-oil producers, who we characterize as the exemplar of the price-taking cohort outside OPEC 2.0, which produces whatever the market allows. This range is ~ $50-$55/bbl. The sweet spot that accommodates these divergent goals is on either side of $65/bbl for this year. OPEC 2.0 June 1 Meeting Will Maintain Status Quo With Brent trading close to $70/bbl, discussions in the run-up to OPEC 2.0's June 1 meeting likely are focused on the necessity to increase the 2.1mm b/d being returned to the market over the May-July period. At present, we do not believe this will be necessary: Iran likely will be returning to the market beginning in 3Q21, and will top up its production from ~ 2.4mm b/d in April to ~ 3.85mm b/d by year-end, in our estimation. Any volumes returned to the market by core OPEC 2.0 in excess of what's already been agreed going into the June 1 meeting likely will come out of storage on an as-needed basis. Libya will likely lift its current production of ~ 1.3mm b/d close to 1.5mm b/d by year end as well. We are expecting the price-taking cohort ex-OPEC 2.0 to increase production from 53.78mm b/d in April to 53.86mm b/d in December, led by a 860k b/d increase in US output, which will take average Lower 48 output in the US (ex-GOM) to 9.15mm b/d by the end of this year (Chart 3). When we model shale output, our expectation is driven by the level of prompt WTI prices and the shape of the forward curve. The backwardation in the WTI forward curve will limit hedged revenues at the margin, which will limit the volume growth of the marginal producer. We expect global production to slowly increase next year, and the year after that, with supply averaging 101.07mm b/d in 2022 and 103mm b/d in 2023.  Chart 3US Crude Output Recovers, Then Tapers in 2023 Demand Should Lift, But Uncertainties Persist We expect the slowdown in realized DM demand to reverse in 2H21, and for oil demand to continue to recover in 2H21 as the US and EU re-open and travel picks up. This can be seen in our expectation for DM demand, which we proxy with OECD oil consumption (Chart 4). EM demand – proxied by non-OECD oil consumption – is expected to revive over 2022-23 as vaccine distribution globally picks up. As a result, demand growth shifts to EM, while DM levels off. China's refinery throughput in April came within 100k b/d of the record 14.2mm b/d posted in November 2020 (Chart 5). The marginal draw in April stockpiles could also signify that as crude prices have risen higher, the world’s largest oil importer may have hit the brakes on bringing oil in. In the chart, oil stored or drawn is calculated as the difference between what is imported and produced with what is processed in refineries. With refinery maintenance in high gear until the end of this month, we expect product-stock draws to remain strong on the back of domestic and export demand. This will draw inventories while maintenance continues. Chart 4EM Demand Will Recovery Accelerates in 2022-23 Chart 8China Refinery Runs Remain Strong COVID-19-induced demand destruction remains a persistent risk, particularly in India, Brazil and Japan. This is visible in the continued shortfall in realized demand vs our expectation so far this year. We lowered our 2021 oil demand growth estimate to ~ 5.3mm b/d y/y, which is down ~ 800k from last month's estimate, given persistent weakness in realized consumption. Our demand forecast for 2022 and 2023 is higher, however, based on our expectation for stronger GDP growth in EM economies, following the DM's outperformance this year, on the back of wider global vaccine distribution year-end (Table 1). Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) Our supply-demand estimates continue to point to a balanced market this year and into 2022-23 (Chart 6). Given our expectation OPEC 2.0's production-management strategy will remain effective, we expect inventories to continue to draw (Chart 7). Chart 6Markets Remained Balanced Chart 7Inventories Continue To Draw CAPEX Cuts Bite In 2023 In 2023, we are expecting Brent to end the year closer to $80/bbl than not, which will put prices outside the current range we believe OPEC 2.0 is managing its production around (Chart 8). We have noted in the past continued weakness in capex over the 2015-2022 period threatens to leave the global market exposed to higher prices (Chart 9). Over time, a reluctance to invest in oil and gas exploration and production prices in 2024 and beyond could begin to take off as demand – which does not have to grow more than 1% p.a. – continues to expand and supply remains flat or declines. Chart 8By 2023 Brent Trades to /bbl Chart 9Low Capex Likely Results In Higher Prices After 2023 Bottom Line: We are raising our 2021 forecast back to an average of $63/bbl, and our forecasts for 2022 and 2023 to $75 and $78/bbl. We expect DM demand to lead the recovery this year, and for EM to take over next year, and resume its role as the growth engine for oil demand. Longer term, parsimonious capex allocations likely result in tighter supply meeting slowly growing demand. At present, markets appear to be placing a large bet on the buildout of renewable electricity generation and electric vehicles (EVs). If this does not occur along the trajectory of rapid expansion apparently being priced by markets – i.e., the demand for oil continues to expand, however slowly – oil prices likely would push through $80/bbl in 2024 and beyond.   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 Colonial Pipeline outage pushed average retail gasoline prices in the US to $3.03/gal earlier this week, according to the EIA. This was the highest level for regular-grade gasoline in the US since 27 October 2014. According to reuters.com, the cyberattack that shut down the 5,500-mile pipeline was the most disruptive on record, shutting down thousands of retail service stations in the US southeast. Millions of barrels of refined products – gasoline, diesel and jet fuel – were unable to flow between the US Gulf and the NY Harbor because of the attack, which was launched 7 May 2021 (Chart 10). While most of the system is up and running, problems with the pipeline's scheduling system earlier this week prevented a return to full operation. Base Metals: Bullish Spot copper prices remained on either side of $4.55/lb (~ $10,000/MT) by mid-week following a dip from the $4.80/lb level (Chart 11). We remain bullish copper, particularly as political risk in Chile rises going into a constitutional convention. According to press reports, the country's constitution will be re-written, a process that likely will pave the way for higher taxes and royalties on copper producers.1 In addition, unions in BHP mines rejected a proposed labor agreement, with close to 100% of members voting to strike. In Peru, a socialist presidential candidate is campaigning on a platform to raise taxes and royalties. Precious Metals: Bullish According to the World Platinum Investment Council, platinum is expected to run a deficit for the third consecutive year in 2021, which will amount to 158k oz, on the back of strong demand. Refined production is projected to increase this year, with South Africa driving this growth as mines return to full operational capacity after COVID-19 related shutdowns. Automotive demand is leading the charge in higher metal consumption, as car makers switch out more expensive palladium for platinum to make autocatalysts in internal-combustion vehicles. Ags/Softs: Neutral Corn prices continued to be better-offered following last week's WASDE report, which contained the department's first look at the 2021-22 crop year. Corn production is expected to be up close to 6% over the 2020-21 crop year, at just under 15 billion bushels. On the week, corn prices are down ~ 15.3%. Chart 10 Chart 11     Footnotes 1     Please see Copper price rises as Chile fuels long-term supply concerns published 18 May 2021 by mining.com. Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2021 Summary of Closed Trades

Special Report

Highlights Cryptocurrencies have a long march ahead to be able to displace fiat currencies. While cryptocurrencies are improving tremendously as a medium of exchange, they lag fiat as a store of value and a unit of account. Contrary to popular belief, fiat money has outperformed anti-fiat assets over time as a store of value. Many central banks will replicate the advantages and success of bitcoin through the issuance of central bank digital currencies (CBDCs). Cryptocurrencies are unlikely to disappear anytime soon and can be wonderful speculative investments. However, conservative investors should stick with gold and silver. Feature Chart I-1Spectacular Returns From Cryptocurrencies The rise in the prices of various cryptocurrencies1 has taken many investors by surprise. $1000 invested in bitcoin at the start of 2012 is worth around $10 million today. If you were lucky enough to get in on the first day of trading, when it was worth a fraction of a cent, your initial $1000 investment will be worth around $60 billion today. Meanwhile, many other cryptocurrencies are also sporting legendary returns, not even replicable in the most obscure corners of the options market (Chart I-1). There is some merit to cryptocurrencies, or more specifically, blockchain technology that is the bedrock of their invention. In this decentralized, peer-to-peer system, the need for an intermediary to validate transactions and arbitrate disputes is eliminated. This can greatly reduce transaction costs, especially when compared to banking/legal fees. The autonomy and anonymity that comes with their use is also a desirable feature. For example, anti-fiat enthusiasts welcome the fact that the creation, distribution, and use of cryptocurrencies is outside the purview of central banks. As this asset class continues to garner popularity and capture the imagination of investors, the implications run the gamut from potential future returns (or losses) to the impact on other asset classes. For currency investors, the key question is whether any of these seemingly attractive features have a sizeable impact on the value and use of other developed market currencies. In short, will cryptocurrencies displace fiat? To answer this question, we have to start from the very basic definition of what money is.  Is Bitcoin Money? The three basic functions of money are a store of value, unit of account and a medium of exchange. On at least two of these three basic functions, bitcoin fails. Bitcoin has been improving as a medium of exchange. The ability to swap fiat currency into bitcoins and back is fairly easy. More importantly, more and more merchants are accepting bitcoin as a form of payment. Globally, the turnover of cryptocurrencies is about $200 billion or roughly 3% of overall foreign exchange turnover. This is higher than daily trading in the Mexican peso, the New Zealand dollar, and the Swedish krona, an impressive feat (Chart I-2). This is also evidenced by the rise in the market capitalization of cryptocurrencies, to around $2 trillion today (Chart I-3). Chart I-2An Improving Medium Of Exchange Chart I-3Gold Versus Cryptocurrencies However, as Peter Berezin, our Chief Global Strategist has pointed out, this does not necessarily trump the use of fiat money.2  The Visa network, for example, handles over 5,000 times more transactions a second than the bitcoin mempool (the pool of unconfirmed transactions). Meanwhile, if one were to take a vacation in exotic places like Manila or Mumbai, what medium of exchange will one hold? Cryptocurrency, gold or the US dollar? Experience tells us you will be much better off holding greenbacks or even gold. Bitcoin is certainly not a store of value. The drawdown in cryptocurrency prices has been around 80% a year or 40%-50% over three months. This is much more volatile than currencies such as the Turkish lira or Argentinian peso, from countries fraught with political instability and economic fragility (Chart I-4). It appears that the lack of central bank oversight is a vice and not a virtue. Stability in a currency allows for confidence in savings, future purchases, and investment decisions. A monetary system based on cryptocurrencies deprives citizens of this basic tenet.   Chart I-4Bitcoin Is A Poor Store Of Value Bitcoin’s inherent volatility also makes it unsuitable as a unit of account. Prices quoted in bitcoin units will need to be revised daily. Although not a parallel comparison, this is reminiscent of hyperinflationary Zimbabwe, where retail store prices were adjusted several times a day to reflect the rapid depreciation in the currency. This is hardly a monetary regime suitable for the developed world, or any other economy for that matter. In a nutshell, cryptocurrencies do not yet satisfy the basic functions of money. Yes, they are portable, divisible, fungible and in limited supply. However, they have yet to gain wider acceptance, and are not a store of value nor a unit of account. As such, they remain speculative investments rather than money. The Demise Of Fiat Is Exaggerated Even if bitcoin is not money, the question remains whether it should be held in currency portfolios as insurance against fiat money debasement. After all, central bank quantitative easing since the global financial crisis has benefited other monetary assets such as gold and silver. Should investors also accumulate cryptocurrencies? The answer will depend on the type of investor. Dedicated currency investors need not worry about bitcoin. As a starting point, the US dollar very much remains the reserve currency today. About 60% of global reserve allocation is in USD. This position has often been challenged over the last few decades but has never been threatened (Chart I-5). This puts cryptocurrencies a long way from the starting line. Chart I-5The US Dollar Remains King It is worth noting that over time, fiat assets have done much better than anti-fiat alternatives. Using Bank of England data from the 19th century, we can see that over time, government bonds did much better than gold, or even stocks and real estate (Chart I-6). The reason is that most currencies provide a yield, while cryptocurrencies and gold do not. Chart I-6Fiat Versus Anti-Fiat Assets Chart I-7The DXY Has Faced Strong Resistance At 100 If one is worried about the path of the US dollar (like us), there are many other established fiat currencies to choose from. Since 2015, global allocation of FX Reserves to US dollars has fallen from almost 66% to around 60% today. The rotation has favored other currencies such as the Japanese yen, Chinese yuan and even gold (Chart I-7). From a longer-term perspective, this will place a durable floor under developed market currencies. Cryptocurrencies Versus Gold The degree to which cryptocurrencies can benefit from a shift away from dollars will depend on whether private investors or central banks drive the outflows. Central banks have a natural imperative to defend fiat currencies, since these are the very tools they use to implement monetary policy. As such, when diversifying out of dollars, their choice is other fiat currencies or gold, the latter having been a monetary standard for centuries. Private investors, some wanting to cut the cord to a centralized monetary system, may chose cryptocurrencies. Since the peak in the DXY index in 2020, both gold and US Treasuries are down significantly, while bitcoin has catapulted to new highs (Chart I-8). This has occurred because of a change in leadership, where the biggest sellers of US Treasuries have not been official concerns, but private investors (Chart I-9). Foreign central banks still dominate the holding of US Treasuries, to the tune of 60% versus 40% for private investors (bottom panel). But the bulk of outflows has been coming from private investors. Chart I-8Bitcoin Thrives When Mainstream Havens Are Rolling Over Chart I-9A Treasury Liquidation From ##br##Private Investors Central banks (the biggest holders of US Treasuries) tend to have stronger hands. This is because central banks are ideological while private investors can be swayed by momentum. For example, China and Russia have a geopolitical imperative to diversify out of dollars. As a result, Russia now has almost 25% of its foreign exchange reserves in gold and China almost 4%. A conservative investor looking to diversify out of fiat currency should naturally choose gold, which is backed by strong buyers. For more speculative investors, a simple rule of thumb could work: Buy cryptocurrencies when they drop 50% and sell when they overtake their previous highs. As we showed in Chart I-3, cryptocurrencies drop at least 40%-50% every year or so, providing ample opportunity to accumulate long positions. It is worth noting that my colleagues have a different approach. Dhaval Joshi, who heads our Counterpoint product, suggests holding cryptocurrencies in inverse proportion to their relative volatility to gold. In other words, given that bitcoin is three times more volatile than gold, your anti-fiat portfolio should have a 25% allocation to cryptocurrencies.3 Peter Berezin, our Chief Global Strategist, will not touch bitcoin. We tend to agree that cryptocurrencies could be a playable mania but would not recommend this asset class for the longer term. Central Bank Digital Currencies   One argument for why cryptocurrencies may not survive over the longer term is that there is a natural limit to how much widespread acceptance they will achieve before central banks start clamping down on them. The first reason will be due to the loss in seigniorage revenue for central banks. Between 2009 and 2019, the US and China generated about $140bn a year in seigniorage revenue (Chart I-10). These are non-negligible sums, which the rapid proliferation of cryptocurrencies threaten. Moreover, as the turnover in cryptocurrencies overtakes global trading in various domestic currencies, many countries are moving to ban bitcoin transactions (Table I-1). Chart I-10Seigniorage Revenue Is Significant Table 1A Rising List Of Cryptocurrency Bans Second, the use of cryptocurrencies can encourage the proliferation of illegal activities. This is a well-known flaw, and something governments will push back against. Meanwhile, many central banks are moving to establish their own digital currencies. Some of these could be based off the same blockchain technology that underpins bitcoin. This will provide many of the advantages of using a cryptocurrency without some of the known pitfalls. Map I-1 highlights that most G10 central banks have a digital currency plan. Map I-1Many Central Banks Are Planning A Digital Currency Some advocates for bitcoin point to its limited supply (21 million coins) as evidence for monetary prudence. Even the gold standard had more flexibility, since gold mining expanded about 2% a year. Yet that still proved to be extremely deflationary. A monetary standard that includes both paper currency and CBDCs provides the flexibility that central bankers need to smooth out economic cycles. A bitcoin-based standard will take us back to the middle ages. Once CDBCs become mainstream, the need for alternative cryptocurrencies will not disappear but fall greatly. This will also happen as the number of cryptocurrencies being created will likely balloon, given the very impressive price rallies in recent years. The IPO of Coinbase, an exchange for trading cryptocurrencies, may have heralded the peak in sentiment. Investment Conclusions The dollar faces many headwinds over the next 12 months. A rebound in global growth that begins to favor non-US economies will benefit pro-cyclical currencies. The Federal Reserve’s liquidity injections have assuaged the dollar shortage that held markets hostage last year. Interest rates are now moving against the dollar. Meanwhile, the greenback is expensive (Chart I-11), with a negative balance of payments backdrop. Chart I-11The US Dollar Is Expensive Chart I-12Hold Precious Metals Our favorite vehicles to play against coming weakness in the dollar have been the Scandinavian currencies, precious metals and commodity currencies. Within the precious metals sphere, we like both gold and silver but are short the gold/silver ratio as a hedged trade with little downside and much upside (Chart I-12). In particular, precious metals benefit from reserve diversification out of US dollars. In this light, cryptocurrencies could have intermittent rallies. However, given the regulatory and structural issues they face, we will not be holders for the long term.   Chester Ntonifor Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 We use bitcoin and cryptocurrencies interchangeably in this text. We do acknowledge that there are various other cryptocurrencies and these are shown in Chart 1. 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Bitcoin: A Solution In Search Of A Problem," dated February 26, 2021. 3 Please see Counterpoint Strategy Special Report, "Why Cryptocurrencies Are Here To Stay And Bitcoin Is Worth $120,000," dated April 8, 2021. Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 March housing starts came in at 1.7 million, versus expectations of 1.6 million. This was a 19.4% month-on-month rise. Building permits were equally strong at 1.8 million for the month of March. The University of Michigan sentiment indicator rose to 86.5 in April from 84.9. The jump in the current conditions component from 93 to 97.2 was noteworthy. Initial jobless claims continue to decline, coming in at 547K for the week of April 17. Existing home sales remained strong at 6 million, even though they fell 3.7% month-on-month. The DXY Index fell by 0.3% this week. Speculators pared back a bit of their bullish positioning on the dollar. The overhang of a risk-off event continues to anchor dollar bulls, but interest rate differentials are now moving against the greenback. Report Links: Arbitrating Between Dollar Bulls And Bears - March 19, 2021 The Dollar Bull Case Will Soon Fade - March 5, 2021 Are Rising Bond Yields Bullish For The Dollar? - February 19, 2021 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 Recent euro area data have been mixed. The trade balance came in at €18.4 billion in February, versus €24.2 billion the previous month. This supported a current account balance of €25.9 billion. Construction output fell 5.8% year-on-year in February. Consumer confidence came in at -8.1 in April, versus -10.8 in March. The euro rose by 0.3% this week. The ECB kept monetary policy on hold this week, leaving the deposit facility rate at -0.5% and the marginal lending facility at 0.25%. This garnered little market reaction. With a few euro area countries under lockdown, this was the correct stance. Covid-19 will continue to dictate the near-term path of policy and the euro, but we remain bullish longer term. Report Links: Relative Growth, The Euro, And The Loonie - April 16, 2021 Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 On Japanese Inflation And The Yen - January 29, 2021 Japanese Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Recent data from Japan have been robust. Exports surged 16.1% year-on-year in March. Imports were also robust at +5.7% year-on-year. This boosted the trade balance to ¥298 billion. Tokyo condominiums for sale are rising 45% year-on-year. Supermarket sales rose 1.3% year-on-year in March. This is a tentative but positive sign of a consumption recovery. The Japanese yen rose 0.6% this week. The yen has been the best performing currency this week, a sign that sentiment was overly bearish and the currency was much oversold. Our intermediate-term indicator remains at bombed-out levels and speculators are still short the yen. This provides further upside for this defensive currency. As a portfolio hedge, we are short EUR/JPY. Report Links: The Dollar Bull Case Will Soon Fade - March 5, 2021 On Japanese Inflation And The Yen - January 29, 2021 The Dollar Conundrum And Protection - November 6, 2020 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 There was an avalanche of positive data from the UK this week. Rightmove house prices came in at 5.1% year on year in April. The labor report was mixed. While the UK lost 73 thousand jobs in February, this was below expectations of a 145 thousand loss. Core CPI came in at 1.1% in March. The RPI index came in at 1.5% year-on-year, in line with expectations. The CBI business optimism survey came in at 38 in April, versus -22 the previous month. Cable rose by 0.4% this week. The UK economy continues to benefit from its strong vaccination campaign. With the prospect of the rest of the world catching up, this trade is now long in the tooth. In short, we are neutral the pound in the short term, but remain bullish longer-term. Report Links: Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 The Dollar Conundrum And Protection - November 6, 2020 Revisiting Our High-Conviction Trades - September 11, 2020 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 There was scant data out of Australia this week. The NAB business confidence index came in at 17 in Q1 versus 14 the prior quarter. The Australian dollar fell by 0.6% against the US dollar this week. The Aussie came out of the Covid-19 crisis as one of the best performing currencies, so some measure of consolidation is to be expected. Our intermediate-term indicator continues to blast downward, while sentiment towards the Aussie remains quite elevated. However, we believe that this will be a healthy consolidation in what could prove to be a multi-year bull market in the Australian dollar. Report Links: The Dollar Bull Case Will Soon Fade - March 5, 2021 Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 Australia: Regime Change For Bond Yields & The Currency? - January 20, 2021 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 There was scant data out of New Zealand this week. CPI came in at 1.5% in Q1, in line with expectations. The Kiwi fell by 0.2% against the US dollar this week. Like Australia, New Zealand has managed the Covid-19 crisis quite well and the new travel bubble between the two countries will help lift economic activity. From a technical perspective however, room for further consolidation in the Kiwi remains. Our intermediate-term indicator continues to drift lower, while speculators are slightly long the cross. In our models, the Kiwi also appears overvalued. We were long AUD/NZD but were stopped out this week for modest profits. We will look to reestablish the trade. Report Links: Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 Currencies And The Value-Versus-Growth Debate - July 10, 2020 Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 The recent data out of Canada has been quite strong. Foreigners continue to flock into Canadian capital markets, to the tune of C$8.5bn in February. Housing starts came in at 335 thousand in March, the highest since the 70s. The Teranet house price index rose 10.8% year-on-year in March. The CPI release for March was better than expected. Headline was at 2.2%, the core median was at 2.1% and the trimmed mean came in at 2.2%. The Canadian dollar rose by 0.3% this week. The Bank of Canada kept rates on hold, but trimmed asset purchases. This follows a very generous budget from the Liberal party earlier this week. The loonie loved the news and Canadian government bonds sold off. We remain bullish CAD/USD on valuation grounds, spillovers from US fiscal stimulus and a constructive oil backdrop.  Report Links: Relative Growth, The Euro, And The Loonie - April 16, 2021 Will The Canadian Recovery Lead Or Lag The Global Cycle? - February 12, 2021 Currencies And The Value-Versus-Growth Debate - July 10, 2020 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 The recent data out of Switzerland has been quite strong. Producer and import prices fell by 0.2% year-on-year in March. This is a tremendous improvement from the previous 1.1% drop. M3 money supply continues to expand at a robust 5.6% clip. Exports rose 4.5% month-on-month in March. Watch exports surged 37% year-on-year. The Swiss franc rose 0.5% this week. The Swiss franc is the second best performing currency this week after the yen. With US interest rates stabilizing, the rationale for CHF carry trades is slowly fading. Our intermediate-term indicator shows the franc at bombed-out levels, and speculators are still short. This provides some margin for further upside. We are long EUR/CHF, but with very tight stops. Report Links: Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 The Dollar Conundrum And Protection - November 6, 2020 On The DXY Breakout, Euro, And Swiss Franc - February 21, 2020 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 There was scant data out of Norway this week. Industrial confidence came in at 8.2 in Q1, versus a prior reading of 3.1. The Norwegian krone was flat against the US dollar this week. Norway is setting the tone in terms of what monetary policy and sovereign wealth management could look like for many countries in the coming years. First, the Norges Bank announced they would be testing digital currency solutions over the coming two years. This is the way forward for central banks. Second, the sovereign wealth fund, the biggest in the world, is using its influence to effect policy changes towards the environment. Should the returns from its investments pay off in the years ahead, this could generate powerful repatriation flows for Norway. We are strategically bullish the NOK. Report Links: Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 Revisiting Our High-Conviction Trades - September 11, 2020 A New Paradigm For Petrocurrencies - April 10, 2020 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 There was no data out of Sweden this week. The Swedish krona rose by 0.2% this week. Swedish 2-year real rates recently punched above US levels, suggesting downward pressure on the krona should soon be abating. Our intermediate-term indicator suggests weakness in the krona is mostly done, while the currency appears cheap in most of our models. The handicap for Sweden is successfully dealing with the pandemic, after having a model that stood apart from what other countries were following. Over the longer-term, we are bullish SEK, just like the NOK, against both the euro and the dollar. Report Links: Revisiting Our High-Conviction Trades - September 11, 2020 Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Where To Next For The US Dollar? - June 7, 2019 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Limit Orders Closed Trades

Special Report

The BCA Research Global Asset Allocation (GAA) Forum will take place online on May 18th. We have put together a great lineup of speakers to discuss issues of importance to CIOs and asset allocators. These include the latest thinking on portfolio construction, factor investing, alternatives, and ESG. Our keynote speaker will be Keith Ambachtsheer, founder of KPA Advisory and author of many books on investment management including "The Future of Pension Management: Integrating Design, Governance and Investing" (2016). His presentation will be followed by a panel discussion of top CIOs including Maxime Aucoin of CDPQ, James Davis of OPTrust, and Catherine Ulozas of the Drexel University Endowment. The event is complimentary for all GAA subscribers, who can see a full agenda and register here. Others can sign up here. We hope you can join us on May 18th for what should be a stimulating and informative day of ideas and discussion. Highlights Investors’ hunt for yield over the past few years led them to view leveraged loans as an attractive investment. Characterized by low volatility and attractive risk-adjusted returns, leveraged loans can add value to a portfolio. Leveraged loans tend to outperform their fixed-rate counterparts (for example, high-yield bonds) in an environment of rising rates and an attractive valuation starting point. Only the former criterion is true currently. Risks do exist, however. The increasing share of covenant-lite issues, and rising leverage in the corporate sector are of particular concern. Over the next 6-to-12 months, we do not expect rates to rise substantially, making the asset class somewhat unappealing in the short term. The longer-term outlook is attractive nevertheless, since rates are likely to rise as inflation picks up over the coming years. Feature In today’s environment of ultra-accommodative monetary policy, including low interest rates, and unattractive valuations for fixed-income risk assets, investors have no option but to look beyond conventional fixed-income instruments and dial up their risk appetite. In this Special Report, we run through the mechanics of the leveraged loan market. We analyze historical risk-return characteristics and compare leveraged loans to other assets. We also assess their performance during periods of financial-market stress as well as periods of rising rates and inflation. Finally, we discuss the risks associated with owning leveraged loans. What Are Leveraged Loans? Leveraged loans are a type of syndicated loan made to sub-investment-grade companies. Generally, these firms are highly indebted, with low credit ratings. A syndicated loan is structured, arranged, and administered by one or several commercial or investment banks.1 The majority of these loans are senior secured loans and are based on a floating rate, mostly LIBOR plus a premium (more than 150-200 bps) to account for their riskiness as well as to attract non-bank institutional investors. The interest rates on these loans adjust at regular intervals to reflect changes in short-term interest rates; this constitutes a benefit for investors worried about rising rates. Definitions vary when it comes to categorizing leveraged loans. Some group them based on the borrower’s riskiness and their credit rating. Others consider leverage metrics such as debt-to-capital and debt-to-EBITDA. Other classifications look at the spread at issuance or the purpose of the fund raising, which can include funding mergers and acquisitions (M&A), leveraged buyouts (LBOs), refinancing existing debt, or general funding. Over the past five years, approximately 50% of US leveraged loans issued were for refinancing purposes (Chart 1, panel 1). Within the three categories, LBO financing is deemed the riskiest, and this is reflected in its higher spread (Chart 1, panel 2). The leveraged-loan market became particularly popular in the mid-1980s as M&A activity was soaring (Chart 2). Chart 1Uses Of Leveraged Loans Chart 2The Boom In Corporate Activity In The 1980s Fueled Leveraged Loan Growth There are two common types of financing facilities:2 Term loans: An agreement to borrow a sum of money that is paid back over a certain payment schedule. These loans are mainly provided by non-bank entities. Revolving facilities: A type of loan that can be repeatedly drawn upon and repaid. These loans are mostly originated and held by banks. Estimates for the size of the leveraged-loan market vary depending on which criteria and definitions are used. The size of the leveraged-loan market, following rapid growth since the beginning of the past decade, is estimated to be over $1.2 trillion as of Q2 2020.3 While this represents only a small portion of overall corporate debt (it is only 15% the size of the corporate bond market), the interconnections between key market participants and the role of banks in the market has caught the attention of several regulators such as US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, debt investors such as Howard Marks, and international institutions such as the Bank For International Settlements (BIS). The focus of their concerns has been on the declining credit standards for leveraged loans – particularly, the increase in issuance of “covenant-lite” (cov-lite) loans, inconsistent definitions of EBITDA in loan agreements, the growth in use of “EBITDA add backs”,4 and the accuracy of leveraged-loan ratings.5 We discuss some of those concerns in the Risks section. Table 1Risky Loans Are Mainly Held By Non-Bank Entities… Over the past several decades, the role of banks in providing capital to the leveraged loan market has shrunk and has been replaced by non-bank lenders such as mutual funds, hedge funds, insurance companies, and asset managers.6 Data by the Shared National Credit (SNC) program7 shows that non-bank entities in the US now hold close to 83% of all non-investment-grade term loans (Table 1). Moreover, estimates by the Bank of England8 (BoE) show that a quarter of the global stock of leveraged loans (which it estimates at close to $3.4 trillion) is held through collateralized loan obligations (CLOs)9 and approximately half is owned by non-bank institutions. In turn, those non-bank institutions hold a significant portion of CLOs – particularly the riskier tranches. This is not to say that banks are not exposed to leveraged loans. But banks predominantly invest in the highest, AAA, tranche of CLOs, and investment-grade loans.10 Riskier-rated loans are held by CLOs, mutual funds, and other lenders such as hedge funds (Chart 3).11 Chart 3…Particularly Those Rated Below BB Historical Risk And Return Chart 4Leveraged Loans' Relative Performance Moves With Interest Rates Since 1997, leveraged loans12 have returned an annualized 4.9%, 25 basis points higher than US Treasurys and approximately 100 and 200 basis points less than US investment-grade and high-yield bonds, respectively. They have underperformed US equities by an annualized 400 basis points over the same period. Declining rates over the past two decades are the most likely reason leveraged loans have underperformed their fixed-rate counterparts. The relative performance of leveraged loans to investment-grade bonds has closely tracked the trajectory of Treasury yields (Chart 4). While the case is not as clear for relative performance against high-yield bonds, the trend is similar. However, on a risk-adjusted return basis, due to reduced volatility, leveraged loans did outperform both equities and high-yield corporate bonds (Table 2). We nevertheless think that volatility is likely understated given the elevated kurtosis. The larger negative skew and excess kurtosis could indicate higher probabilities of large negative returns (Chart 5).   Table 2Historical Risk-Return Characteristics Chart 5Leveraged Loans' Returns Exhibit High Kurtosis And Negative Skewness Why Should Investors Consider Leveraged Loans? Chart 6Rising Rates Support Higher Return From Leveraged Loans... Our US bond strategists have showed that the odds of leveraged loans outperforming fixed-rate high-yield bonds increase when certain criteria are in place – particularly when valuations are tilted in loans’ favor, and Treasury yields are rising.13 Only the latter criterion is true currently. Year-to-date, leveraged loans have returned 2.2%, higher than the -3.2%, -3.4%, 1.6%, and -3.4% from US Treasurys, investment-grade bonds, high-yield bonds, and emerging markets sovereign debt, respectively (Chart 6). During the same period, Treasury yields rose by 65 basis points. We find that periods of rising Treasury yields are associated with increased flows into the asset class (Chart 7). More interestingly, leveraged loans outperform junk bonds when Treasury yields rise faster than what is discounted in the forwards curve over the following 12 months (Chart 8). Chart 7...As Well As Increased Fund Flows Chart 8Leveraged Loans Will Benefit If Interest Rates Rise By More Than What Is Discounted In The Forward Curve     This does not seem to be the case today, however, with the 5-year, 1-year forward about 40 basis points higher than the current 5-year Treasury yield. This is in line with our view that rates are unlikely to rise substantially over the next 6-to-12 months. Inflation, beyond a temporary spike over the next few months, should remain subdued, at least until employment is back to a level which would put upward pressure on wages. This is unlikely before 2023. It is also important to consider the potential trajectory of monetary policy as well as changes in long-term yields. The Fed, through its dot plot, is signaling no increase in the Fed Funds Rate before 2024, but the market is becoming worried about inflationary pressures and pricing in an earlier Fed hike. We believe it unlikely that the Fed will raise rates ahead of what the market expects, unless the labor market returns to “maximum employment” over the next 12 months. The yield on leveraged loans has been lower than on high-yield bonds for most of the period we have data for, except early 2020. Given leveraged loans’ senior position in a firm’s capital structure, it makes sense that their yields are lower. Additionally, the sector composition of the two markets plays a role: Leveraged loans are more exposed to the Technology and Communications sectors and have a limited allocation (averaging 1% over the past seven years) to the Energy sector, unlike high-yield, fixed-rate bonds (where the weight of Energy has averaged 13%) (Chart 9). This was mostly evident when the yield differential collapsed to below -3% during the 2014/2015 oil crash (Chart 10). Chart 9Leveraged Loans’ Sector Weightings Chart 10Loan Spreads Are Not Looking Attractive Chart 11Recent Investor Demand Pushed Up Leveraged Loan Prices The yield differential has, however, been trending upwards since then, and at current prices, upside may be limited. The recent surge in investor demand has pushed down yields on newly issued leveraged loans, moving the average bid price of leveraged loans above its pre-pandemic high (Chart 11). In the next section, we analyze how leveraged loans have behaved during recessions and other periods of financial market stress.   Financial Market Stress Performance In Crises Given the index’s short history, we are able to cover only the past three recessions (the dot-com bubble bust, the Global Financial Crisis (GFC), and the COVID-19 recession). We also look at the 2013 Taper Tantrum and the 2014/2015 oil price shock. In all cases, leveraged loans fell and subsequently recovered along with other fixed-income asset classes. The Taper Tantrum was the most favorable for leveraged loans: 10-year Treasury yields rose by 100 basis points over four months (Chart 12). Table 3 shows that periods of rising rates are a better environment for leveraged loans than those of declining rates. We also looked at a period of Fed tightening and easing cycles – although the timing of easing cycles overlaps with, recessions, dragging down the performance of leveraged loans. We also assess the impact of inflation on leveraged loans using the framework from our Special Report on inflation hedging,14 which decomposed inflation into four quartiles/regimes: Inflation levels below 2.3%, between 2.3% and 3.3%, between 3.3% and 4.9%, and above 4.9%. We add periods of decreasing inflation to our analysis. We note, however, that there was only one period where inflation was over the 4.9% threshold. Chart 12Leveraged Loans Fared Well In Periods Of Credit- And Sector-Specific Distress   Table 3Leveraged Loans’ Performance During Different Rate Cycles… Table 4…And Inflation Regimes During periods in the first and second inflation quartiles, leveraged loans, in absolute terms, had the highest average annualized returns, 8.1% and 10% respectively. This makes sense since in those regimes, policy rates are low and bond yields begin to rise given robust growth. Leveraged loans, however, underperformed fixed-rate bonds during those periods. Inflation above 3.3% represents an environment in which the economy begins to overheat and growth to falter. This regime saw leveraged loans outperform high-yield bonds by an annualized 1.5%. Periods of declining inflation also showed moderately positive annualized returns for leveraged loans (Table 4).   Risks Chart 13Corporate Health Has Worsened... The growth of the leveraged loans market reflects multiple trends but, most importantly, a broad increase in corporate leverage, driven by a decline in interest rates and increasing availability of cheap financing. The debt-to-asset ratio of nonfinancial businesses, a gauge of corporate leverage, is at a 20-year high (Chart 13, panel 1). This raises concerns about the overall health of the corporate sector – particularly firms’ ability to service their debt – since the median interest coverage ratio is near a level last seen during the GFC. This measure is even negative for companies within the 25th percentile, meaning companies in that bucket lack funds to maintain their interest payments (Chart 13, panel 2). Trends in the leveraged loan market paint a similar picture. The share of newly issued loans by the most highly levered firms – those with a debt-to-EBITDA ratio of 6x or higher – has reached new highs, hitting 37% of new loans in Q3 2020 (Chart 14). Chart 14…Even For Leveraged Lending Chart 15Cov-Lite Issuances Make Up Almost 80% Of New Issuances The providers of capital are partly to blame. Even with credit standards deteriorating, firms looking for capital were mostly able to find it. The share of cov-lite structures – loans that lack the protective covenants found in traditional loans – continues to grow and now comprises almost 80% of new issuance (Chart 15). Cov-lite loans typically do not have any maintenance covenants, requirements to maintain certain ratios such as leverage or interest-coverage ratios.15 Instead, they feature incurrence covenants which have to be met only if the issuer wants to take particular actions, such as taking on more debt.16 This loosening of credit terms is mostly a function of increased demand, particularly by CLO buyers and other non-bank institutional investors, in an environment of low yields. Some have even warned that vulnerabilities in the leveraged-loan market could cause disturbance to the overall financial system. Particularly, memories of the GFC and worries about the “originate-to-distribute” model – whereby banks originate loans but retain only a fraction on their balance sheets – have led some observers to suggest this could all lead to a risky expansion of credit, and trigger a new financial crisis. Chart 16Leveraged Loans Have Higher Average Credit Ratings… We do not share this skepticism. Banks’ exposure to leveraged loans is mainly via the highest tranches of CLOs. Banks’ liquidity requirements have increased since the GFC, and therefore contagion should be minimal in the event of problems in the loan market. A recent report by the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) did not find evidence that leveraged lending presented a significant threat to financial stability.17 Additionally, almost all leveraged loans are first lien, they have a senior secured position in the capital structure, higher average credit ratings than high-yield bonds (Chart 16), and lower default rates (Chart 17). Moreover, their five-year average recovery rate of 63% tops the 40% of senior unsecured bonds (Chart 18). Chart 17...Lower Default Rates... Chart 18...And Higher Recovery Rates Than High-Yield Bonds   Conclusion In a period of ultra-low interest rates and stretched valuations for risk assets, leveraged loans have emerged as an interesting asset class for investors. Due to lower volatility, leveraged loans have historically produced higher risk-adjusted returns than fixed-rate high-yield bonds. However, volatility is likely understated given elevated levels of kurtosis. Historically, rising Treasury yields and an attractive valuation starting-point provided a signal for leveraged loans’ outperformance. Only one of those two criteria are currently in place. In the next 6-to-12 months, we do not believe rates will rise substantially, making this asset class somewhat unattractive in the short term. The longer-run outlook for leveraged loans, however, is attractive. As inflation, and therefore rates, rise over the next two-to-three years, a moderate allocation to leveraged loans might be a useful hedge for investors.   Amr Hanafy Senior Analyst amrh@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Please see “LCD Loan Primer – Syndicated Loans: The Market and the Mechanics,” S&P Global Market Intelligence. 2 Please see “Leverage Lending FAQ & Fact Sheet,” SIFMA, February 2019. 3 Please see “Federal Reserve Financial Stability Report,” November 2020. 4 “EBITDA add backs” add back expenses and cost savings to earnings and could inflate the projected capacity of the borrowers to repay their loans. 5 Please see Todd Vermilyea, “Perspectives On Leveraged Lending,” The Loan Syndications and Trading Association 23rd Annual Conference, New York, October 24, 2018. 6 Please see “Global Financial Stability Report: Vulnerabilities in a Maturing Credit Cycle, Chapter 1,” IMF, April 2019. 7 The SNC Program is an interagency program designed to review and assess risk in the largest and most complex credits shared by multiple financial institutions. The SNC Program is governed by an interagency agreement among the three federal bank regulatory agencies - the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FRB), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and the Office Of the Comptroller Of The Currency (OCC). 8 Please see “Financial Stability Report,” Bank of England, August 2020. 9 CLOs are asset-backed securities issued by a special purpose vehicle which acquire a portfolio of leveraged loans. 10 Please see “Turns Out Leveraged Loans Aren’t a Systemic Risk After All,” Bank Policy Institute, February 8, 2020. 11 Please see Seung Jung Lee, Dan Li, Ralf R. Meisenzahl, and Martin J. Sicilian, “The U.S. Syndicated Term Loan Market: Who holds what and when?”, November 25, 2019. 12 For the purpose of this report, we use the S&P/LSTA Leveraged Loan Index, which tracks the market-weighted performance of US dollar-denominated institutional leveraged loan portfolios. 13 Please see US Bond Strategy Report, “The Price Of Safety,” dated January 27, 2015. 14 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, “Investors’ Guide To Inflation Hedging: How To Invest When Inflation Rises,” dated May 22, 2019. 15 Please see Eric Goodison And Margot Wagner, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison Llp, “Covenant-Lite Loans: Overview,” August 2019. 16 Please see Scott Essexx, Alexander Ott, Partners Group, “The Current State Of The Leveraged Loan Market: Are There Echoes Of The 2008 Subprime Market?”, March 2019. 17 Please see “Financial Stability: Agencies Have Not Found Leveraged Lending To Significantly Threaten Stability But Remain Cautious Amid Pandemic,” United States Government Accountability Office, December 2020.

Highlights Stronger global growth in the wake of continued and expected fiscal and monetary stimulus, and progress against COVID-19 are boosting oil demand assumptions by the major data suppliers for this year.  We lifted our 2021 global demand estimate by 640k b/d to 98.25mm b/d, and assume OPEC 2.0 will make the necessary adjustments to keep Brent prices closer to $60/bbl than not, so as not to disrupt a fragile recovery. We are maintaining our 2022 and 2023 Brent forecasts at $65/bbl and $75/bbl. Commodity markets are ignoring the rising odds of armed conflict involving the US, Russia and China and their clients and allies.  Russia has massed troops on Ukraine’s border and warned the US not to interfere.  China has massed warships off the coast of the Philippines, and continues its incursions in Taiwan’s air-defense zone, keeping US forces on alert.  Intentional or accidental engagement would spike oil prices.  Two-way price risk abounds.  In addition to the risk of armed hostilities, faster distribution of vaccines would accelerate recovery and boost prices above our forecasts.  Downside risk of a resurgence in COVID-19-induced lockdowns remains, as rising death and hospitalization rates in Brazil, India and Europe attest (Chart of the Week). Feature Oil-demand estimates – ours included – are reviving in the wake of measurable progress in combating the COVID-19 pandemic in major economies, and an abundance of fiscal and monetary stimulus, particularly out of the US.1 On the back of higher IMF GDP projections, we lifted our 2021 global demand estimate by 640k b/d to 98.25mm b/d in this month’s balances. In our modeling, we assume OPEC 2.0 will make the necessary adjustments to keep Brent prices closer to $60/bbl than not, so as not to disrupt a fragile recovery. In an unusual turn of events, the early stages of the recovery in oil demand will be led by DM markets, which we proxy using OECD oil consumption (Chart 2). Thereafter, EM economies, re-take the growth lead next year and into 2023. Chart of the WeekCOVID-19 Deaths, Hospitalizations Threaten Global Recovery Chart 2DM Demand Surges This Year Absorbing OPEC 2.0 Spare Capacity We continue to model OPEC 2.0, the producer coalition led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia, as the dominant producer in the market. The growth we are expecting this year will absorb a significant share of OPEC 2.0’s spare capacity, most of which – ~ 6mm b/d of the ~ 8mm b/d – is to be found in KSA (Chart 3). The core producers’ spare capacity allows them to meet recovering demand faster than the US shale producers can mobilize rigs and crews and get new supply into gathering lines and on to main lines. We model the US shale producers as a price-taking cohort, who will produce whatever the market allows them to produce. After falling to 9.22mm b/d in 2020, we expect US production to recover to 9.56mm b/d this year, 10.65mm b/d in 2022, and 11.18mm in 2023 (Chart 4). Lower 48 production growth in the US will be led by the shales, which will account for ~ 80% of total US output each year. Chart 3Core OPEC 2.0 Spare Capacity Will Respond First To Higher Demand Chart 4Shale Is The Marginal Barrel In The Price Taking Cohort OPEC 2.0’s dominant position on the supply side allows it to capture economic rents before non-coalition producers, which will remain a disincentive to them until the spare capacity is exhausted. Thereafter, the price-taking cohort likely will fund much of its E+P activities out of retained earnings, given their limited ability to attract capital. Equity investors will continue to demand dividends that can be maintained and grown, or return of capital via share buybacks. This will restrain production growth to those firms that are profitable. We expect the OPEC 2.0 coalition’s production discipline will keep supply levels just below demand so that inventories continue to fall, just as they have done during the COVID-19 pandemic, despite the demand destruction it caused (Chart 5). These modeling assumptions lead us to continue to expect supply and demand will continue to move toward balance into 2023 (Table 1). Chart 5Supply-Demand Balances in 2021 Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) We continue to expect this balancing to induce persistent physical deficits, which will keep inventories falling into 2023 (Chart 6). As inventories are drawn, OPEC 2.0’s dominant-producer position will allow it to will keep the Brent and WTI forward curves backwardated (Chart 7).2 We are maintaining our 2022 and 2023 Brent forecasts at $65/bbl and $75/bbl (Chart 8). Chart 6OPEC 2.0 Policy Continues To Keep Supply Below Demand... Chart 7OECD Inventories Fall to 2023 Chart 8Brent Forecasts Rise As Global Economy Recovers Two-Way Price Risk Abounds Risks to our views abound on the upside and the downside. To the upside, the example of the UK and the US in mobilizing its distribution of vaccines is instructive. Both states got off to a rough start, particularly the US, which did not seem to have a strategy in place as recently as January. After the US kicked its procurement and distribution into high gear its vaccination rates soared and now appear to be on track to deliver a “normal” Fourth of July holiday in the US. The UK has begun its reopening this week. Both states are expected to achieve herd immunity in 3Q21.3 The EU, which mishandled its procurement and distribution likely benefits from lessons learned in the UK and US and achieves herd immunity in 4Q21, according to McKinsey’s research. Any acceleration in this timetable likely would lead to stronger growth and higher oil prices. The next big task for the global community will be making vaccines available to EM economies, particularly those in which the pandemic is accelerating and providing the ideal setting for mutations and the spread of variants that could become difficult to contain. The risk of a resurgence in large-scale COVID-19-induced lockdowns remains, as rising death and hospitalization rates in Brazil, India and Europe attest. Cry Havoc The other big upside risk we see is armed conflict involving the US, Russia, China and their clients and allies. Commodity markets are ignoring these risks at present. Even though they do not rise to the level of war, the odds of kinetic engagement – planes being shot down or ships engaging in battle in the South China Sea – are rising on a daily basis. This is not unexpected, as our colleagues in BCA Research’s Geopolitical Strategy pointed out recently.4 Indeed, our GPS service, led by Matt Gertken, warned the Biden administration would be tested in this manner by Russia and China from the get-go. Russia has massed troops on Ukraine’s border and warned the US not to interfere. China has massed warships off the coast of the Philippines, and continues its incursions in Taiwan’s air-defense zone, keeping US forces on alert. Political dialogue between the US and Russia and the US and China is increasingly vitriolic, with no sign of any leavening in the near future. Intentional or accidental engagement could let slip the dogs of war and spike oil prices briefly. Finally, OPEC 2.0 is going to have to accommodate the “official” return of Iran as a bona fide oil exporter, if, as we expect, it is able to reinstate its nuclear deal – i.e., the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – with Western states, which was abrogated by then-President Donald Trump in 2018. This may prove difficult, given our view that the oil-price collapse of 2014-16 was the result of the Saudis engineering a market-share war to tank prices, in an effort to deny Iran $100+ per-barrel prices that had prevailed between end-2010 and mid-2014. OPEC 2.0, particularly KSA, has not publicly involved itself in the US-Iran negotiations. However, it is worthwhile recalling that following the disastrous market-share war launched in 2014, KSA and the rest of OPEC 2.0 did accommodate Iran’s return to markets post-JCPOA.   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 Brent and WTI prices rallied sharply following the release of the EIA’s Weekly Petroleum Status Report showing a 9.1mm-barrel decline in US crude and product stocks for the week ended 9 April 2021. This was led by a huge draw in commercial crude and distillate inventories (5.9mm barrels and 2.1mm barrels, respectively). These draws came on the back of generally bullish global demand upgrades by the major data services (EIA, IEA and OPEC) over the past week. These assessments were supported by EIA data showing refined-product demand – i.e., “product supplied” – jumped 1.1mm b/d for the week ended 9 April. With vaccine distributions picking up steam, despite setbacks on the Johnson & Johnson jab, the storage draws and improved demand appear to have catalyze the move higher. Continued weakness in the USD also provided a tailwind, as did falling real interest rates in the US. Base Metals: Bullish Nickel prices fell earlier this week, as China’s official Xinhua news agency reported that Chinese Premier, Li Keqiang stressed the need to strengthen raw materials’ market regulation, amidst rising commodities prices, which been pressuring corporate financial performance (Chart 9). This statement came after China’s top economic advisor, Liu He also called for authorities to track commodities prices last week. Nickel prices fell by around $500/ ton earlier this week on this news, and were trading at $16,114.5/MT on the London Metals exchange as of Tuesday’s close. Other base metals were not affected by this news. Precious Metals: Bullish The US dollar and 10-year treasury yields fell after March US inflation data was released earlier this week. US consumer prices rose by the most in nearly nine years. The demand for an inflation hedge, coupled with the falling US dollar and treasury yields, which reduce the opportunity cost of purchasing gold, caused gold prices to rise (Chart 10). This uncertainty, coupled with the increasing inflationary pressures due to the US fiscal stimulus will increase demand for gold. Spot COMEX gold prices were trading at $1,746.20/oz as of Tuesday’s close. Ags/Softs: Neutral The USDA reported ending stocks of corn in the US stood at 1.35 billion bushels, well below market estimates of 1.39 billion and the 1.50 billion-bushel estimate by the Department last month, according to agriculture.com’s tally.  Global corn stocks ended at 283.9mm MT vs a market estimate of 284.5mm MT and a Department estimate of 287.6mm MT.  Chart 9Base Metals Are Being Bullish Chart 10Gold Prices To Rise   Footnotes 1     Please see US-Russia Pipeline Standoff Could Push LNG Prices Higher, which we published on 8 April 2021 re the IMF’s latest forecast for global growth.  Briefly, the Fund raised its growth expectations for this year and next to 6% and 4.4%, respectively, nearly a full percentage-point increase versus its January forecast update for 2021 2     A backwardated forward curve – prompt prices trading in excess of deferred prices – is the market’s way of signaling tightness.  It means refiners of crude oil value crude availability right now over availability a year from now.  This is exactly the same dynamic that drives an investor to pay $1 today for a dollar bill delivered tomorrow than for that same dollar bill delivered a year from now (that might only fetch 98 cents today, e.g.). 3    Please see When will the COVID-19 pandemic end?, published 26 March 2021 by McKinsey & Co. 4    Please see The Arsenal Of Democracy, a prescient analysis published 2 April 2021 by BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy.  The report notes the Biden administration “still faces early stress-tests on China/Taiwan, Russia, Iran, and even North Korea.  Game theory helps explain why financial markets cannot ignore the 60% chance of a crisis in the Taiwan Strait. A full-fledged war is still low-probability, but Taiwan remains the world’s preeminent geopolitical risk.”   Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2021 Summary of Closed Trades

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

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

Highlights Underweighting T-bonds, tech versus the market, growth versus value, new economy versus old economy, and US versus the euro area are all just one massive correlated trade. Get the direction of the T-bond yield right, and you will get the whole correlated trade right. The rise in the 10-year T-bond yield will meet resistance much closer to 2 percent than to 3 percent… …because the level of the yield is already starting to weigh on the stock market, the financial system, and the real economy. Hence, on a 6-month horizon, fade the massive correlated trade. When allocating to stock markets, don’t confuse a ‘stock effect’ for a ‘country effect’. Fractal trade shortlist: European autos and European personal products. The Pareto Principle Of Investment Chart of the WeekCorrelated Trade: Tech And The US One of the guiding principles of investment is that: Investment is complex, but it is not complicated. The words complex and complicated are often used synonymously, but they mean different things. Complex means something that is not fully predictable or analysable. Complicated means something that is made up of many parts. Investment is not complicated because a few parts drive the relative prices of everything. This is also known as the Pareto Principle, or the 20:80 rule. Just 20 percent of the input determines 80 percent of the output.1 Right now, the 20 that is determining the 80 is the bond yield. Higher bond yields are hurting high-flying tech stocks. This is because the ‘net present value’ of cashflows that are weighted deep into the future are highly sensitive to rising yields. Therefore, underweighting T-bonds means underweighting tech versus the market. Which extends to growth versus value, new economy versus old economy, US versus the euro area, and so on. In effect, all these positions have become one massive correlated trade (Chart of the Week, Chart I-2, and Chart I-3). Chart I-2Correlated Trade: T-Bond, And Growth Vs. Value Chart I-3Correlated Trade: Growth Vs. Value, ##br##And Tech Get the direction of the bond yield right and your whole investment strategy will be right. You will be a hero. Get the direction of the bond yield wrong and your whole investment strategy will be wrong. You will be a zero. Get the direction of the bond yield right and your whole investment strategy will be right. The hero/zero decision for investors is: from the current level of 1.7 percent, at what level will the 10-year T-bond yield peak and reverse? If the answer is, say, 3 percent, then the recent direction of this correlated trade has much further to go, and investors should stay on the ride. But if the answer is, say, 2 percent, then this correlated trade does not have much further to go, and it will soon be time to get off. To repeat, investment is not complicated, but it is complex. The evolution of the bond yield is not fully analysable or predictable. Still, our assessment is that the rise in the 10-year T-bond yield will meet resistance much closer to 2 percent than to 3 percent. This is because the level of yields is already starting to weigh on the stock market, the financial system, and the real economy. Specifically: The global stock market rally has stalled since mid-February because high-flying growth stocks have been reined back by rising bond yields. Recent margin calls and liquidations in the hedge fund space presage points of fragility in the financial system. Note, there is never just one cockroach. US mortgage applications for home purchases and building permits for new housebuilding appear to be rolling over (Chart I-4). Admittedly, these are just straws in the wind. But straws in the wind can be the first sign of a brewing storm. Chart I-4Are Higher Bond Yields Starting To Weigh On The Housing Market? On a 6-month horizon, fade the underweighting to bonds, tech versus the market, growth versus value, new economy versus old economy, and US versus the euro area correlated trade. Sectors Still Rule The Stock Market World The evolution of the pandemic, the pace of vaccination roll-outs, and the size of fiscal stimuluses have become polarised by region and country, with clear leaders and laggards. This raises the question: are the regions and countries that are winning against the pandemic the investment winners too? For the major stock markets, the answer is an emphatic no. Compared with the US, the euro area is experiencing an aggressive third wave of infections, is lagging in its vaccination roll-outs, and is unleashing much less fiscal stimulus. Yet euro area equities have not been underperforming US equities. Proving that the outperformance and underperformance of the major stock markets has very little to do with what is going on in the local economy. The outperformance and underperformance of the major stock markets has very little to do with what is going on in the local economy. By far the biggest driver of euro area versus US stock market performance is the euro area’s massive underweighting to tech stocks vis-à-vis the US. Hence, the tech sector’s recent travails have boosted the euro area stock market’s relative performance. Similar types of sector skews explain the relative performance of all the major stock markets (Table I-1). For example, developed markets (DM) versus emerging markets (EM) is nothing more than healthcare versus basic resources (Chart I-5). Table I-1The Sector Fingerprints Of The Major Stock Markets Chart I-5DM Vs. EM Is Nothing More Than Healthcare Vs. Basic Resources Exchange rates can also have a bearing on stock market relative performance – though the main transmission mechanism is not through competitiveness, but through the so-called ‘currency translation effect.’ Specifically, the multinationals that dominate the major stock markets have their cost bases diversified across multiple currencies. Hence, for a euro-listed multinational company, a weaker euro doesn’t boost its competitiveness. But it does boost the translation of its multi-currency profits into euros, the currency of its stock market listing. Thereby, the weaker euro boosts its stock price. Don’t Confuse A ‘Stock Effect’ For A ‘Country Effect’ Many people think that there is also a strong ‘country effect’ in stock market selection. For example, if US tech hardware outperforms euro area tech hardware, then this is clearly not a sector effect. It must be to do with a difference between the US and the euro area, meaning a country effect. The truth is more nuanced. Many sectors are now highly concentrated in one or two dominant stocks. US tech hardware is concentrated in Apple while euro area tech hardware is concentrated in ASML. Hence, if US tech hardware is outperforming euro area tech hardware, it is because Apple is outperforming ASML (Chart I-6). Chart I-6Is US Tech Vs. Euro Area Tech A 'Country Effect' Or A 'Stock Effect'? Likewise, if euro area pharma is outperforming UK pharma, it is because the dominant euro area pharma stock, Sanofi, is outperforming the dominant UK pharma stock, AstraZeneca (Chart I-7). Chart I-7Is Euro Area Pharma Vs. UK Pharma A 'Country Effect' Or A 'Stock Effect'? So, if US tech hardware is outperforming euro area tech hardware, and euro area pharma is outperforming UK pharma, are these ‘country effects’, or are they ‘stock effects’? We would argue that, in truth, they are stock effects. Meaning they have little to do with what is happening in the country of listing, and much more to do with the specifics of the company. For example, if UK pharma is underperforming, it is because AstraZeneca is underperforming. And if AstraZeneca is underperforming, it is more likely to do with the performance of its Covid-19 vaccine than the performance of the UK economy. The problem is that most performance attributions will incorrectly count what are stock effects as country effects. And the more concentrated that sectors become, the more pronounced this error becomes. Yet nowadays, extreme concentration in one or two stocks per sector is the norm rather than the exception. Hence, what appears to be a country effect is, in most cases, a stock effect. What appears to be a country effect is, in most cases, a stock effect. The important lesson is that when allocating to the major stock markets, do not think in terms of regions or countries because the country effect is, in truth, negligible. Think in terms of the sectors and the dominant stocks that you want to own, and the regional and country allocation will resolve itself automatically. On this basis our high-conviction structural position to be overweight DM versus EM simply follows from our high-conviction structural position to be overweight healthcare versus basic resources. In the DM versus EM decision, everything else is largely irrelevant. Candidates For Countertrend Reversals This week’s candidates for countertrend reversal are European autos, and European personal products. The euphoria towards electric vehicles (EVs) has taken European auto stocks to a technically overbought extreme (Chart I-8). Chart I-8European Autos Are Overbought Conversely, the euphoria towards economic reopening plays has taken European personal products stocks to a technically oversold extreme (Chart I-9). Chart I-9European Personal Products Are Oversold Our recommended trade is overweight European personal products versus European autos (Chart I-10), setting a profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 15 percent. Chart I-10Overweight European Personal Products Versus European Autos   Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The exact numbers 20 and 80 are simply indicative of the Pareto Principle rather than set in stone, they could also be 5 and 95, or indeed 5 and 99 as they do not need to sum to 100. Fractal Trading System 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Asset Performance Equity Market Performance Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Euro Area Chart II-2Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Asia Chart II-4Other Developed   Interest Rate Chart II-5Expectations Chart II-6Expectations Chart II_7Expectations Chart II-8Expectations ​​​​

Highlights The Biden administration’s early actions suggest it will be hawkish on China as expected – and the giant Microsoft hack merely confirms the difficulty of reducing strategic tensions. US-China talks are set to resume and piecemeal engagement is possible. However, most of the areas of engagement touted in the media are overrated. Competition will prevail over cooperation. Cybersecurity stocks have corrected, creating an entry point for investors seeking exposure to a secular theme of Great Power conflict in the cyber realm and beyond. Global defense stocks are even more attractive than cyberstocks as a “back to work” trade in the geopolitical context. Continue to build up safe-haven hedges as geopolitical risk remains structurally elevated and underrated by financial markets. Feature The Biden administration passed its first major law, the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, on March 10. This gargantuan infusion of fiscal stimulus accounts for about 2% of global GDP and 9% of US GDP, a tailwind for risky assets when taken with a receding pandemic and normalizing global economy. The US dollar has perked up so far this year on the back of this extraordinary pump-priming and the rapid rollout of COVID-19 vaccines, which have lifted relative growth expectations with the rest of the world. Hence the dollar is rising for fundamentally positive reasons that will benefit global growth rather than choke it off. Our Foreign Exchange Strategist Chester Ntonifor argues that the dollar has 2-3% of additional upside before relapsing under the weight of rising global growth, inflation expectations, commodity prices, and relative equity flows into international markets. We agree with the dollar bear market thesis. But there are two geopolitical risks that investors must monitor: Cyclically, China’s combined monetary and fiscal stimulus is peaking, growth will decelerate, and the central government runs a non-negligible risk of overtightening policy. However, China’s National People’s Congress so far confirms our view that Beijing will not overtighten. Structurally, the US-China cold war is continuing apace under President Biden, as expected. The two sides are engaging in normal diplomacy as appropriate to a new US administration but the Microsoft Exchange hack (see below) underscores the trend of confrontation over cooperation. Chart 1Long JPY / Short KRW As Geopolitical Risk Is Underrated The second point reinforces the first since persistent US pressure on China will discourage it from excessive deleveraging at home. In a world where China is struggling to cap excessive leverage, the US is pursuing “extreme competition” with China (Biden’s words), and yet the US rule of law is intact, global investors will not abandon the US dollar in a general panic and loss of confidence. They will, however, continue to diversify away from the dollar on a cyclical basis given that global growth will accelerate while US policy will remain extremely accommodative. Reinforcing the point, geopolitical frictions are rising even outside the US-China conflict. A temporary drop in risk occurred in the New Year as a result of the rollout of vaccines, the defeat of President Trump, and the resolution of Brexit. But going forward, geopolitical risk will reaccelerate, with various implications that we highlight in this report. While we would not call an early end to the dollar bounce, we will keep in place our tactical long JPY-USD and long CHF-USD hedges. These currencies offer a good hedge in the context of a dollar bear market and structurally high geopolitical risk. If the dollar weakens anew on good news for global growth then the yen and franc will benefit on a relative basis as they are cheap, whereas if geopolitical risk explodes they will benefit as safe havens. We also recommend going long the Japanese yen relative to the South Korean won given the disparity in valuations highlighted by our Emerging Markets team, and the fact that geopolitical tensions center on the US and China (Chart 1). “Our Most Serious Competitor, China” Why are we so sure that geopolitical risk will remain structurally elevated and deliver negative surprises to ebullient equity markets? Our Geopolitical Power Index shows that China’s rise and Russia’s resurgence are disruptive to the US-led global order (Chart 2). If anything this process has accelerated over the COVID-19 crisis. China and Russia have authoritarian control over their societies and are implementing mercantilist and autarkic economic policies. They are carving out spheres of influence in their regions and using asymmetric warfare against the US and its allies. They have also created a de facto alliance in their shared interest in undermining the unity of the West. The US is meanwhile attempting to build an alliance of democracies against them, heightening their insecurities about America’s power and unpredictability (Chart 3). Chart 2Great Power Struggle Continues Massive fiscal and monetary stimulus is positive for economic growth and corporate earnings but it reduces the barriers to geopolitical conflict. Nations can pursue foreign and trade policies in their self-interest with less concern about the blowback from rivals if they are fueled up with artificially stimulated domestic demand. Chart 3Biden: ‘Our Most Serious Competitor, China’ Total trade between the US and China, at 3.2% and 4.7% of GDP respectively in 2018, was not enough to prevent trade war from erupting. Today the cost of trade frictions is even lower. The US has passed 25.4% of GDP in fiscal stimulus so far since January 1, 2020. China’s total fiscal-and-credit impulse has risen by 8.4% of GDP over the same time period. The Biden administration is co-opting Trump’s hawkish foreign and trade policy toward China, judging by its initial statements and actions (Appendix Table 1). Specifically, Biden has issued an executive order on securing domestic supply chains that demonstrates his commitment to the Trumpian goal of diversifying away from China and on-shoring production, or at least offshoring to allied nations. The Democratic Party is also unveiling bipartisan legislation in Congress that attempts to reduce reliance on China.1 These executive decrees are partly spurred on by the global shortage of semiconductors. China, the US, and the US’s allies are all attempting to build alternative semiconductor supply chains that bypass Taiwan, a critical bottleneck in the production of the most advanced computer chips. The Taiwanese say they will coordinate with “like-minded economies” to alleviate shortages, by which they mean fellow democracies. But this exposes Taiwan to greater geopolitical risk insofar as it excludes mainland China from supplies, either due to rationing or American export controls. The surge in semiconductor sales and share prices of semi companies (especially materials and equipment makers) will continue as countries will need a constant supply of ever more advanced chips to feed into the new innovation and technology race, the renewable energy race, and the buildout of 5G networks and beyond (Chart 4). It takes huge investments of time and capital to build alternative fabrication plants and supply lines yet governments are only beginning to put their muscle into it via stimulus packages and industrial policy. Chart 4Semiconductor Supply Shortage Supply shocks have geopolitical consequences. The oil shocks of the 1970s and early 1990s motivated the US to escalate its interventions and involvement in the Middle East. They also motivated the US to invest in stockpiles of critical goods and alternative sources of production so as to reduce dependency (Chart 5). Although semiconductors are not fungible like commodities, and the US has tremendous advantages in semiconductor design and production, nevertheless the bottleneck in Taiwan will take years to alleviate. Hence the US will become more active in supply security at home and more active in alliance-building in Asia Pacific to deter China from taking Taiwan by force or denying regional access to the US and its allies. China faces the same bottleneck, which threatens its technological advance, economic productivity, and ultimately its political stability and international defense. Chart 5ASupply Shortages Motivate Strategic Investments Chart 5BSupply Shortages Motivate Strategic Investments Semiconductor and semi equipment stock prices have gone vertical as highlighted above but one way to envision the surge in global growth and capex for chip makers is to compare these stocks relative to the shares of Big Tech companies in the communication service sector, i.e. those involved in social networking and entertainment, such as Twitter, Facebook, and Netflix. On a relative basis the semi stocks can outperform these interactive media firms which face a combination of negative shocks from rising interest rates, regulation, economic normalization, and ideologically fueled competition (Chart 6). Chart 6Long Chips Versus Big Tech What about the potential for the US and China to enhance cooperation in areas of shared interest? Generally the opportunity for re-engagement is overrated. The Biden administration says there will be engagement where possible. The first high-level talks will occur in Alaska on March 18-19 between Secretary of State Antony Blinken, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, Central Foreign Affairs Commissioner Yang Jiechi, and Foreign Minister Wang Yi. Presidents Biden and Xi Jinping may hold a bilateral summit sometime soon and the old strategic and economic dialogue may resume, enabling cabinet-level officials to explore a range of areas for cooperation independently of high-stakes strategic negotiations. However, a close look at the policy areas targeted for engagement reveals important limitations: Health: There is little room for concrete cooperation on the COVID-19 pandemic given that the pandemic is already receding, the Chinese have not satisfied American demands for data transparency, Chinese officials have fanned theories that the virus originated in the US, and the US is taking measures to move pharmaceutical and health equipment supply chains out of China. Trade: Trade is an area of potential cooperation given that the two countries will continue trading while their economies rebound. The Phase One trade deal remains in place. However, China only made structural concessions on agriculture in this deal so any additional structural changes will have to be the subject of extensive negotiations. Secretary of Treasury Janet Yellen says the US will use the “full array of tools” to ensure compliance and will punish China for abuses of the global trade system. Cybersecurity: On cybersecurity, China greeted the Biden administration by hacking the Microsoft Exchange email system, an even larger event than Russia’s SolarWinds hack last year. Both hacks highlight how cyberspace is a major arena of modern Great Power struggle, making it unlikely that there will be effective cooperation. The hack suggests Beijing remains more concerned about accessing technology while it can than reducing tensions. The Americans will make demands of China at the Alaska meetings. Environment: As for the environment, the US is a net oil exporter while China imports 73% of its oil, 42% of its natural gas and 7.8% of its coal consumption, with 40% and 10% of its oil and gas coming from the Middle East. The US wants to be at the cutting edge of renewable energy technology but it has nowhere near the impetus of China (or Europe), which are diversifying away from fossil fuels for the sake of national security. Moreover China will want its own companies, not American, to meet its renewable needs. This is true even if there is success in reducing barriers for green trade, since the whole point of diversifying from Middle Eastern oil supplies is strategic self-sufficiency. The Americans would have to accept less energy self-sufficiency and greater renewable dependence on China. Nuclear Proliferation: Cooperation can occur here as the Biden administration will seek to return to a deal with the Iranians restraining their nuclear ambitions while maintaining a diplomatic limiting North Korea’s nuclear weapons stockpile and ballistic missile development. China and Russia will accept the US rejoining the 2015 Iranian nuclear deal but they will require significant concessions if they are to join the US in forcing anything more substantial on the Iranians. China may enforce sanctions on North Korea but then it will expect concessions on trade and technology that the Biden administration will not want to give merely for the sake of North Korea. Bottom Line: The Biden administration’s China strategy is taking shape and it is hawkish as expected. It is not ultra-hawkish, however, as the key characteristic is that it is a defensive posture in the wake of the perceived failures of Trump’s strategy of “attack, attack, attack.” This means largely maintaining the leverage that Trump built for the US while shifting the focus to actions that the US can take to improve its domestic production, supply chain resilience, and coordination with allied producers. Punitive measures are an option, however, and if relations deteriorate over time, as expected, they will be increasingly relied on. Buy The Dip In Cybersecurity Stocks A linchpin of the above analysis is the Microsoft Exchange hack, which some have called the largest hack in US history, since it confirms the view that the Biden administration will not be able to de-escalate strategic tensions with China much. China has been particularly frantic to acquire technology through hacking and cyber-espionage over the past decade as it attempts to achieve a Great Leap Forward in productivity in light of slowing potential growth that threatens single-party rule over the long run. The breakdown in ties between Presidents Barack Obama and Xi Jinping occurred not only because of Xi’s perceived violation of a personal pledge not to militarize the South China Sea but also because of the failure of a cybersecurity cooperation deal between the two. When the Trump administration arrived on the scene it sought to increase pressure on China and cybersecurity was immediately identified as an area where pushback was long overdue. Cyber conflict is highly likely to persist, not only with Russia but also with China. Cyber operations are a way for states to engage in Great Power struggle while still managing the level of tensions and avoiding a military conflict in the real world. The cyber realm is a realm of anarchy in which states are insecure about their capabilities and are constantly testing opponents’ defenses and their own offensive capabilities. They can also act to undermine each other with plausible deniability in the cyber realm, since multiple state and quasi-state actors and a vast criminal underworld make it difficult to identify culprits with confidence. Revisionist states like China, North Korea, Russia, and Iran have an advantage in asymmetric warfare, including cyber, since it enables them to undermine the US and West without putting their weaker conventional forces in jeopardy. Cybersecurity stocks have corrected but the general up-trend is well established and fully justified (Chart 7). It is not clear, however, that investors should favor cybersecurity stocks over the general NASDAQ index (Chart 8). The trend has been sideways in recent years and is trying to form a bottom. Cybersecurity stocks are volatile, as can be seen compared to tech stocks as a whole, and in both cases the general trend is for rising volatility as the macro backdrop shifts in favor of higher interest rates and inflation expectations (Chart 9). Chart 7Cyber Security Stocks Corrected Chart 8Major Hacks Failed To Boost Cyber Vs NASDAQ Chart 9Volatility Of Cyber & Tech Stocks Rising Great Power struggle will not remain limited to the cyber realm. There is a fundamental problem of military insecurity plaguing the world’s major powers. Furthermore the global economic upturn and new energy and industrial innovation race will drive up commodity prices, which will in turn reactivate territorial and maritime disputes. Turf battles will re-escalate in the South and East China Seas, the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean basin, the Mediterranean, and even the Baltic Sea and Arctic. One way to play this shift is as a geopolitical “back to work” trade – long defense stocks relative to cybersecurity stocks (Chart 10). The global defense sector saw a run-up in demand, capital expenditures, and profits late in the last business cycle. That all came crashing down with the pandemic, which supercharged cybersecurity as a necessary corollary to the swarm of online activity as households hunkered down to avoid the virus and obey government social restrictions. Cybersecurity stocks have higher EV/EBITDA ratios and lower profit margins and return on equity compared to defense stocks or the broad market. Chart 10Long Defense / Short Cyber Security: 'Back To Work' For Geopolitics The trade does not mean cybersecurity stocks will fall in absolute terms – we maintain our bullish case for cybersecurity stocks – but merely that defense stocks will make relative gains as economic normalization continues in the context of Great Power struggle. Bottom Line: Structurally elevated geopolitical risks will continue to drive demand for cybersecurity in absolute terms. However, we would favor global defense stocks on a relative basis. The US Is Not As War-Weary As People Think America is consumed with domestic divisions and distractions. Since 2008 Washington has repeatedly demonstrated an unwillingness to confront foreign rivals over small territorial conquests. This risk aversion has created power vacuums, inviting ambitious regional powers like China, Russia, Iran, and Turkey to act assertively in their immediate neighborhoods. However, the US is not embracing isolationism. Public opinion polling shows Americans are still committed to an active role in global affairs (Chart 11). The 2020 election confirms that verdict. Nor are Americans demanding big cuts in defense spending. Only 31% of Americans think defense spending is “too much” and only 12% think the national defense is stronger than it needs to be (Chart 12). Chart 11No Isolationism Here True, the Democratic Party is much more inclined to cut defense spending than the Republicans. About 43% of Democrats demand cuts, while 32% are complacent about the current level of spending (compared to 8% and 44% for Republicans). But it is primarily the progressive wing of the party that seeks outright cuts and the progressives are not the ones who took power. Chart 12Americans Against ‘Forever Wars’ But Not Truly Dovish Biden and his cabinet represent the Washington establishment, including the military-industrial complex. Even if Vice President Kamala Harris should become president she would, if anything, need to prove her hawkish credentials. Defense spending cuts might be projected nominally in Biden’s presidential budgets but they will not muster majorities in the two narrowly divided chambers of Congress. Biden has co-opted Trump’s (and Obama’s) message of strategic withdrawal and military drawdown. He is targeting a date of withdrawal from Afghanistan on May 1, notwithstanding the leverage that a military presence there could yield in its priority negotiations with Iran. Yet he is not jeopardizing the American troop presence in Germany and South Korea, much more geopolitically consequential spheres of action in a long competition with Russia and China. While it is true (and widely known) that Americans have turned against “forever wars,” this really means Middle Eastern quagmires like Iraq and Afghanistan and does not mean that the American public or political establishment have truly become anti-war “doves.” The US public recognizes the need to counter China and Russia and Congress will continue appropriating funds for defense as well as for industrial policy. The Biden administration will increase awareness about the risks of a lack of deterrence and alliance-building. This is especially apparent given the military buildup in China. The annual legislative session has revealed an important increase in military focus in Beijing in the context of the US rivalry. Previously, in the thirteenth five-year plan and the nineteenth National Party Congress, the People’s Liberation Army aimed to achieve “informatization and mechanization” reforms by 2020 and total modernization by 2035. However, at the fifth plenum of the central committee in October, the central government introduced a new military goal for the PLA’s 100th anniversary in 2027 – a “military centennial goal” to match with the 2021 centennial of the Communist Party and the 2049 centennial goal of the founding of the People’s Republic. While details about this new military centenary are lacking, the obvious implication is that the Communist Party and PLA are continuing to shift the focus to “fighting and winning wars,” particularly in the context of the need to deter the United States. The official defense budget is supposed to grow 6.8% in 2021, only slightly higher than the 6.6% goal in 2020, but observers have long known that China’s military budget could be as much as twice as high as official statistics indicate. The point is that defense spending is going up, as one would expect, in the context of persistent US-China tensions. Bottom Line: Just as US-China cooperation will be hindered by mutual efforts to reduce supply chain dependency and support domestic demand, so too it will be hindered by mutual efforts to increase defense readiness and capability in the event of military conflict. The beneficiary of continued high levels of US defense spending and Chinese spending increases – in the context of a more general global arms buildup – will be global arms makers. Investment Takeaways Geopolitical risk remains structurally elevated despite the temporary drop in tensions in late 2020 and early 2021. The China-backed Microsoft Exchange hack reinforces the Biden administration’s initial foreign policy comments and actions suggesting that US policy will remain hawkish on China. While Biden will adopt a more defensive rather than offensive strategy relative to Trump, there is no chance that he will return to the status quo ante. The Obama administration itself grew more hawkish on China in 2015-16 in the face of cyber threats and strategic tensions in the South China Sea. Cybersecurity stocks will continue to benefit from secular demand in an era of Great Power competition where nations use cyberattacks as a form of asymmetric warfare and a means of minimizing the risks of conflict. The recent correction in cybersecurity stocks creates a good entry point. We closed our earlier trade in January for a gain of 31% but have remained thematically bullish and recommend going long in absolute terms. We would favor defense over cybersecurity stocks as a geopolitical version of the “back to work” trade in which conventional economic activity revives, including geopolitical competition for territory, resources, and strategic security. Defense stocks are undervalued and relative share prices are unlikely to fall to 2010-era lows given the structural increase in geopolitical risk (Chart 13). Chart 13Global Defense Stocks Oversold Chart 14Global Defense Stocks Profitable, Less Indebted Defense stocks have seen profit margins hold up and are not too heavily burdened by debt relative to the broad market (Chart 14). Defense stocks have a higher return on equity than the average for non-financial corporations and cash flow will improve as a new capex cycle begins in which nations seek to improve their security and gain access to territory and resources (Chart 15). Chart 15Defense Stocks: High RoE, Capex Will Revive Chart 16Discount On Global Defense Stocks Valuation metrics show that global defense stocks are trading at a discount (Chart 16).     Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Appendix Table 1 Appendix Table 1Biden Administration's First 100 Days: Key Statements And Actions On China Footnotes 1 See Federal Register, "America’s Supply Chains", Mar. 1, 2021, federalregister.gov and Richard Cowan and Alexandra Alper, "Top U.S. Senate Democrat directs lawmakers to craft bill to counter China", Feb. 23, 2021, reuters.com.