Bubbles/Crises/Manias

In this report we examine the risk of stagflation by comparing the current environment to that of the late-1960s and 1970s. Today, investors cannot rule out the possibility of a stagflationary outcome, for four reasons: long-term household inflation expectations have risen significantly over the past year; fiscal policy has been expansionary; monetary policy will remain expansionary at the Fed’s projected terminal Fed funds rate; and component shortages and price increases linked to energy market and supply chain disruptions may persist or worsen over the coming year. However, the strong demand-pull inflationary dynamics that existed in the late-1960s were mostly absent in the lead-up to the pandemic, supply-chain issues are in part due to strong goods demand and supply disruptions that will eventually dissipate, and economic agents do not expect severe price pressures to persist beyond the pandemic. On balance, this points to a stagflationary outcome over the coming 6-24 months as a risk, but not a likely event. Investors should use the Misery Index, which is the sum of the unemployment rate and headline PCE inflation, as a real-time stagflation indicator. The Misery Index underscores that the US economy is unlikely to experience true stagflation unless the unemployment rate rises. A portfolio of the US dollar, the Swiss Franc, and industrial commodities may serve as a useful hedge for investors who are concerned about absolute return prospects in a world in which long-maturity bond yields are rising and risks of stagflationary dynamics are present. Chart II-1The Misery Index Reflects The Risk Of Stagflation The Misery Index Reflects The Risk Of Stagflation The Misery Index Reflects The Risk Of Stagflation Over the past several weeks, concerns about a possible return to 1970s-style stagflation have re-emerged significantly in the minds of many investors. These investors have pointed toward similarities between the current environment and that of the 1970s, including shortages limiting output, a snarled global trade and logistical system, and rising energy prices. Chart II-1 highlights that the US “Misery Index” – the sum of the unemployment rate and headline PCE inflation – rose again over the past several months to high single-digit territory, after having fallen dramatically from April 2020 to February of this year. Panel 2 of Chart II-1 highlights that last year's rise in the Misery Index was driven almost entirely by the unemployment rate, whereas the current level is due to a combination of a modestly elevated unemployment rate and a pronounced acceleration in inflation. The headline PCE deflator has risen above 4%, a level that has not been reached since 1991 during the First Gulf War. In this report, we examine the risk of stagflation by comparing the current environment to that of the late 1960s and 1970s. We conclude that while investors cannot rule out the possibility of a stagflationary outcome, there are important differences that point toward a stagflation outcome over the coming 6-24 months as a risk, not a likely event. We conclude by highlighting assets that may produce absolute returns in a world in which long-maturity bond yields are rising and risks of stagflationary dynamics are present. Revisiting The 1960s And 70s Chart II-2The 1960s Laid The Groundwork For Elevated Inflation The 1960s Laid The Groundwork For Elevated Inflation The 1960s Laid The Groundwork For Elevated Inflation The first step in judging the risk of a return to 1970s-style stagflation is to review, in a detailed way, what caused those conditions. Investors are well aware of the role that two separate energy price shocks played in raising prices and damaging output during this period, but they are less cognizant of the impact that a persistent period of above-trend output and significant labor market tightness had in setting up the conditions for sharply higher inflation. This focus of investors on energy prices partially reflects the fact that the Misery Index increased most visibly in the 1970s and that policymakers in the 1960s may not have realized how extensively economic output was running above its potential. With the benefit of hindsight, Chart II-2 illustrates the extent to which inflationary pressures built up in the 1960s, well before the first oil price shock in 1973. The chart shows that the unemployment rate was below NAIRU – the non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment – for 70% of the time during the 1960s, and that inflation had already responded to this in the latter half of the decade. Annual headline PCE inflation was running just shy of 5% at the onset of the 1970 recession; it fell to 3% in the aftermath of the recession, but had already begun to reaccelerate in the first half of 1973. Following the 1973/1974 recession, inflation did decelerate significantly, falling from 11-12% to 5% in headline terms, and from 10% to 6% in core terms. But the pace of price appreciation did not fall below 5-6% in the second half of the 1970s, despite a significant and sustained rise in the unemployment rate above its natural rate. The 1975 to 1978 period is especially important for investors to understand, because it is arguably the clearest period of true stagflation in the 1970s. The fact that the Misery Index rose sharply during two major oil price shocks is not particularly surprising in and of itself, given the direct impact of energy prices on headline consumer prices; it is the fact that the index remained so elevated between these shocks, the result of persistently high inflation in the face of significant labor market slack, that is most relevant to investors. There are two reasons that both inflation and unemployment remained high during this period. First, labor market slack was sizeable during these years because the US economy was more energy-intensive in the 1970s than it is today. Chart II-3 highlights that goods-producing employment lagged overall employment growth from late 1973 to late 1977, underscoring that the rise in oil prices significantly impacted jobs growth in energy-intensive industries. Chart II-3 Second, it is clear that the combination of demand-pull inflation in the late 1960s and the predominantly cost-push inflation of the 1970s led to expectations of persistent inflation among households and firms. The original Phillips Curve, as formulated by New Zealand economist William Phillips in the late 1950s, described a negative relationship between the unemployment rate and the pace of wage growth. Given the close correlation between wage and overall price growth at the time, the Phillips Curve was soon extended and generalized to describe an inverse relationship between labor market slack and overall price inflation. But the experience of the 1970s highlighted that inflation expectations are also an important determinant of inflation, a realization that gave birth to the expectations-augmented (i.e. “modern-day”) Phillips Curve (more on this below). The Stagflation Era Versus Today Chart II- Table II-1 presents a stagflation “threat matrix,” representing the Bank Credit Analyst service’s assessment of the various factors that could potentially contribute to a stagflationary environment today, relative to what occurred in the 1960s and 1970s. While we acknowledge that there are some similarities today to what occurred five decades ago, the most threatening factors have been present for a shorter period of time and appear to have a smaller magnitude than what occurred during the stagflationary era. In addition, key factors, such as the visibility available to policymakers and investors about household inflation expectations and the potential output of the economy, would appear to reduce significantly the risk of a stagflationary outcome today. We discuss each of the factors presented in Table II-1 below: Fiscal & Monetary Policy Chart II-4Government Spending Last Cycle Looked Nothing Like The 1960s Government Spending Last Cycle Looked Nothing Like The 1960s Government Spending Last Cycle Looked Nothing Like The 1960s The persistently tight labor market that contributed to the inflationary buildup in the 1960s occurred as a result of easy fiscal and monetary policy. Chart II-4 highlights that the contribution to real GDP growth from government expenditure and investment was very elevated in the 1960s. Chart II-5 shows that a positive output gap in the late 1960s and the first half of the 1970s is well explained by the fact that 10-year US government bond yields were persistently below nominal GDP growth. The relationship between the stance of monetary policy and the output gap only meaningfully diverged in the latter half of the 1970s, during the true stagflationary era that we noted above. Chart II-5Easy Monetary Policy Juiced Aggregate Demand In The 60s And Early 70s Easy Monetary Policy Juiced Aggregate Demand In The 60s And Early 70s Easy Monetary Policy Juiced Aggregate Demand In The 60s And Early 70s Chart II-6Monetary Policy Today Is Extremely Easy Monetary Policy Today Is Extremely Easy Monetary Policy Today Is Extremely Easy Today, it is clear that the stance of fiscal policy has recently been extraordinarily easy, and 10-year US government bond yields have remained well below nominal GDP growth for the better part of the last decade. Relative to estimates of potential nominal GDP growth, 10-year Treasury yields are the lowest they have been since the 1970s (Chart II-6). Ostensibly, this supports concerns that policy might contribute to a stagflationary outcome. These concerns were raised by Larry Summers in March, when he described the Biden administration’s fiscal policy as the “least responsible” that the US has experienced in four decades and warned of the potential inflationary consequences of overheating the economy.1 But there are two important counterpoints to these concerns. First, easy fiscal policy this cycle has followed a period during the last economic cycle in which government spending contributed to the most sustained drag on economic activity since the 1950s. Unlike the 1960s, the unemployment rate has been below NAIRU for only a third of the time over the past decade. In addition, Chart II-7 highlights that fiscal thrust will turn to fiscal drag next year, underscoring the temporary nature of the massive burst in fiscal spending that has occurred in response to the pandemic. Under normal circumstances, the fiscal drag implied by Chart II-7 would substantially raise the risks of a recession next year, but we have noted in previous reports that a significant amount of excess savings remain to support spending and employment. The net impact of these two factors results in a reasonable expectation that the US economy will return to maximum employment next year, but this is a far cry from the 1960s when the unemployment rate was below its natural rate for 70% of the decade. Chart II-7 Based on conventional measures, US monetary policy has been easy for a decade, but easy monetary policy did not begin to contribute positively to a rise in household sector credit growth last cycle until 2014/2015. This underscores that the natural rate of interest (“R-star”) did fall during the early phase of the last economic expansion. However, we argued in an April report that R-star was likely rising in the latter half of the last expansion,2 and we believe that the terminal Fed funds rate is likely higher than what the Fed is currently projecting, barring any additional negative policy shocks. Thus, while we do not believe that the duration of easy monetary policy over the past decade has laid the groundwork for a major rise in prices, it is now clearly positively contributing to aggregate demand and does risk a future overshoot in prices if long maturity bond yields remain well below the pace of economic growth for a sustained period of time. The Impact Of Shortages Chart II-8Gasoline Shortages Plagued The US Economy In The 1970s Gasoline Shortages Plagued The US Economy In The 1970s Gasoline Shortages Plagued The US Economy In The 1970s Gasoline shortages occurred during the oil shocks of the 1970s and are a key similarity that some investors point toward when comparing the situation today with the stagflationary era. Chart II-8 highlights that the annual growth in real personal consumption expenditures on energy goods and services fell into negative territory on six occasions in the 1970s, although it was most pronounced during the two oil price shocks and their resulting recessions. Today, the impact of shortages appears to be broader than what occurred in the 1970s, but less impactful and not likely to be as long-lasting. Chart II-9 highlights that the OPEC oil embargo of 1973 raised the global oil bill by 2.4% of global GDP and permanently raised the price of oil. The global oil bill will only be fractionally above its pre-pandemic level in 2022, with oil prices at $80/bbl, and, while it is true that US gasoline prices have risen significantly, they are not higher than they were from 2011-2014 (Chart II-10). Chart II-9$80/bbl Oil Is Not Onerous $80/bbl Oil Is Not Onerous $80/bbl Oil Is Not Onerous Chart II-10US Gasoline Prices Are High, But They Have Been Higher US Gasoline Prices Are High, But They Have Been Higher US Gasoline Prices Are High, But They Have Been Higher It is certainly true that global shipping costs have skyrocketed and that this is contributing to the increase in US consumer prices. We estimate, however, that this increase in shipping costs as a share of GDP is no more than a quarter of the impact of the 1973 increase in oil prices, without the attendant negative effects on US goods-producing employment that occurred in the 1970s. If anything, surging shipping costs create an incentive to re-shore manufacturing production, which would contribute positively to US goods-producing employment. We also do not expect the rise in shipping costs to be meaningfully permanent, i.e., shipping costs may ultimately settle at a higher level than they were in late-2019, but at a much lower level than what prevails today. Chart II-11A Tight Labor Market Is Causing Wage Growth To Pick Up A Tight Labor Market Is Causing Wage Growth To Pick Up A Tight Labor Market Is Causing Wage Growth To Pick Up Semiconductor and labor shortages would appear to represent a more salient threat of stagflation in the US, as the domestic production of motor vehicles cannot occur without key inputs and a tight labor market is already contributing to an acceleration in wage growth (Chart II-11). As we noted in Section 1 of our report, auto production significantly impacted growth in the third quarter. However, Chart II-12 highlights that, for now, the breadth of impact of these shortages appears to be limited: the production component of the ISM manufacturing index remains in expansionary territory, industrial production of durable manufacturing excluding motor vehicles and parts has not broken down, and both housing starts and building permits remain above pre-pandemic levels despite this year’s downtrend in permits. Chart II-12Shortages Do Not Yet Seem To Be Broad-Based Shortages Do Not Yet Seem To Be Broad-Based Shortages Do Not Yet Seem To Be Broad-Based A physical shortage of components is a less relevant factor for the services side of the economy, which appears to have re-accelerated meaningfully in October. The services sector is more considerably impacted by shortages in the labor market, which seem to be linked to a still-low labor force participation rate. We noted in our September report that the decline in the participation rate has significantly overshot what would be implied by the ongoing pace of retirements. Chart II-13 highlights that this has occurred not just because of a significant retirement effect, but also because of the shadow labor force (people who want a job but are not currently looking for work) and family responsibilities. We expect that the recent expiry of expanded unemployment insurance benefits, a steady rise in the immunity of the US population, an abating Delta wave of COVID-19, and a likely upcoming reduction in school/classroom closures once the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine is approved for school-age children will likely ease the labor shortage issue over the coming several months. Chart II-13 Output Gap Uncertainty It remains a debate among economists why policymakers maintained such easy monetary policy in the 1960s and 1970s, but Chart II-14 highlights that uncertainty about the size of the output gap may have contributed to too-low interest rates. The chart shows the unemployment rate compared with today's estimate of NAIRU, alongside a simple proxy for policymakers’ real time estimate of the natural rate of employment: the cumulative average unemployment rate in the post-war environment. To the extent that policymakers used past averages of the unemployment rate as their guide for NAIRU, Chart II-14 highlights how they may have underestimated the degree to which output was running above its potential level in the 1960s, and would not have even concluded that output was above potential in the early 1970s. Chart II-14Policymakers Overestimated Labor Market Slack In The 60s And 70s Policymakers Overestimated Labor Market Slack In The 60s And 70s Policymakers Overestimated Labor Market Slack In The 60s And 70s Chart II-15Policymakers Know That NAIRU Is Likely At Or Below 4% Policymakers Know That NAIRU Is Likely At Or Below 4% Policymakers Know That NAIRU Is Likely At Or Below 4% Today, the environment is quite different, because the acceleration in wage growth at the tail end of the last expansion gives policymakers and investors a good estimate of where NAIRU is. Chart II-15 highlights that wage growth accelerated in 2018/2019 in response to a sub-4% unemployment rate, which is consistent with both the Fed’s NAIRU estimate of 3.5-4.5% and Fed Vice Chair Richard Clarida’s expressed view that a 3.8% unemployment rate likely constitutes maximum employment (barring any issues with the breadth and inclusivity of the labor market recovery). It is possible that the pandemic has structurally lowered potential output, which could mean that policymakers may no longer rely on the wage growth / unemployment relationship that existed in the latter phase of the last expansion. However, we do not find any credible arguments that would support the notion of a structurally lower level of potential output: the pandemic is likely to end at some point in the not-too-distant future, the negative impact of working-from-home policies on office properties and employment in central business districts is not sizeable,3 and productivity may have permanently increased in some industries because of the likely stickiness of a hybrid work culture. The Behavior Of Inflation Expectations Chart II-16Rising Long-Term Expectations Have Merely Normalized (For Now) Rising Long-Term Expectations Have Merely Normalized (For Now) Rising Long-Term Expectations Have Merely Normalized (For Now) One parallel to the argument that policymakers may have underestimated the degree of labor market tightness in the 1960s and early 1970s is the fact that they did not yet understand that inflation expectations are an important determinant of actual inflation, nor were they able to monitor them even if they did. Most credible surveys of inflation expectations began in the 1980s, and policymakers in the 1960s and 1970s were guided by the original Phillips Curve that solely related inflation to unemployment. Today, policymakers have the experience of the stagflationary episode to serve as a warning not to allow inflation expectations to get out of control, and both policymakers and investors have reliable measures of inflation expectations for households and market-participants. Chart II-16 highlights that households expect significant inflation over the coming year, but also expect prices over the longer term to rise at a pace that is almost exactly in line with their average from 2000-2014. The Rudd Controversy: (Adaptive) Inflation Expectations Do Matter One potential criticism of the idea that inflation expectations are signaling a low risk of higher future inflation has emerged through arguments made by Jeremy Rudd, a Federal Reserve economist. In a recent paper, Rudd questioned the view that households’ and firms’ expectations of future inflation are a key determinant of actual inflation; he suggested instead that relatively stable inflation since the mid-1990s might reflect a situation in which inflation simply does not enter workers’ employment decisions and expectations are irrelevant. Rudd’s paper was primarily addressed to policymakers who view inflation dynamics in a highly quantitative light. A full response to the paper would be mostly academic and thus not especially relevant to investors; however, we would like to highlight three points related to the Rudd piece that we feel are important.4 First, we disagree with Rudd’s argument that the trend in inflation has not responded to changes in economic conditions since the mid-1990s. Chart II-17 highlights that while the magnitude of the relationship has shifted, the trend in inflation relative to a measure of long-term expectations based on prior actual inflation has mimicked that of the output gap. The fact that inflation was (ironically) too high during the early phase of the last economic cycle provides some support for Rudd’s inflation responsiveness view, although we would still point toward the Fed’s strong record of maintaining low and stable inflation, its active communication with the public in the years following the global financial crisis, and the fact that a recovery began and the output gap began to (slowly) close as the best explanation for the avoidance of deflation during that period. Second, we agree with Rudd’s point that regime shifts in inflation’s responsiveness to economic conditions can occur, and that adaptive measures of inflation expectations, and even surveys of inflation, may not capture such a shift in real time. Chart II-18 shows that the 2014-2016 period was a good example of this, when adaptive expectations as well as household survey measures of long-term inflation expectations both lagged the actual decline in inflation that was caused by a collapse in the price of oil. Chart II-17The Trend In Inflation Continues To Respond To Economic Conditions The Trend In Inflation Continues To Respond To Economic Conditions The Trend In Inflation Continues To Respond To Economic Conditions Chart II-18Surveyed Inflation Expectations Can Lag, But This Time They Led Surveyed Inflation Expectations Can Lag, But This Time They Led Surveyed Inflation Expectations Can Lag, But This Time They Led But Chart II-18 also shows that long-term household survey measures of inflation led the rise in actual inflation (and thus our adaptive expectations measure) last year, underscoring that these measures are likely more reliable indicators today of whether a major regime shift is occurring. As noted above, long-term expectations have risen significantly relative to what prevailed prior to the pandemic, but this has merely raised expectations from extraordinarily depressed levels back to the average that prevailed prior to (and immediately after) the global financial crisis. Therefore, household expectations are not yet at dangerous levels. Chart II-19Unit Labor Costs Modestly Lead Inflation, But Are Far From Extreme Unit Labor Costs Modestly Lead Inflation, But Are Far From Extreme Unit Labor Costs Modestly Lead Inflation, But Are Far From Extreme Third, one of the core observations in Rudd’s paper is that unit labor cost (ULC) growth leads the trend in inflation, which he argued was evidence against the idea that expectations of future inflation are a key determinant of actual inflation. Chart II-19 highlights that Rudd is correct that ULC growth modestly leads inflation (especially core inflation), but we disagree with his conclusion that it argues against the importance of expectations. As we noted in Section 2 of our January 2021 Bank Credit Analyst,5 one crucial aspect of the expectations-augmented, or “modern-day” Phillips Curve is that, if inflation expectations are largely formed based on the experience of past inflation, then inflation is ultimately determined by three dimensions of the output gap: whether it is rising or falling, whether it is above or below zero, and how long it has been above or below zero. Our view is that ULC growth is fundamentally linked to slack in the labor market, which is directly incorporated in output gap measures. As we noted above, investors currently have a good estimate of the magnitude of the output/employment gap, meaning that it is possible to track the inflationary consequences of prevailing aggregate demand. As a final point about ULC growth, Chart II-19 highlights that while the five-year CAGR of unit labor costs is currently running at its strongest pace since the global financial crisis, investors should note that it remains well below the levels that prevailed in the late-1960s when persistently above-potential output laid the groundwork for a massive inflationary overshoot. Conclusions And Investment Strategy Our review of the 1960s and 1970s highlights that stagflation is a phenomenon in which supply-side shocks raise prices of key inputs to production, which lowers output and raises unemployment. Energy price shocks in the 1970s occurred after a long period of policy-driven above-trend growth in the 1960s, meaning that both demand-pull and cost-push inflation contributed to stagflation in the 1970s. Today, investors cannot rule out the possibility of a stagflationary outcome, for four reasons: long-term household inflation expectations have risen significantly over the past year; fiscal policy has been very expansionary; monetary policy will remain expansionary at the Fed’s projected terminal Fed funds rate; and component shortages and price increases linked to energy market and supply chain disruptions may persist or worsen over the coming year. Chart II-20It Is Not Stagflation If The Unemployment Rate Continues To Fall It Is Not Stagflation If The Unemployment Rate Continues To Fall It Is Not Stagflation If The Unemployment Rate Continues To Fall However, the strong demand-pull inflationary dynamics that existed in the late-1960s were mostly absent in the lead-up to the pandemic, supply-chain issues are in part the result of strong goods demand and disruptions that are clearly linked to the pandemic (and thus will eventually dissipate), and long-term inflation expectations are behaving differently than short-term expectations, signaling that economic agents do not expect severe price pressures to persist beyond the pandemic. Policymakers also have more visibility about the magnitude of economic / labor market slack than they did during the stagflationary era and better tools to track inflation expectations. On balance, this points to a stagflationary outcome over the coming 6-24 months as a risk, but not as a likely event. Using the Misery Index as real-time stagflation indicator, investors should note that the US economy is not likely experiencing true stagflation unless the unemployment rate rises. Chart II-20 highlights that there is no evidence yet of a contraction in goods-producing or service-producing jobs. Even if goods-producing employment slows meaningfully over the coming few months as a result of component shortages, the unemployment rate is still likely to fall if services spending normalizes, as it would imply that the gap in services-producing employment, which is currently 20% of the level of pre-pandemic goods-producing employment, will continue to close. Investors have been focused on the issue of stagflation because its occurrence would imply a sharply negative correlation between stock prices and bond yields. This is not our base case view, but we have highlighted that months with negative returns from both stocks and long-maturity bonds tend to be associated with periods of monetary policy tightening (or in anticipation of such periods). As we discussed in Section 1 of our report, we do expect the Fed to raise interest rates next year. We do not see a rise in bond yields to levels implied by the Fed’s interest rates projections as being seriously threatening to economic activity, corporate earnings growth, or equity multiples. But the adjustment to higher long-maturity bond yields may unnerve equity investors for a time, implying temporary periods of a negative stock price / bond yield correlation. Table II-2 highlights that, since 1980, commodities, the US dollar, and the Swiss franc have typically earned positive returns during non-recessionary months in which stock and long-maturity bond returns are negative. While the dollar is not likely to perform well in a stagflationary scenario, Chart II-21 highlights that CHF-USD and industrial commodities performed quite well in the late-1970s. As such, a portfolio of these three assets might serve as a useful hedge for investors who are concerned about absolute return prospects in a world in which long-maturity bond yields are rising and risks of stagflationary dynamics are present. Chart II- Chart II-21The Swiss Franc and Raw Industrials Did Well During The Stagflationary Era The Swiss Franc and Raw Industrials Did Well During The Stagflationary Era The Swiss Franc and Raw Industrials Did Well During The Stagflationary Era Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Footnotes 1  “Summers Sees ‘Least Responsible’ Fiscal Policy in 40 Years,” Bloomberg News, March 20, 2021. 2 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst “R-star, And The Structural Risk To Stocks,” dated March 31, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst “Work From Home “Stickiness” And The Outlook For Monetary Policy,” dated June 24, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 4 Rudd, Jeremy B. (2021). “Why Do We Think That Inflation Expectations Matter for Inflation? (And Should We?),” Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2021-062. Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. 5  Please see The Bank Credit Analyst “The Modern-Day Phillips Curve, Future Inflation, And What To Do About It,” dated December 18, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com

Highlights The sharp drop in Chinese lending over the past year is highly likely to weigh on (non-oil) commodity demand and prices through the remainder of 2021. Commodity demand shocks dominate commodity supply shocks. Commodity supply shocks play only a transient role in setting prices. Go underweight basic resources equities versus the market. Commodity currencies like the Canadian dollar and New Zealand dollar are likely to underperform versus the US dollar. Fractal trade: Short corn versus wheat. Feature Chart of the WeekDeclining Chinese Lending Is A Headwind For Metal Prices Declining Chinese Lending Is A Headwind For Metal Prices Declining Chinese Lending Is A Headwind For Metal Prices The recent collapse in China’s credit impulse has caught a lot of people’s attention, ours included. The collapse in the credit impulse quantifies the change in lending. Importantly, this means that even if the lending numbers themselves are large, the impulse will collapse if those lending numbers are declining – which is precisely what has happened in China. In the past year, China’s broad money supply has expanded by $17 trillion yuan, signifying a large amount of lending in the $100 trillion yuan economy. All well and good, except that the $17 trillion yuan has declined from an even larger $21 trillion yuan a year ago. To the extent that loans fund the demand for something, the $4 trillion yuan decline in those loans means that the demand for the something also declines. In the case of China, the something is the demand for industrial commodities, especially industrial metals (Chart of the Week). Using total social financing rather than the broad money supply reveals a similar downtrend in lending, and therefore a similarly collapsed impulse (Chart I-2 and Chart I-3) But as we explain in the next section, our preference is to focus on China’s broad money supply. Chart I-2Chinese Lending Is ##br##Declining... Chinese Lending Is Declining... Chinese Lending Is Declining... Chart I-3...So The 12-Month Credit Impulse Has Collapsed ...So The 12-Month Credit Impulse Has Collapsed ...So The 12-Month Credit Impulse Has Collapsed   Declining Chinese Lending Is A Headwind For Metal Demand When interpreting the lending numbers in any economy, there are four important things to keep in mind. First, we should focus on bank lending. This is because the magic of fractional reserve banking allows a bank to create money and new spending power out of thin air. When somebody borrows from a bank, his bank account and spending power goes up, but nobody’s spending power goes down. In contrast, when somebody borrows by issuing a bond, it just reallocates spending power from one person to another. The bond issuer sees his bank account and spending power go up, but the bond buyer sees his bank account and spending power go symmetrically down. Demand will rise to the extent that the borrower has a higher propensity to spend than the lender, but this may or may not be the case. Second, and as already mentioned, the impact on economic demand comes from the change in lending – which is to say the credit impulse. This is just to compare apples with apples. Remember that GDP, demand, and lending are all flow statistics. Meaning that the change in demand depends on the change in lending (and not from absolute lending itself).1  Third, the most important part of lending is bank lending to the non-financial sector.2  This is because not all loans generate economic activity. Bank-to-bank lending and reserves held at the central bank stay trapped in the financial system. The money supply – which is on the liabilities side of the banks’ balance sheet – might not pick up this distinction. It could be expanding rapidly due to a surge in bank-to-bank lending and/or in reserves, giving the false signal that demand should be growing. Hence, it is better to focus on bank lending – which is on the assets side of the banks’ balance sheet – and only count lending that is likely to generate economic activity. However, this logic only works if the official data on bank loans is accurate and complete. In China, this is unlikely to be the case, given its large shadow banking system. Total social financing includes most, but not all, shadow lending. Yet all shadow lending must eventually show up in the money supply. For this reason, in analysing Chinese lending, we prefer to focus on the broad money supply. Having said that, the messages coming from both the broad money supply and total social financing concur. Chinese lending is slowing. Chinese lending is slowing.  Fourth, we should choose the periodicity of the analysis to maximize its predictive power. This will depend on the specific lead times between the lending and the demand that it is funding, which will be discovered empirically. We find that the 1-year change in China’s broad money supply provides an excellent 1-year lead on industrial metal prices, because the lending leads commodity demand. The obvious rejoinder is, what about tight supply? The answer, from a recent academic paper – Drivers of commodity price booms and busts in the long run – is that for (non-oil) commodities, demand dominates supply. Specifically, “aggregate commodity and commodity-specific demand shocks appear to strongly dominate commodity supply shocks in driving variation in real commodity prices… commodity supply shocks play a rather secondary and transient role.”3 On this basis, we conclude that the sharp drop in Chinese lending over the past year is highly likely to weigh on (non-oil) commodity prices through the remainder of 2021 (Chart I-4 and Chart I-5). Chart I-4Declining Chinese Lending Is A Headwind For Industrial Metals... Declining Chinese Lending Is A Headwind For Industrial Metals... Declining Chinese Lending Is A Headwind For Industrial Metals... Chart I-5...And Iron Ore ##br##Prices ...And Iron Ore Prices ...And Iron Ore Prices   Chinese Lending Is An Investment ‘Super-Driver’ We are strong believers in investment reductionism. Our reductionist philosophy stems from two guiding principles: Occam’s Razor – which says that when there are competing explanations for the same effect, the simplest explanation is usually the best; and the Pareto Principle – which says that 80% of effects come from just 20% of causes.4 Investment banks hate investment reductionism. Given that they want to sell you as much product as possible, they make investment seem much more complicated than it is. Yet most of the moves in most financial markets result from a very small number of ‘super-drivers.’ Our objective is to un-complicate investment – to identify the super-drivers, and to call them right. Clearly, one super-driver right now is the evolution of the pandemic, and specifically the evolution of new variants of the virus, as we discussed in Viral Variants Strike Down The Reflation Trade. A second super-driver is the direction of the T-bond yield, because this drives the direction of many other market trends such as growth versus value, defensives versus cyclicals, and US versus Europe. As we discussed in Don’t Panic About US Inflation, the T-bond yield is likely to drift lower in the coming months. Today’s report identifies a third super-driver – the evolution of Chinese lending. To repeat, the sharp drop in Chinese lending over the past year is highly likely to weigh on (non-oil) commodity prices through the remainder of 2021.   The sharp drop in Chinese lending over the past year is highly likely to weigh on commodity prices through the remainder of 2021. This means that basic resources equities are likely to underperform both in absolute terms, and relative to the broader market (Chart I-6 and Chart I-7). On a 6-month horizon, go underweight basic resources versus the market. Chart I-6Declining Chinese Lending Is A Headwind For Basic Resources Equities, Both In Absolute Terms... Declining Chinese Lending Is A Headwind For Basic Resources Equities, Both In Absolute Terms... Declining Chinese Lending Is A Headwind For Basic Resources Equities, Both In Absolute Terms... Chart I-7...And Relative To The Broad ##br##Market ...And Relative To The Broad Market ...And Relative To The Broad Market It also means that commodity currencies like the Canadian dollar and New Zealand dollar are likely to underperform versus the US dollar (Chart I-8 and Chart I-9). Chart I-8The Canadian Dollar Just Tracks Inflation Expectations The Canadian Dollar Just Tracks Inflation Expectations The Canadian Dollar Just Tracks Inflation Expectations Chart I-9The New Zealand Dollar Just Tracks Inflation Expectations The New Zealand Dollar Just Tracks Inflation Expectations The New Zealand Dollar Just Tracks Inflation Expectations Commodities Are Fractally Fragile Reinforcing the super-driver of a Chinese lending slowdown, the 260-day fractal structure of the commodity complex is at the same extreme of fragility that heralded turning-points in 2009, 2010, 2018, and 2020 (Chart I-10). Chart I-10The Fractal Structure Of The Commodity Complex Is Extremely Fragile The Fractal Structure Of The Commodity Complex Is Extremely Fragile The Fractal Structure Of The Commodity Complex Is Extremely Fragile As a reminder, a fragile fractal structure is a warning that the time horizons of investors setting the investment’s price has become dangerously skewed to short-term horizons. At this point, as longer-term value investors are missing from the price setting process, the price becomes unmoored from the longer-term valuation anchor. Eventually though, when the longer-term investors re-enter the price setting process, the price snaps back towards the valuation anchor. A fragile fractal structure is a warning that the time horizons of investors setting the investment’s price has become dangerously skewed to short-term horizons. In early May, we highlighted this fragility in the commodity complex and, exactly as anticipated, most commodities then started to correct. We are trading the on-going correction in commodities through a short position in PKB as well as short CAD/USD, and both positions are now in healthy profit. Staying on the theme of commodities, the 60 percent outperformance of corn versus wheat over the past year is only starting to correct now (Chart I-11). Hence, a recommended trade is to short the corn future (number 2, yellow) versus the wheat future (number 2, soft red) setting the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 12 percent. Chart I-11The 60 Percent Outperformance Of Corn Versus Wheat Will Soon Correct The 60 Percent Outperformance Of Corn Versus Wheat Will Soon Correct The 60 Percent Outperformance Of Corn Versus Wheat Will Soon Correct Finally, relating to a non-commodity position, we have extended by 33 days the holding period of short France versus Japan. Thus far, the position has traded sideways so we are giving it more time to move into profit. Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The change in lending is the definition of the credit impulse. 2 The non-financial sector includes households, (non-financial) firms and government. 3 Voxeu.org: Drivers of commodity price booms and busts in the long run, David Jacks and Martin Stuermer. 4 Often known as the 80-20 rule. In fact, it could be 90-10, 95-5, or even 100-5 as the numbers do not have to add up to 100. Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Equity Market Performance   Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

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 Loose Money Fuels Crypto Mania Loose 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 Cryptocurrencies: They Can Run But They Can’t Hide Cryptocurrencies: They Can Run But They Can’t Hide Chart 3Consumers Growing Skeptical Of Banking Regulation Cryptocurrencies: They Can Run But They Can’t Hide Cryptocurrencies: They Can Run But They Can’t Hide 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 Slows Bitcoin 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 … Cryptocurrencies: They Can Run But They Can’t Hide Cryptocurrencies: They Can Run But They Can’t Hide Bitcoin also generates significant quantities of electronic waste (Chart 6). Chart 6… And Generates A Lot Of Electronic Waste Cryptocurrencies: They Can Run But They Can’t Hide Cryptocurrencies: They Can Run But They Can’t Hide 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 Cryptocurrencies: They Can Run But They Can’t Hide Cryptocurrencies: They Can Run But They Can’t Hide 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 Cryptocurrencies: They Can Run But They Can’t Hide Cryptocurrencies: They Can Run But They Can’t Hide Chart 7BGold Outshines Bitcoin On Production Value And Carbon Footprint Cryptocurrencies: They Can Run But They Can’t Hide Cryptocurrencies: They Can Run But They Can’t Hide 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 Cryptocurrencies: They Can Run But They Can’t Hide Cryptocurrencies: They Can Run But They Can’t Hide 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 Cryptocurrencies: They Can Run But They Can’t Hide Cryptocurrencies: They Can Run But They Can’t Hide Chart 8BCentral Banks Advancing On CBDC Work Cryptocurrencies: They Can Run But They Can’t Hide Cryptocurrencies: They Can Run But They Can’t Hide Chart 9Central Banks CBDC Interest Areas Cryptocurrencies: They Can Run But They Can’t Hide Cryptocurrencies: They Can Run But They Can’t Hide 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 The drubbing that cryptocurrencies have received over the past two weeks is just a taste of things to come. Crypto markets will continue to face tighter regulation, as this week’s announcements from China and the US Treasury underscore. The hope that cryptocurrencies can ever truly “go green” is wishful thinking. Given their decentralized nature, cryptocurrencies require real resources to be expended to permit secure transactions to take place. In addition to their technical limitations, cryptocurrencies face a fundamental constraint, which we dub the “Crypto Impossibility Theorem.” The Crypto Impossibility Theorem states that cryptocurrencies will be viable only if they offer a higher return than equities. The assumption that cryptos can generate a return in excess of equities is almost certain to be false since it would require that cryptocurrency holdings rise more quickly than income in perpetuity. In the near term, the pain in crypto markets could drag down other speculative assets such as tech stocks. In the long term, diminished investor interest in cryptos will benefit the stock market, as investor attention focuses back on equities. Cryptos: Can’t Have It All Investors who track the cryptocurrency market might be aware of the “blockchain trilemma.” It posits that cryptocurrencies can possess only two of the following three attributes: decentralization, security, and scalability. Bitcoin is both highly decentralized and reasonably secure. However, because control of the Bitcoin blockchain is distributed across thousands of individual computer nodes, it is also very slow. The Bitcoin network can barely process five transactions per second, compared to over 20,000 for the Visa network (Chart 1). The average fee for a Bitcoin transaction is around $30, a number that has risen over the past few years (Chart 2). Chart 1Speed Of Transactions, Or Lack Thereof Speed Of Transactions, Or Lack Thereof Speed Of Transactions, Or Lack Thereof Chart 2Rising Cost Per Transaction Rising Cost Per Transaction Rising Cost Per Transaction   The elaborate puzzles that the Bitcoin algorithm must solve to verify transactions are extremely energy intensive. Bitcoin mining consumes more energy than entire countries such as Sweden, Argentina, and Pakistan (Chart 3). About two-thirds of Bitcoin mining currently takes place in China, often using electricity generated by burning coal. Chart 3Bitcoin And Ethereum: How Dare You! The Crypto Impossibility Theorem The Crypto Impossibility Theorem Some claim that Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are shifting to renewable energy sources, a trend that will continue in the years ahead. However, this argument misses the point, which is that the “proof of work” mechanism that underpins Bitcoin requires that real resources be expended. Suppose that all Bitcoin mining could be performed entirely for free using solar energy. This would reduce the cost of running a “mining rig,” incentivizing more mining. The Bitcoin algorithm operates in such a way that the difficulty of mining coins increases as the total computational power of all miners grows. In this computational rat race, miners would need to purchase more servers with ever more powerful specifications to keep up with their competitors. And semiconductors do not grow on trees. It takes real resources to produce them. As this recent Bloomberg article pointed out, Taiwan Semiconductor generates almost 50% more greenhouse emissions than General Motors. Like Bitcoin, Ethereum uses the “proof of work” mechanism to verify transactions. There have been active discussions to shift Ethereum to a “proof of stake” mechanism, which would greatly expedite transactions.1 However, some have argued that a proof of stake system would degrade security, allowing for “double-spend attacks” where someone transfers coins to someone else but then spends the coins before the transaction is completed. The Crypto Impossibility Theorem We will not delve any further into the technical nature of the blockchain trilemma other than to note that it poses a serious challenge to the entire cryptocurrency project. Instead, let us highlight another obstacle that has received less attention – one that could be even more damaging for the prospects of cryptocurrencies in the long run. Let us hyperbolically call it the “Crypto Impossibility Theorem.” The Crypto Impossibility Theorem states that a cryptocurrency will be viable only if it offers a higher return than equities. As we discuss below, the assumption that cryptos can generate a return in excess of equities is almost certain to be false since it would require that cryptocurrency holdings rise more quickly than income in perpetuity. This implies that the value that investors currently attach to cryptos will turn out to be illusory. To see the theorem in action, recall that money serves three functions: As a unit of account, as a medium of exchange, and as a store of value. It is doubtful that anyone seriously thinks that the price tag on a box of cereal will ever be displayed in units of Bitcoin, ether, or any of the various dog coins currently in vogue. Thus, we can scratch “unit of account” off the list of possible crypto uses. What about medium of exchange? One can imagine a scenario where the prices of goods and services are still listed in dollars, but one may transfer the equivalent in cryptocurrencies to purchase them. However, this raises an obvious question: Why would anyone choose to hold a cryptocurrency if wages and prices are denominated in fiat currencies such as US dollars or euros? The only possible answer is that people must see cryptocurrencies as fulfilling the third function of money, namely being a store of value. Would people be willing to hold cryptocurrencies if their prices generally moved sideways? It is doubtful. Cryptocurrencies are risky. Cryptocurrency accounts are not subject to deposit insurance. Crypto prices are also extremely volatile. During the pandemic, the S&P 500 fell by 34%, but the price of Bitcoin sank by an even greater 53%. Other cryptocurrencies fared even worse. In contrast, the trade-weighted US dollar strengthened by about 4% while gold prices only fell marginally (Chart 4). Thus, to incentivize people to hold cryptos, the prospective capital gain has to be large enough to offset the inherent volatility in owning these currencies. Chart 4Cryptocurrencies Fared Badly During Last Year’s Equity Sell-Off The Crypto Impossibility Theorem The Crypto Impossibility Theorem This is where the Crypto Impossibility Theorem comes in. Unlike dividend-paying stocks, cryptocurrencies do not provide any income to their holders. Thus, even if cryptos were just as risky as stocks, the price of cryptos would still need to rise more than the price of stocks in order to ensure that investors remain indifferent between the two asset classes. In practice, as the experience of the pandemic demonstrates, cryptos are even riskier than stocks. Thus, the expected return on cryptos has to exceed the expected increase in stock prices by more than the dividend yield. The problem for crypto holders is that this is not mathematically possible. Even if one controls for the rise in price-earnings multiples over time, equity returns have generally exceeded nominal GDP growth (Table 1). Hence, if cryptos need to offer superior returns to equities, and if the return on equities is at least equal to nominal GDP growth, then the market capitalization of cryptocurrencies will not only end up rising faster than for stocks, it will rise faster than aggregate national income. In a digital world where people need ever-less money to facilitate transactions, there is no good reason to expect this to happen. Table 1Equity Returns And GDP Growth The Crypto Impossibility Theorem The Crypto Impossibility Theorem A Fashion Choice Crypto-optimists might argue that the required rate of return to holding cryptos will decline as the market matures. This is wishful thinking. Equities derive their value from the fundamentals of a company’s business. In contrast, cryptocurrencies have no intrinsic value. Their value is whatever others are willing to pay for them. Not only does this make cryptocurrencies inherently more risky than equities, it also makes them highly susceptible to fashion trends. It is not surprising that many upstart cryptocurrencies have crafted ties with celebrities and other “influencers.” The whole point is to get enough people interested in a cryptocurrency to generate a feedback loop of wider adoption, thus allowing the currency’s early backers to cash out. The drubbing that cryptocurrencies have received over the past two weeks is just a taste of things to come. In this sense, cryptocurrencies are even more vulnerable to affinity scams than other assets such as precious metals. While apocalyptic warnings of “currency debasement” have long been used to sell bullion, at least with gold and silver, you truly do get something that is in short supply. In the case of cryptocurrencies, while the supply of any individual cryptocurrency may be limited, the overall supply is unbounded. This means that the average price of each currency is likely to rise much less than the aggregate value of all cryptocurrencies, making the entire asset class even less viable over time.   Cryptogeddon The drubbing that cryptocurrencies have received over the past two weeks is just a taste of things to come. As Matt Gertken and Guy Russell discuss in this week’s Geopolitical Strategy report, crypto markets will continue to face tighter regulation (Table 2). Just this week, China reiterated its ban on financial companies offering cryptocurrency services. As part of its broader effort to crack down on tax evasion, the US Treasury Department also announced that it will require any cryptocurrency transfer worth $10,000 or more to be reported to the IRS. Table 2Regulation Of Cryptos: What Can And Cannot Be Done The Crypto Impossibility Theorem The Crypto Impossibility Theorem The blockchain trilemma will make it impossible for cryptos to overcome ESG concerns, while the Crypto Impossibility Theorem will prevent cryptocurrencies from ever being stable stores of value. In the meantime, an ebbing of input price inflation will take some of the wind out of the sails from the argument that cryptos are an indispensable hedge against the “inevitable” debasement of fiat monies. Chart 5 shows that DRAM prices have rolled over. Lumber prices have dropped 11% so far this week. Corn, soybean, and steel prices have also backed off their highs. Cryptos are like sharks; they need to move forward or they will sink. Back when they were unknown to most investors, a speculative case could have been made for buying cryptos. However, that case vanished earlier this year when the aggregate value of cryptocurrencies briefly surpassed the entire stock of US dollars in circulation (Chart 6). Even with the recent correction, there are 17 cryptocurrencies with market capitalizations above $10 billion (Table 3). Chart 5To The Moon And Back? To The Moon And Back? To The Moon And Back? Chart 6Aggregate Value Of Cryptos Briefly Surpassed The Entire Stock Of US Dollars In Circulation Aggregate Value Of Cryptos Briefly Surpassed The Entire Stock Of US Dollars In Circulation Aggregate Value Of Cryptos Briefly Surpassed The Entire Stock Of US Dollars In Circulation Table 3Close To 20 Cryptos Have A Market Cap In Excess Of US$10bn The Crypto Impossibility Theorem The Crypto Impossibility Theorem What will the ongoing crypto collapse mean for the broader investment landscape? In the near term, the pain in crypto markets could drag down other speculative assets such as tech stocks. In the long term, diminished investor interest in cryptos will benefit the stock market, as investor attention focuses back on equities. For the broader economy, the impact of a crypto bear market will be limited. The banking system has very little exposure to cryptos. There will be a modest adverse wealth effect from falling crypto prices. However, the inability of a few laser-eyed crypto traders to buy their Lambos is hardly going to matter much against the backdrop of strong stimulus-fueled consumption growth in the US and a number of other economies. Investors should continue to overweight stocks in a global asset portfolio, favoring value over growth, cyclicals over defensives, and non-US stocks over their US peers. Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist pberezin@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Proof of Work (PoW) and Proof of Stake (PoS) are two methods used to ensure the integrity of a coin’s ledger or record of transactions. PoW achieves this by requiring miners (those who add transactions to the ledger) to solve a time-consuming mathematical puzzle. PoS achieves this through a different mechanism, where anyone who stakes their own coin can be randomly selected to add new transactions to the ledger. Those holding or “staking” more coin have a higher probability of being selected. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix The Crypto Impossibility Theorem The Crypto Impossibility Theorem Special Trade Recommendations The Crypto Impossibility Theorem The Crypto Impossibility Theorem Current MacroQuant Model Scores The Crypto Impossibility Theorem The Crypto Impossibility Theorem

Highlights The US is only one deflationary shock away from a European level of bond yields. On a multi-year horizon, a deflationary shock is a near-certainty. The shock will be deflationary, because even if it starts inflationary, it will quickly morph into deflationary. The reason is that the sharp backup in bond yields resulting from an inflationary shock would undermine the value of $300 trillion worth of global real estate, and thereby unleash a massive deflationary impulse. Hence, the US 30-year bond will ultimately deliver an absolute return approaching 100 percent, in absolute terms… …and relative to core European and Japanese bonds. Fractal trade shortlist: Stocks to consolidate versus bonds; Commodities look dangerously frothy; Buy USD/CAD. Feature Chart of The WeekThe Structural Level Of Bond Yields Depends On The Number Of Lasting Deflationary Shocks The Structural Level Of Bond Yields Depends On The Number Of Lasting Deflationary Shocks The Structural Level Of Bond Yields Depends On The Number Of Lasting Deflationary Shocks Ten years ago, 30-year bond yields in the US, UK and Germany stood at near-identical levels, around 3 percent. Today though, those yields are widely dispersed: the US at 2.3 percent, the UK at 1.3 percent, and Germany at 0.3 percent. What happened? In 2012, the German bond yield decoupled from the UK and the US, because the deflationary shock from the euro debt crisis was focussed in the euro area. Then, in 2016, the UK bond yield decoupled from the US, because the deflationary shock from Brexit was focussed in the UK and EU27 (Chart Of The Week). The ‘Shock Theory’ Of Bond Yields Welcome to a new concept – the ‘shock theory’ of bond yields. According to this theory, the structural level of high-quality government bond yields is simply a function of the number of lasting deflationary shocks that the economy has suffered. Each successive deflationary shock takes the bond yield to a lower structural level until it can go no lower (Chart I-2). Chart I-2Each Successive Deflationary Shock Takes The Bond Yield To A Lower Structural Level, Until It Can Go No Lower Each Successive Deflationary Shock Takes The Bond Yield To A Lower Structural Level, Until It Can Go No Lower Each Successive Deflationary Shock Takes The Bond Yield To A Lower Structural Level, Until It Can Go No Lower Since 2011, US, UK and German bond yields have decoupled because the US has suffered the legacies of one fewer deflationary shock than the UK, and two fewer deflationary shocks than Germany. But the important corollary is that the US is only one deflationary shock away from a European level of bond yields. When that deflationary shock arrives and the US 30-year bond yield reaches the recent low achieved in the UK, it will equate to a price gain of over 50 percent. And if the yield reaches the recent low achieved in Germany, it will equate to a price gain of well over 100 percent. Many people say that such gains are impossible. Yet ten years ago these same people were saying that UK and German long-duration bonds could never reach near-zero yields, and look what happened! Our high-conviction view is that the long-duration US bond will ultimately deliver a stellar absolute return, and a stellar relative return versus core European and Japanese bonds. The simple reason is that another deflationary shock is just a matter of time away. Long-Term Investors Must Always Plan For A Shock Most strategists and investors claim that shocks, such as the pandemic, are inherently unpredictable, and therefore that you cannot plan for them. We disagree. Yes, the timing and nature of individual shocks are inherently unpredictable. But as we explained in How To Predict Shocks, the statistical distribution of shocks is highly predictable. What constitutes a shock? There is no established definition, so our definition is any event that causes the long-duration bond price in a major economy to rally or slump by at least 25 percent.1 (Chart I-3) Using this definition through the last 50 years, we can say that the statistical distribution of the number of shocks in any ten-year period is Poisson (3.33) and the statistical distribution of the time between shocks is Exponential (3.33). Chart I-3A Shock Is A 25 Percent Move In The Long Duration Bond Price, And A Shock Tends To Come Every 3 Years A Shock Is A 25 Percent Move In The Long Duration Bond Price, And A Shock Tends To Come Every 3 Years A Shock Is A 25 Percent Move In The Long Duration Bond Price, And A Shock Tends To Come Every 3 Years It follows that in any ten-year period, the likelihood of suffering a shock is a near-certain 96 percent (Chart I-4). And even in any five-year period, the likelihood of a shock is an extremely high 81 percent. Chart I-4On A Multi-Year Horizon, A Shock Is A Near-Certainty The 'Shock Theory' Of Bond Yields The 'Shock Theory' Of Bond Yields For many people, this creates a cognitive dissonance. Even though a shock is a near-certainty, they cannot visualise its exact nature or timing, so they resist planning for it. Yet long-term investors must always plan for shocks. Not to do so is unforgiveable. An Inflationary Shock Will Quickly Morph Into A Deflationary Shock The crucial question is, will the next shock be deflationary, or inflationary? Our high-conviction view is that it will be net deflationary. Meaning that even if the shock starts as inflationary, it will quickly morph into deflationary. The simple reason is that the sharp backup in bond yields that would come from an inflationary shock would undermine the value of $300 trillion worth of global real estate, and thereby unleash a massive deflationary impulse. The 2010s housing boom was unprecedented in its penetration and regional breadth, simultaneously encompassing cities, suburbs, and rural areas across North America, Europe, Asia and Australasia. As prices doubled almost everywhere, the value of global real estate surged by $150 trillion (Chart I-5), of which $75 trillion was due to the valuation uplift from lower bond yields (Chart I-6). To put this into context, lower bond yields have boosted the value of global real estate by the equivalent of world GDP! Chart I-5In The 2010s Housing Boom, The Value Of Global Real Estate Surged By $150 Trillion… In The 2010s Housing Boom, The Value Of Global Real Estate Has Surged By $150 Trillion... In The 2010s Housing Boom, The Value Of Global Real Estate Has Surged By $150 Trillion... Chart I-6…Of Which $75 Trillion Was Due To Lower Bond Yields ...Of Which $75 Trillion Is Due To Lower Bond Yields ...Of Which $75 Trillion Is Due To Lower Bond Yields Many people believe that real assets, such as real estate and equities, perform well in an inflationary shock, but this is a misunderstanding. Granted, the income generated by real assets should keep pace with nominal GDP. But the valuation paid for that income will collapse if it starts off at an elevated level, such as now. The starting valuation needed to generate a given real return during an inflationary shock is much lower than during price stability. For example, for equities in the low-inflation 1990s and 2000s, a starting price to earnings multiple of 15 consistently generated a prospective 10-year real return of 10 percent. But in the inflation shock of the 1970s, the same starting multiple of 15 generated a real return of zero. To generate a real return of 10 percent, the starting multiple had to halve to 7 (Chart I-7). Chart I-7In The 1970s Inflationary Shock, Valuations Collapsed In The 1970s Inflationary Shock, Valuations Collapsed In The 1970s Inflationary Shock, Valuations Collapsed How much can bond yields rise before undermining the value of global real estate? Over the past decade the global rental yield has not been able to deviate from the global long-duration bond yield by more than 100 bps.2 Given that the bond yield is already around 25 bps above the rental yield, we deduce that the long-duration bond yield can rise by no more than 75 bps before global real estate prices start getting hurt (Chart I-8).  Chart I-8The Bond Yield Can Rise By No More Than 75 Bps Before Global Real Estate Prices Get Hurt The Bond Yield Can Rise By No More Than 75 Bps Before Global Real Estate Prices Get Hurt The Bond Yield Can Rise By No More Than 75 Bps Before Global Real Estate Prices Get Hurt To repeat our key structural recommendation, the long-duration US bond will ultimately deliver a stellar absolute return, and a stellar relative return versus core European and Japanese bonds. Candidates For Countertrend Reversal This week we note that the rally in stocks versus bonds (MSCI All Country World versus 30-year T-bond) is likely to consolidate in the coming months – given the fragility in the 260-day fractal structure similar to previous turning points in 2008, 2010, 2013, and 2020 (Chart I-9). Chart I-9The Rally In Stocks Versus Bonds Is Likely To Consolidate In The Coming Months The Rally In Stocks Versus Bonds Is Likely To Consolidate In The Coming Months The Rally In Stocks Versus Bonds Is Likely To Consolidate In The Coming Months We also repeat our warning to steer clear of commodities. The rally in all commodities is becoming dangerously frothy, displaying the extremes of fractal fragility seen in 2008. (Chart I-10and Chart I-11). Chart I-10The Rally In Commodities Is Becoming Dangerously Frothy... The Rally In Commodities Is Becoming Dangerously Frothy... The Rally In Commodities Is Becoming Dangerously Frothy... Chart I-11...Displaying The Extremes Of Fractal Fragility Seen In 2008 ...Displaying The Extremes Of Fractal Fragility Seen In 2008 ...Displaying The Extremes Of Fractal Fragility Seen In 2008 A good trade right now is to short the Canadian dollar. Based on the loonie’s composite fractal structure, a lot of good news is already priced in, including the dangerously frothy commodity markets and the Bank of Canada’s (hawkish) taper of asset purchases. As such we expect the Canadian dollar to reverse in the coming months (Chart I-12). Chart I-12Short The Canadian Dollar Short The Canadian Dollar Short The Canadian Dollar Go long USD/CAD, setting a profit-target and symmetrical stop-loss at 3.7 percent. Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist Footnotes 1 As bond yields approach their lower limit, this definition of a shock will need to change as it will become impossible for long-duration bond prices to rally by 25 percent. 2 Here, the global long-duration bond yield is defined as the average of the 30-year yields in the US and China. Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Equity Market Performance   Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area     Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed     Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations     Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations    

Highlights Massive slack in the US labour market means that the current uplift in US inflation is highly likely to fade by the end of the year. On a long-term horizon, investors should own US T-bonds. Equity investors should fade the reflation trade… …and rotate into the unloved defensive sectors such as healthcare, consumer staples, and personal products. These sector preferences imply an overweight to developed markets (DM) versus emerging markets (EM). On a 6+ month horizon, overweight US T-bonds versus German bunds. Fractal trade shortlist: France versus Japan; corn versus wheat; timber; and building materials. Feature Chart of the WeekMillions Of People Have Dropped Out Of The US Labour Market Millions Of People Have Dropped Out Of The US Labour Market Millions Of People Have Dropped Out Of The US Labour Market The near 40 percent of Americans not in the labour market is the highest level in 50 years. Moreover, the exodus out of the labour market during the pandemic was on an unprecedented scale in the modern era. This means that we should treat the US unemployment rate with a huge dose of salt, because it does not include the millions of people that have dropped out of the labour market (Chart I-1). Even the headline 14 million plunge in the number of US unemployed is deceptive, because it is almost entirely due to the furloughed workers that have returned to their jobs (Chart I-2). Chart I-2Furloughed Workers Have Returned To Their Jobs... Furloughed Workers Have Returned To Their Jobs... Furloughed Workers Have Returned To Their Jobs... Worryingly, the additional 2 million ‘permanent unemployed’ has barely budged from its pandemic peak and the number of economically inactive stands 5.5 million higher (Chart I-3). Meanwhile, population growth is increasing the potential labour force. In combination, underemployment in the US labour market amounts to around 10 million people. Chart I-3...But The Numbers Of Permanent Unemployed And Inactive Remain Elevated ...But The Numbers Of Permanent Unemployed And Inactive Remain Elevated ...But The Numbers Of Permanent Unemployed And Inactive Remain Elevated To its credit, the Federal Reserve is acutely aware of this. Last week, Chair Jay Powell pointed out that: “We’re a long way from full employment, payroll jobs are 8.4 million below where they were in February of 2020…these were people who were working in February of 2020. They clearly want to work. So those people, they’re going to need help” Implicit is the Fed’s belief that the massive slack in the US labour market will keep structural inflation depressed. And that the coming increases in inflation will be short-lived. Travel And Hospitality Cannot Move The Inflation Needle Some people argue that pent-up demand for things that we couldn’t do under social restrictions – such as travel and eat out – will unleash a major inflation. The flaw in this argument is that these things account for a tiny part of the inflation basket. For example, airfares are weighted at a negligible 0.6 percent in the US consumer price index (CPI). Eating out at (full service) restaurants is weighted at just 3 percent. So, even if these prices were to surge, they would barely move the overall inflation needle. By far the biggest component in US inflation is rent of shelter, weighted at 33 percent in the CPI and 42 percent in the core CPI. By far the biggest component in US inflation is rent of shelter, weighted at 33 percent in the CPI and 42 percent in the core CPI. The lion’s share of rent of shelter is so-called ‘owner-equivalent rent’, weighted at 24 percent in the CPI and 30 percent in the core CPI.1  Owner-equivalent rent is the hypothetical cost that homeowners incur to consume their own home, obtained by surveying a sample of homeowners. In the US, this hypothetical cost tracks actual rents. So, we can say that the biggest driver of US inflation is rent inflation (Chart I-4). Chart I-4Owner-Equivalent Rent Inflation Tracks Actual Rent Inflation Owner-Equivalent Rent Inflation Tracks Actual Rent Inflation Owner-Equivalent Rent Inflation Tracks Actual Rent Inflation Rent inflation has consistently outperformed the rest of the inflation basket. Hence, to get overall inflation to a persistent 2 percent, rent inflation must get to 3 percent and stay there – meaning a persistent 1.5 percent higher than it is now (Chart I-5). Chart I-5Core Inflation At 2 Percent Requires Rent Inflation At 3 Percent Core Inflation At 2 Percent Requires Rent Inflation At 3 Percent Core Inflation At 2 Percent Requires Rent Inflation At 3 Percent What drives rent inflation? The answer is the permanent unemployment rate. This is because the ability to pay rent relies on the security of having a permanent job. Empirically, a one percent decline in the permanent unemployment rate lifts rent inflation by one percent (Chart I-6). Chart I-6A 1 Percent Decline In The Permanent Unemployment Rate Lifts Rent Inflation By 1 Percent A 1 Percent Decline In The Permanent Unemployment Rate Lifts Rent Inflation By 1 Percent A 1 Percent Decline In The Permanent Unemployment Rate Lifts Rent Inflation By 1 Percent Pulling this together, the US permanent unemployment rate needs to fall by about 1.5 percent for core inflation to reach the Fed’s target persistently. Put another way, most of the additional 2 million permanent unemployed need to find work. Yet history teaches us that this will take a long time. The Post-Pandemic Productivity Boom Will Be Disinflationary When an industry sheds millions of jobs in a recession, it tends to substitute that labour input permanently with a new productivity-boosting technology or strategy. For example, after the Great Depression the smaller craft-based auto producers shut down permanently, while those that had adopted labour-saving mass production survived. The result was a major restructuring of the auto productive structure. Another example was the ‘typing pool’, a ubiquitous feature of office life until the late 1990s. After the dot com bust, the wholesale roll-out of Microsoft Word wiped out these typing jobs. It takes years for excess labour to get fully absorbed into a post-recession economy. Hence, the flip side of a post-recession productivity boom is that displaced workers need to re-skill, or even change career – requiring a long time for the excess labour to get absorbed into the restructured economy. After the dot com bust, it took four years. After the global financial crisis, it took six years (Chart I-7). Chart I-7How Long Does It Take To Absorb The Permanent Unemployed? How Long Does It Take To Absorb The Permanent Unemployed? How Long Does It Take To Absorb The Permanent Unemployed? The post-pandemic experience will be no different. In fact, compared to a common-or-garden recession, the pandemic has accelerated wider-reaching changes to the way that we live, work, and interact. This means that it might take even longer for the economy to attain the central bank’s goal of ‘full employment.’ Again, to its credit, the Federal Reserve is acutely aware of this. As Jay Powell went on to say: “It’s going to be a different economy. We’ve been hearing a lot from companies looking at deploying better technology and perhaps fewer people, including in some of the services industries that have been employing a lot of people. It seems quite likely that a number of the people who had those service sector jobs will struggle to find the same job, and may need time to find work” In summary, elevated permanent unemployment will subdue rent inflation. And subdued rent inflation will constrain overall inflation once the current supply bottlenecks clear. On a long-term horizon, investors should own US T-bonds. Equity investors should fade the reflation trade, and rotate into the unloved defensive sectors such as healthcare, consumer staples, and personal products. These sector preferences imply an overweight to developed markets (DM) versus emerging markets (EM). US And European Inflation Will Converge US and European inflation rates are not measured on an apples-for-apples basis. European inflation excludes the largest component in the US inflation basket – owner-equivalent rent (OER). To repeat, OER is the hypothetical cost that homeowners incur to consume their own home. European statisticians do not like to include any hypothetical item in the inflation basket that does not have a market price. So, euro area inflation includes actual rents, but it excludes OER. On an apples-for-apples comparison, inflation rates in the US and the euro area have been near-identical for many years. This means that US core inflation has a 30 percent higher weighting to an item that has persistently inflated at well above 2 percent. If we strip out OER, then the core inflation rates in the US and the euro area have been near-identical for many years (Chart I-8).2 Chart I-8On An Apples-For-Apples Comparison, Inflation In The US And Euro Area Are Near-Identical On An Apples-For-Apples Comparison, Inflation In The US And Euro Area Are Near-Identical On An Apples-For-Apples Comparison, Inflation In The US And Euro Area Are Near-Identical Alternatively, what if we include OER in euro area inflation? Despite European rent controls, actual rents have persistently outperformed core inflation. Hence, OER would likely outperform by even more. We can infer that including OER would have lifted euro area inflation very close to US inflation (Chart I-9). Chart I-9Omitting Owner-Equivalent Rent Has Depressed Euro Area Inflation Omitting Owner-Equivalent Rent Has Depressed Euro Area Inflation Omitting Owner-Equivalent Rent Has Depressed Euro Area Inflation All of this may sound like a petty academic difference, but this petty academic difference has generated huge economic and political consequences. As OER has boosted inflation in the US versus Europe, US and euro area monetary policy have diverged much more than they should. Which means US and euro area bond yields have diverged much more than they should. Which has structurally weakened the euro. Which has spawned the near $200 billion trade surplus for the euro area versus the US. And all because of a petty academic difference! What happens next? If, as we expect, US shelter inflation remains depressed then the major difference between US and euro area inflation will vanish. Reinforcing this will be a catch-up in euro area growth as the delayed roll-out of vaccinations takes effect. On this basis, a stand-out opportunity on a 6+ month investment horizon is yield convergence between US T-bonds and German bunds. Overweight US T-bonds versus German bunds. Candidates For Countertrend Reversals Corn prices have surged on increased demand from China combined with supply shortages resulting from poor weather in Brazil. This has caused an odd divergence between corn and wheat prices, which is now susceptible to a sharp correction (Chart I-10). Chart I-10The Rally In Corn Versus Wheat Is Vulnerable To Reversal The Rally In Corn Versus Wheat Is Vulnerable To Reversal The Rally In Corn Versus Wheat Is Vulnerable To Reversal Likewise, timber prices have boomed on the back of increased housebuilding demand combined with supply bottlenecks. But as these bottlenecks clear and/or higher bond yields cool demand, the sector is vulnerable to an aggressive reversal given its fragile fractal structure (Chart I-11). Chart I-11Timber Prices Are Vulnerable To Reversal Timber Prices Are Vulnerable To Reversal Timber Prices Are Vulnerable To Reversal To play this, our first recommended trade is to short the Invesco Building and Construction ETF (PKB) versus the Healthcare SPDR (XLV), setting the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 15 percent (Chart I-12). Chart I-12Short Building And Construction (PKB) Versus Healthcare (XLV) Short Building And Construction (PKB) Versus Healthcare (XLV) Short Building And Construction (PKB) Versus Healthcare (XLV) Finally, within stock markets, the recent divergence of France versus Japan is highly unusual given that the two markets have near-identical sector compositions. This divergence has taken France versus Japan to the top of its multi-year trading range (Chart I-13). Chart I-13Short France Versus Japan Short France Versus Japan Short France Versus Japan Hence, our second recommended trade is to short France versus Japan (MSCI indexes), setting the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 4.8 percent. Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The PCE has broadly similar weights as the CPI. 2 We have approximated the removal of OER by removing the whole shelter component. Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Equity Market Performance   Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - ##br##Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - ##br##Europe Ex Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - ##br##Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - ##br##Other Developed Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Highlights On a timeframe of a few years, a net deflationary shock is a near-certainty even if we do not know its precise nature or its precise timing. Hence, investors must build such a deflationary shock or shocks into their long-term investment strategy. Specifically: The 10-year T-bond yield will ultimately reach zero, and the 30-year T-bond yield will ultimately reach 0.5 percent. For patient investors, this presents a mouth-watering 100 percent return on the long-duration T-bond. The structural bull market in equities will continue until T-bond yields reach their ultimate low. Patient equity investors should steer towards ‘growth’ sectors that will surge on the ultimate low in T-bond yields. Fractal trade shortlist: Taiwan versus China, Netherlands versus China, and Sweden versus Finland. Feature Chart I-1For Long-Term Investors, A Shock Is A Near-Certainty How To Predict Shocks How To Predict Shocks Predicting shocks is easy. The precise nature and timing of shocks is not predictable, but the statistical distribution of shocks is highly predictable. This means that the longer our investment timeframe, the more certain we are of encountering at least one shock – even if we cannot predict its precise nature or timing. Many economists and strategists blame their forecasting errors on shocks, such as the pandemic, which they point out are ‘unforecastable.’ Absent the shocks, they argue, their predictions of the economy and the markets would have turned out right. This is a valid excuse for short-term forecasting errors, but it is not a valid excuse for long-term forecasting errors. On a long-term horizon, encountering a major shock, or several major shocks, is a near-certainty. Hence, economists and strategists who are not incorporating the well-defined statistical distribution of shocks into their long-term investment forecasts and strategies are making a mistake. Individual Shocks Are Not Predictable In the 21 years of this century so far, there have been five shocks whose economic/financial consequences have been felt worldwide: the dot com bust (2000); the global financial crisis (2007/8); the euro debt crisis (2011/12); the emerging markets recession (2014/15); and the global pandemic (2020). To these we can add two wide-reaching political shocks: the Brexit vote (2016); and Donald Trump’s shock victory in the US presidential election (2016). In total, this constitutes seven shocks, four economic/financial, two political, and one natural (Chart I-2). Chart I-2The Seven Global Shocks Of The Century (So Far) The Seven Global Shocks Of The Century (So Far) The Seven Global Shocks Of The Century (So Far) Some people argue that economic/financial shocks are predictable, because they arise from vulnerabilities in the economy or financial markets, which should be easy to spot. Unfortunately, though such vulnerabilities are obvious in hindsight, the greatest economic minds cannot see them in real time. The greatest economic minds cannot see economic vulnerabilities. Infamously, on the eve of the global financial crisis, Ben Bernanke was insisting that “there’s not much indication that subprime mortgage issues have spread into the broader mortgage market.” Equally infamously, on the eve of the euro debt crisis, Mario Draghi was asking “what makes you think that the ECB must become lender of last resort to governments to keep the eurozone together?” (Chart I-3 and Chart I-4) Chart I-3Bernanke Couldn't See The GFC Bernanke Couldn't See The GFC Bernanke Couldn't See The GFC Chart I-4Draghi Couldn't See The Euro Debt Crisis Draghi Couldn't See The Euro Debt Crisis Draghi Couldn't See The Euro Debt Crisis Which begs the question, what is the current vulnerability that today’s great economic minds cannot see? As we have documented many times, most recently in The Rational Bubble Is Turning Irrational, the current vulnerability is the exponential relationship between rising bond yields and the risk premiums on equities and other risk-assets (Chart I-5 and Chart I-6). Meaning that $500 trillion of risk-assets are vulnerable to any substantial further rise in bond yields. Chart I-5A 1.5 Percent Decline In The Bond Yield Had A Smaller Impact On The Earnings Yield When The Bond Yield Started At 4 Percent... A 1.5 Percent Decline In The Bond Yield Had A Smaller Impact On The Earnings Yield When The Bond Yield Started At 4 Percent... A 1.5 Percent Decline In The Bond Yield Had A Smaller Impact On The Earnings Yield When The Bond Yield Started At 4 Percent... Chart I-6...Than When The Bond Yield Started ##br##At 3 Percent ...Than When The Bond Yield Started At 3 Percent ...Than When The Bond Yield Started At 3 Percent The second type of shock – political shocks – should be predictable as they mostly arise from well-defined events such as elections and referenda, which an army of political experts analyses ad nauseam. Yet the greatest political minds could not see Brexit or President Trump coming. Indeed, even ‘Team Brexit’ didn’t see Brexit coming, because it had no plan on how to implement Brexit once the vote was won. The third type of shocks – natural shocks – are clearly unpredictable as individual events. Nobody knows when the next major pandemic, earthquake, volcano eruption, tsunami, solar flare, or asteroid strike is going happen. Yet, to repeat, while the precise nature and timing of shocks is not predictable, the statistical distribution of shocks is highly predictable. The Statistical Distribution Of Shocks Is Highly Predictable The good news is that shocks follow well-defined statistical ‘power laws’ which allow us to accurately forecast how many shocks to expect in any long timeframe. The 7 shocks experienced through the past 21 years equates to a shock every three years on average, or 3.33 shocks in any 10-year period. The expected wait to the next shock is three years. The next few paragraphs delve into some necessary mathematics, but don’t worry, you don’t need to understand the maths to appreciate the key takeaways. If the past 21 years is representative, we propose that the number of shocks in any 10-year period follows a so-called Poisson distribution with parameter 3.33. From this distribution, it follows that the probability of going through a 5-year period without a shock is just 19 percent, and the probability of going through a 10-year period without a shock is a negligible 4 percent (Chart of the Week). The result is that if you are a long-term investor, then encountering a shock is a near-certainty and should be built into your investment strategy. How can we test our assumption that the number of shocks follows a Poisson distribution? The maths tells us that if the number of shocks follows a Poisson distribution with parameter 3.33, then the ‘waiting time’ between shocks follows a so-called Exponential distribution also with parameter 3.33. On this basis, 63 percent of the waits between shocks should be up to three years, 23 percent should be four to six years, and 14 percent should be over six years. Now we can compare this expected distribution with the actual distribution of waits between the 7 shocks encountered so far in this century. We find that the theory lines up closely with the practice, validating our assumption of a Poisson distribution (Chart I-7 and Chart I-8). Chart I-7The Theoretical Waiting Time Between Shocks… How To Predict Shocks How To Predict Shocks Chart II-8…Is Close To The Actual Waiting Time Between Shocks How To Predict Shocks How To Predict Shocks To repeat the key takeaways, on a long-term timeframe, encountering at least one shock is a near-certainty, and the expected wait to the next shock is three years. A Shock Is A Near-Certainty, And It Will End Up Deflationary Nevertheless, there remains a pressing question: Will the next shock(s) be deflationary or reflationary? It turns out that all shocks end up with both deflationary and reflationary components: either a deflationary impulse followed by a reflationary backlash or, as we highlighted in The Road To Inflation Ends At Deflation, a reflationary impulse followed by a deflationary backlash. But the crucial point is that the deflationary component will swamp the reflationary component. In the seven shocks of this century so far, six have been deflationary impulses with a weaker reflationary backlash; and one – the reflation trade of 2017-18 – was a reflationary impulse with a stronger deflationary backlash. It is our high conviction view that in the next shock(s), the deflationary component will continue to hold the upper hand (Chart I-9). Chart I-9Each Shock Has A Deflationary And Reflationary Component... But The Deflationary Component Tends To Dominate Each Shock Has A Deflationary And Reflationary Component... But The Deflationary Component Tends To Dominate Each Shock Has A Deflationary And Reflationary Component... But The Deflationary Component Tends To Dominate The simple reason is that as financial asset prices, real estate prices, and debt servicing costs get addicted to ever lower bond yields, the economy and financial markets cannot tolerate bond yields reaching previous tightening highs and, just like all addicts, need a new extreme loosening to feel any stimulus. This means that when the next shock comes – as it surely will – it will require lower lows and lower highs in the bond yield cycle. Let’s sum up. On a timeframe of a few years, a shock is a near-certainty even if we do not know its precise nature – economic/financial, political, or natural – or its precise timing. Furthermore, the shock will be net deflationary. Hence, investors must build such a deflationary shock or shocks into their long-term investment strategy. Specifically: The 10-year T-bond yield will eventually reach zero, and the 30-year T-bond yield will ultimately reach 0.5 percent. For patient investors, this constitutes a mouth-watering 100 percent return on the long-duration T-bond. The 10-year T-bond yield will eventually reach zero. The structural bull market in equities will continue until T-bond yields reach their ultimate low. Patient equity investors should tilt towards ‘growth’ sectors that will surge on the ultimate low in T-bond yields. Candidates For Countertrend Reversals This week we have noticed an unusual decoupling among the tech-heavy markets of Taiwan, Netherlands, and China (Chart I-10). Chart I-10An Unusual Decoupling Between Tech-Heavy Netherlands And China An Unusual Decoupling Between Tech-Heavy Netherlands And China An Unusual Decoupling Between Tech-Heavy Netherlands And China Among these three markets, the strong short-term outperformance of both Taiwan and Netherlands are due to supply bottlenecks in the semiconductor sector that have boosted Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing and ASML, but we expect these bottlenecks ultimately to resolve.  On this basis and combined with extremely fragile 130-day fractal structures, Taiwan versus China and Netherlands versus China are vulnerable to reversals (Chart I-11 and Chart I-12). Chart I-11Underweight Taiwan Versus China Underweight Taiwan Versus China Underweight Taiwan Versus China Chart I-12Underweight Netherlands Versus China Underweight Netherlands Versus China Underweight Netherlands Versus China Our first recommended trade is to underweight Netherlands versus China, setting a profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 5 percent. Another outperformance that looks fragile on its 130-day fractal structure is Sweden versus Finland, driven by industrials and financials versus energy and materials (Chart I-13). Chart I-13Underweight Sweden Versus Finland Underweight Sweden Versus Finland Underweight Sweden Versus Finland Our second recommended trade is to underweight Sweden versus Finland, setting a profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 4.7 percent.   Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Asset Performance Equity Market Performance   Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - ##br##Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - ##br##Europe Ex Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - ##br##Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - ##br##Other Developed Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations