Capex

As the FOMC explicitly acknowledged this week, monetary policy operates with substantial lags. We see the risks to stocks as tilted to the upside over the next 6 months but are neutral on global equities over a 12-month horizon.

Copper markets will remain tight on the back of growing physical deficits and pressure on capex. Policy-rate increases by central banks, uncertainty over re-opening in China and its fiscal-stimulus plans in the short run restrain risk taking. In the long run, the implications of China’s inward turn will keep supply-concentration risk for metals high, given its dominance of base-metals refining globally. Notwithstanding the disconnect between physical and futures markets, we remain bullish metals mining equities, and remain long the XME ETF.

Falling inflation will allow bond yields to decline in the major economies over the next few quarters. As such, we recommend that investors shift their duration stance from underweight to neutral over a 12 month-and-longer horizon and to overweight over a 6-month horizon. Structurally, however, a depletion of the global savings glut could put upward pressure on yields.

This week’s <i>Global Investment Strategy</i> report titled Fourth Quarter 2022 Strategy Outlook: A Three-Act Play discusses the outlook for the global economy and financial markets for the rest of 2022 and beyond.

Listen to a short summary of this report.     Executive Summary Significant Savings Provide A Moat Around Consumers Three mega moats will protect the US economy over the next 12 months: 1) A high number of job openings; 2) Significant pent-up demand; and 3) Strong Fed credibility, which has kept bond yields from rising more than they otherwise would have in response to higher inflation. Ironically, a recession will only occur when investors start believing that a recession will not occur. Without more economic optimism, real yields will not rise into restrictive territory. The double-dip 1980/82 recessions, the 1990-91 recession, the 2001 recession, and the 2007-09 Great Recession were all preceded by an almost identical 21-to-23-month period of a flat unemployment rate. The unemployment rate has been fairly stable since March when it hit 3.6%. Given the three moats, we suspect that it will move sideways well into next year. At that point, the trajectory of inflation will determine the path for the unemployment rate and the broader economy. Inflation will fall significantly over the coming months thanks to lower food and energy prices and easing supply-chain pressures. However, falling inflation could sow the seeds of its own demise. As prices at the pump and the grocery store decline, real wage growth will turn positive. This will bolster consumer confidence, leading to more spending, and ultimately, a reacceleration in core inflation.​​​​ Bottom Line: Stocks will rise over the next six months as recession risks abate, but then decline over the subsequent six months as it becomes clear that the Fed has no intention of cutting rates in 2023 and may even need to raise them further. On balance, we recommend a neutral exposure to global equities over a 12-month horizon.   Don’t Bet on a US Recession Just Yet Many investors continue to expect the US economy to slip into recession this year. The OIS curve is discounting over 100 basis points in rate cuts starting in 2023, something that would probably only happen in a recessionary environment (Chart 1). In contrast to the consensus view, we think that the US will avoid a recession. This is good news for stocks in the near term because it means that earnings estimates, which have already fallen meaningfully this year, are unlikely to be cut any further (Chart 2). It is bad news for stocks down the road because it means that rather than cutting rates in 2023, the Fed could very well have to raise them. Chart 1Investors Expect Fed Tightening To Give Way To An Easing Cycle In 2023 These two conflicting considerations lead us to expect stocks to rise over the next six months but then to fall over the subsequent six months. As such, we recommend an above-benchmark exposure to global equities over a short-term tactical horizon but a neutral exposure over a 12-month horizon. Three mega moats will protect the US economy over the next 12 months: 1) A high number of job openings; 2) Significant pent-up demand; and 3) Strong Fed credibility, which has kept bond yields from rising more than they otherwise would have in response to higher inflation. Let’s explore each in turn.   Moat #1: A High Number of Job Openings While job openings have fallen over the past few months, they are still very high by historic standards (Chart 3). In June, there were 1.8 job openings for every unemployed worker, up from 1.2 in February 2020. At the peak of the dotcom bubble, there were 1.1 job openings per unemployed worker. A high job openings rate means that many workers who lose their jobs will have little difficulty finding new ones. This should keep the unemployment rate from rising significantly as labor demand cools on the back of higher interest rates. Some investors have argued that the ease with which companies can advertise for workers these days has artificially boosted reported job openings. We are skeptical of this claim. For one thing, it does not explain why the number of job openings has risen dramatically over the past two years since, presumably, the cost of job advertising has not changed that much. Moreover, the Bureau of Labor Statistics bases its estimates of job openings not on a tabulation of online job postings but on a formal survey of firms. For a job opening to be counted, a firm must have a specific position that it is seeking to fill within the next 30 days. This rules out general job postings for positions that may not exist. We are also skeptical of claims that increased layoffs could significantly push up “frictional” unemployment, a form of unemployment stemming from the time it takes workers to move from one job to another. There is a great deal of churn in the US labor market (Chart 4). In a typical month, net flows in and out of employment represent less than 10% of gross flows. In June, for example, US firms hired 6.4 million workers. On the flipside “separations” totaled 5.9 million in June, 71% of which represented workers quitting their jobs. Chart 3A High Level Of Job Openings Creates A Moat Around The Labor Market Chart 4Labor Market Churn Tends To Increase As Unemployment Falls   In fact, total separations (and hence frictional unemployment) tend to rise when the labor market strengthens since that is when workers feel the most emboldened to quit. The reason that the unemployment rate increases during recessions is not because laid-off workers need time to find a new job but because there are simply not enough new jobs available. Fortunately, that is not much of a problem today.   Moat #2: Significant Pent-Up Demand US households have accumulated $2.2 trillion (9% of GDP) of excess savings since the start of the pandemic, most of which reside in highly liquid bank deposits (Chart 5). Admittedly, most of these savings are skewed towards middle- and upper-income households who tend to spend less out of every dollar of income than the poor (Chart 6). Nevertheless, even the top 10% of income earners spend about 80% of their income (Chart 7). This suggests that most of these excess savings will be deployed, supporting consumption in the process. Chart 5Significant Savings Provide A Moat Around Consumers Chart 6Unlike The Poor, Middle-To-Upper Income Households Still Hold Much Of Their Pandemic Savings Some commentators have argued that high inventories will restrain production, even if consumer spending remains buoyant. We doubt that will happen. While retail inventories have risen of late, the retail inventory-to-sales ratio is still near all-time lows (Chart 8). Moreover, real retail sales have returned to their pre-pandemic trend (Chart 9A). Overall goods spending is still above trend, but has retraced two-thirds of its pandemic surge with little ill-effect on the labor market (Chart 9B). Chart 7Even The Wealthy Spend Most Of Their Income Chart 8Retail Inventory-To-Sales Ratios Have Rebounded, But Remain Low Chart 9ASpending On Goods Has Been Normalizing (I) Chart 9BSpending On Goods Has Been Normalizing (II) The latest capex intention surveys point to a deceleration in business investment (Chart 10). Nevertheless, we doubt that capex will decline by very much. Following the dotcom boom, core capital goods orders moved sideways for two decades (Chart 11). The average age of the nonresidential capital stock rose by over two years during this period (Chart 12). Excluding investment in intellectual property, business capex as a share of GDP is barely higher now than it was during the Great Recession. Not only is there a dire need to replenish the existing capital stock, but there is an urgent need to invest in new energy infrastructure and increased domestic manufacturing capacity. Chart 10Capex Intentions Have Dipped Chart 11Capex Has Been Moribund For The Past Two Decades (I) With regards to residential investment, the homeowner vacancy rate has fallen to a record low. The average age of US homes stands at 31 years, the highest since 1948. Chart 13 shows that housing activity has weakened somewhat less than one would have expected based on the significant increase in mortgage rates in the first six months of 2022. Given the recent stabilization in mortgage rates, the chart suggests that housing activity should rebound by the end of the year. Chart 12Capex Has Been Moribund For The Past Two Decades (II) Chart 13Housing Activity Should Rebound On The Back Of Low Vacancy Rates, An Aging Housing Stock, And Stabilizing Mortgage Rates Moat #3: Strong Fed Credibility Even though headline inflation is running at over 8% and most measures of core inflation are in the vicinity of 5%-to-6%, the 10-year bond yield still stands at 2.87%. Two things help explain why bond yields have failed to keep up with inflation. First, investors regard the Fed’s commitment to bringing down inflation as highly credible. The TIPS market is pricing in a rapid decline in inflation over the next two years (Chart 14). The widely-followed 5-year, 5-year forward TIPS inflation breakeven rate is still near the bottom end of the Fed’s comfort zone. Chart 14AWell-Anchored Long-Term Inflation Expectations Have Kept Bond Yields From Rising More Than They Would Have Otherwise Chart 14BWell-Anchored Long-Term Inflation Expectations Have Kept Bond Yields From Rising More Than They Would Have Otherwise Households tend to agree with the market’s assessment. While households expect inflation to average over 5% over the next 12 months, they expect it to fall to 2.9% over the long term. As Chart 15 illustrates, expected inflation 5-to-10 years out in the University of Michigan survey is in line with where it was between the mid-1990s and 2015. This is a major difference from the early 1980s, when households expected inflation to remain near 10%. Back then, Paul Volcker had to engineer a deep recession in order to bring long-term inflation expectations back down to acceptable levels. Such pain is unlikely to be necessary today. Chart 15Households Expect Inflation To Come Back Down Chart 16Markets Think That The Real Neutral Rate Is Low The second factor that is suppressing bond yields is the market’s perception that the real neutral rate of interest is quite low. The 5-year, 5-year TIPS yield – a good proxy for the market’s estimate of the real neutral rate – currently stands at 0.40%, well below its pre-GFC average of 2.5% (Chart 16). Ironically, a recession will only occur when investors start believing that a recession will not occur. Without more economic optimism, real yields will not rise into restrictive territory. When Will the Moats Dry Up? The US unemployment rate is a mean-reverting series. When unemployment is very low, it is more likely to rise than to fall. And when the unemployment rate starts rising, it keeps rising. In the post-war era, the US has never avoided a recession when the unemployment rate has risen by more than one-third of a percentage point over a three-month period (Chart 17). Chart 17When Unemployment Starts Rising, It Usually Keeps Rising ​​​​​With the unemployment rate falling to a 53-year low of 3.5% in July, it is safe to say that we are in the late stages of the business-cycle expansion. When will the unemployment rate move decisively higher? While it is impossible to say with certainty, history does offer some clues. Remarkably, the double-dip 1980/82 recessions, the 1990-91 recession, the 2001 recession, and the 2007-09 Great Recession were all preceded by an almost identical 21-to-23-month period of a flat unemployment rate (Chart 18 and Table 1). Coincidentally, the Covid-19 recession was also preceded by 22 months of a stable unemployment rate. To the extent that the economy was not showing much strain going into the pandemic, it is reasonable to assume that the unemployment rate would have continued to move sideways for most of 2020 had the virus never emerged. Chart 18The Bottoming Phase Of The Unemployment Rate Has Only Begun Inflation is the Key The unemployment rate has been fairly stable since March when it hit 3.6%. Given the three moats discussed in this report, we suspect that it will move sideways well into next year. At that point, the trajectory of inflation will determine the path of the unemployment rate and the broader economy. As this week’s better-than-expected July CPI report foreshadows, inflation will fall significantly over the coming months, thanks to lower food and energy prices and easing supply-chain pressures. The GSCI Agricultural Index has dropped 24% from its highs and is now below where it was before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine (Chart 19). Retail gasoline prices have fallen 19% since June, with the futures market pointing to a substantial further decline over the next 12 months. In general, there is an extremely strong correlation between the change in gasoline prices and headline inflation (Chart 20). Supplier delivery times have also dropped sharply (Chart 21). Chart 19Agricultural Prices Have Started Falling Chart 20Headline Inflation Tends To Track Gasoline Prices Falling inflation could sow the seeds of its own demise, however. As prices at the pump and the grocery store decline, real wage growth will turn positive. That will bolster consumer confidence, leading to more spending (Chart 22). Core inflation, which is likely to decrease only modestly over the coming months, will start to accelerate in 2023, prompting the Fed to turn hawkish again. Stocks will falter at that point. Chart 21Supplier Delivery Times Have Declined Chart 22Falling Inflation Will Boost Real Wages And Consumer Confidence Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Follow me on LinkedIn and Twitter     Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores

Special Report

Executive Summary Iron Ore & Steel Prices: Facing Downward Pressure Global iron ore and steel supply is likely to grow faster than demand over the next six months. As a result, the prices of both metals will likely fall. Chinese steel output will likely rebound moderately in the absence of government-mandated steel production cutbacks. In the meantime, mainland steel demand will continue to contract because of its crumbling property sector. Global steel output excluding China will contract over the next six months on the back of weakening industrial demand for steel. Even though Chinese iron ore consumption may rise moderately over the next six months, its imports will not improve much because of robust growth in domestic iron ore production. Furthermore, global iron ore demand excluding China will decline as steel demand and output contract. In the intervening six months, global iron ore production growth will rise. This will lead to an oversupplied iron ore market.  Bottom Line: Both iron ore and steel prices will likely deflate over the next several months. Therefore, Chinese steel share prices as well as global mining and steel stocks have more downside.   China’s demand for iron ore and steel are key to their respective price outlooks because these metals account for about 70% of global iron ore imports and over 50% of global steel consumption. Considerable reduction in Chinese steel output (hence, demand for iron ore) and rising domestic iron ore supply have resulted in a contraction in Chinese iron ore imports since last June. In the meantime, domestic steel demand weakened sharply, primarily because of plunging property construction. The upshot has been lower domestic steel prices (Chart 1). This report evaluates the direction of iron ore and steel prices over the next six months. Chart 1Crumbling Property Sector: Lower Steel Demand Ahead Chart 2Iron Ore & Steel Prices: Facing Downward Pressure We expect Chinese steel output to rise in the absence of government-mandated production cuts and on positive profit margins. This will lift Chinese iron ore imports. In the meantime, Chinese steel demand will likely continue to contract. Thus, steel prices will continue falling over the next several months (Chart 2, top panel). For iron ore, an increase in Chinese imports will not be enough to offset contracting global demand. As a result, the price of iron ore will face downward pressure over the coming months (Chart 2, bottom panel). From The Chinese Steel Market… The Chinese steel market may experience an increasing oversupply over the next six months. Chinese Steel Supply Chinese steel production is likely to rise moderately in the next six months.  First, there are no government-mandated cuts in steel production currently in place. Chart 3Mandated Steel Output Cuts In 2021: Unlikely Repeat In 2022H2 Last June, Chinese authorities ordered steel mills to cut output from record levels in a bid to restrain carbon emissions. This resulted in a 15% year-on-year drop in Chinese crude steel1 output and a 10% year-on-year decline in Chinese steel products production during 2021H2 (Chart 3). In 2022Q1, to ensure smog-free skies in February as China hosted the 2022 Winter Olympic Games, some steel producers were again ordered to cut their production. As a result, the year-on-year decline of Chinese steel output and steel product output for 2022Q1 were at 10% and 5%, respectively. In 2022Q2, however, the picture is more of a mixed bad. While many small firms increased volumes, medium and large sized steel producers voluntarily chose to reduce their output. As a result, China’s steel output is remains in contraction. Further, tightness in electricity supply over the summer curbed any potential recovery in steel output. Over the next six months, we expect decreasing voluntary cuts and easing electricity supply will lift steel output moderately. Chart 4Steelmakers' Profit Margins: Low, Albeit Still Positive Second, overall profit margins for Chinese steel producers are still positive, albeit at a low level (Chart 4). Even at a very low profit margin, steel producers in China still tend to produce steel as much as they can to cover their very large fixed costs. In other words, if they do not produce, they will experience greater losses.  In addition, given deteriorating employment conditions in the broader economy, maintaining employment has become a major focus of local governments. The latter will guide state-owned enterprises (SOEs) – many steel mills are SOEs or government-affiliated – to raise output and employment. For now, the government has simply asked steel producers to cut their production voluntarily, rather than mandating cuts as authorities did last year and earlier this year. In brief, in the absence of government-mandated steel output reduction, some producers will opt to increase their output to cover their fixed costs and maintain/increase employment. Will the Chinese government demand mandated cuts again later this year? We believe the odds are low. Last year, the mandated cuts were the result of more aggressive emissions reduction targets, with a deadline at the end of 2025 for the Chinese steel sector. In February of this year, the authorities extended this deadline to 2030 to grant its steel sector the ability to reach peak emissions. This will allow a gradual output reduction instead of a sharp reduction in mills with high-emission steel-producing capacity. With such a deadline extension already in place, the government is unlikely to implement mandated steel output cuts again. Chinese Steel Demand Chinese steel consumption will likely continue to contract over the next six months. Chart 5 shows that 58% of Chinese steel consumption is from building and construction, which mainly comprises the property sector and the infrastructure sector. Based on our estimate, Chinese steel demand will decline about 3.8% over the next six months, mainly dragged down by the shattered property market (Table 1). Chart 5Chinese Steel Consumption Composition Table 1Chinese Steel Demand Growth Estimates Chart 6Property Market is in a Crisis The property sector is the largest steel consumer, accounting for about 35% of Chinese steel consumption. This sector is going through a crisis, and there are no signs of improvement yet. Property sales, new construction, and completion are all in a deep and unprecedented contraction (Chart 6, panels 1, 2, and 3). Even the commodity building floor space under construction entered contraction for the first time in at least the past two decades (Chart 6, bottom panel). Both central and local governments have implemented policies to revive the property sector since late last year. Following a wave of mortgage boycotts, the July 28 Central Politburo meeting demanded local governments to ensure those sold-but-unfinished housing projects to be completed. However, due to the extreme shortage of funding faced by real estate developers and the fragmented nature of this industry in China, it will take time to get the current property sector crisis resolved. Nonetheless, we expect supportive policies will work to some extent. We expect the year-on-year contraction in property construction to narrow to 10% over the next six months from about 13% in the past six months. Chart 7Infrastructure Sector: The Main Supportive Force for Chinese Steel Demand The infrastructure sector is another major source for Chinese steel demand (Chart 7). The sector contributes about 23% of Chinese steel consumption. Although the traditional infrastructure investment shows a solid 10% growth, we only assume 7% of growth in the sector’s steel demand. This is because, within the traditional infrastructure sector, two heavy steel consuming subsectors –railway and highway constructions – will register slower growth in their respective investments than overall infrastructure. Chart 8Steel Demand In the Machinery Sector: Likely to Remain In Contraction The 2016-2019 Boom: Only Sales Excavators And Cranes Hit A New High... Machinery production, the third largest steel consuming sector, will remain in contraction because of the depressed property market. Sales of major construction equipment – excavators, loaders, and cranes – have declined 36%, 23%, and 50% year-on-year in 2022H1 (Chart 8). With continuing weakness in the property market, we expect steel demand from machinery producers to be in a similar contraction (10%) over the next six months. Autos and electric appliances together account for about 7.3% of Chinese steel consumption. Weekly data shows Chinese auto sales are in a recovery phase (Chart 9). We expect the sector’s steel use to increase by 8% year-on-year over the next six months based on our projections from our research on the auto industry. Affected by the faltering domestic property market, the outlook for electric appliances is also dismal. The output of air conditioners, freezers, refrigerators, and washing machines is contracting (Chart 10). The expected contraction in global demand for consumer goods will ensure a continuous drop in their production in China, the largest world producer of white goods. We expect these sectors' steel consumption growth to improve from a 9% contraction in 2022H1 to a 5% contraction over the next six months. Chart 9Steel Demand From Auto Sales is Recovering Chart 10Steel Demand by Electric Appliances: Smaller Contraction Ahead Chart 11Steel Demand in Other Sectors: Will Likely Stay in Contraction Other sectors that consume steel include many industrial goods, such as civil steel ships and containers. The shipping industry has boomed during the past two years because of a global increase in goods demand. This also significantly increased demand for metal containers, and to a lesser extent, civil steel ships between 2020 and 2021 (Chart 11). As global trade volumes contract over the next six months, we expect steel consumption in these other sectors to contract by 3% over the same period. What about external demand for Chinese steel? Chinese steel products exports, which account for about 5% of the country’s steel products output, will grow moderately in the next six months. Historically, the Chinese government had provided a VAT rebate of around 13% to encourage steel exports. Last year, it removed such export tax rebates on various steel products in a bid to slow domestic carbon emissions. Chart 12Chinese Steel Exports: Moderate Growth Ahead However, this has not considerably reduced Chinese steel exports. Chinese exports of steel products only had a year-on-year contraction from January to April 2022, largely because of COVID-related shutdowns, and then experienced considerable growth during May-July of the same year (Chart 12). At the same time, Chinese imports of steel products have been contracting since last May. This pattern shows the strong global competitiveness of Chinese steel products. We expect moderate growth in Chinese steel products exports over the next six months, which will be much lower than last year’s growth. In 2021, Chinese steel products exports surged by 25% year-on-year, as steel exporters rushed to export their products to take advantage of the rebates before its removal. Bottom Line: Chinese steel supply is likely to exceed demand over the next six months. This will result in an oversupplied steel market in China, exerting downward pressure on steel prices. …To The Global Iron Ore Market Chart 13Chinese Steel Production: Largely Determines the Country's Iron Ore Imports Iron ore is mainly used in the steel-making process. Limited iron ore supplies within China mean that about 80% of the country’s iron ore demand are satisfied by imports. As a result, variations in Chinese steel production largely determine swings in Chinese iron ore imports (Chart 13). Based on our expectations of the Chinese steel market, we can provide our supply-demand analysis for the global iron ore market. Global Iron Ore Demand While rebounding Chinese steel output will lift the nation’s iron ore consumption, iron ore demand from the rest of the world will shrink materially. Net-net, global iron ore demand will weaken, albeit only marginally over the next six months. Steel production is declining in the world outside China. We expect such contraction will continue into early 2023, as the pandemic-triggered overspending on goods ex-autos reverses (Chart 14). In addition, in Europe, energy rationing and sky-high energy prices will likely lead to defunct mills as a response to reducing their output; hence, their iron ore consumption will tank. Given that Europe accounts for about 10% of world steel production and nearly 50% of its steel production is using electric furnaces,2 this will reduce global iron ore demand. Last year, global steel production excluding China increased by 13% year-on-year, the highest growth since 2011 (Chart 15). This is much higher than the average 2% growth during 2017-2019, reflecting the overconsumption of goods by advanced economies in 2021. Indeed, steel production has already declined for four consecutive months. We expect a year-on-year contraction of about 5% global steel production in the world excluding China over the next six months. Chart 14The World Outside China: Steel Output Will Continue Declining Chart 15Falling DM PMI Signals Weaker Steel Output in the World Outside China Scrap steel is one substitute for iron ore in the steel-making process, but, this time, there will be limited replacement from scrap steel in China. Tight supply of scrap steel and relatively high scrap steel prices will make iron ore more appealing than scrap steel as feedstock for Chinese steel producers over the next several months. Scrap prices are currently high relative to both steel product prices and imported iron ore prices (Chart 16). Chart 16Iron Ore Substitute in China: Limited Scrap Steel Demand in 2022H2 Chart 17China: Domestic Iron Ore Output is Rising Global Iron Ore Supply Global iron ore supply will rise slightly over the next six months. Chinese iron ore output is set to continue increasing as well (Chart 17, top panel). The authorities plan to boost domestic iron ore output by 6.5% per year until 2025. Profit margins for Chinese producers are currently at a multi-year high (Chart 17, bottom panel). This will encourage domestic iron ore production over the next six months.  Currencies in global major iron ore producing countries (Brazil, Australia and South Africa) have depreciated considerably. As a result, iron ore prices in these countries in local currency terms are currently still elevated. This will incentivize more iron ore production and exports by producers in these countries. Bottom Line: Global iron ore supply will increase slightly, while demand will contract slightly over the next six months. This will be negative for iron ore prices. Investment Implications Chart 18Global Mining Stocks and Steelmaker Stock Prices: More Downside Ahead Avoid Global Steel And Mining Stocks For Now Both iron ore and steel prices will likely deflate over the next six months. Hence, global mining stocks and steelmakers stock prices will experience more downside in the coming months (Chart 18). Global ex-China steel producers have benefited from strong steel demand in DM and from surging steel prices (Chart 15 above). As we expect that DM demand for consumer goods will contract over the next six months, steel prices will drop, weighing on global steelmakers’ share prices.  Concerning equity valuations, global mining and steel stocks trade at very low trailing P/E ratios. However, for highly cyclical stocks, such a low trailing P/E ratio is often a sign of peak profits. At peaks of cycles, share prices drop first, while EPS remains elevated, as it is a backward-looking variable. In fact, more often than not, buying these stocks when the P/E ratio is very high and selling them when the P/E ratio is very low has been a very profitable strategy. In short, a low P/E ratio for mining share prices and steel producers is not a reason to be long these stocks. The direction of both the global industrial cycle and steel and iron ore prices is what matters. On both counts, the outlook remains downbeat for now.   Ellen JingYuan He Associate Vice President ellenj@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1     According to the World Steel Association, crude steel is defined as steel in its first solid (or usable) form, including ingots, semi-finished products (billets, blooms, slabs), and liquid steel for castings. 2     The electric furnace is using electricity and scrap steel to produce crude steel. As Europe is facing energy constraint, this will likely affect European steel output greatly. Strategic Themes Cyclical Recommendations

S&P 500 Chart 1Macroeconomic Backdrop Chart 2Profitability Chart 3Valuations And Technicals Chart 4Uses Of Cash Cyclicals Vs Defensives Chart 5Macroeconomic Backdrop Chart 6Profitability Chart 7Valuation And Technicals Chart 8Uses Of Cash Growth Vs Value  Chart 9Macroeconomic Backdrop Chart 10Profitability Chart 11Valuations And Technicals Chart 12Uses Of Cash Small Vs Large Chart 13Macroeconomic Backdrop Chart 14Profitability Chart 15Valuations and Technicals Chart 16Uses Of Cash Table 1Performance Table 2Valuations And Forward Earnings Growth Recommended Allocation  

Executive Summary China Copper Consumption Failed To Revive Post-Pandemic A greater-than-expected contraction in manufacturing and construction in China – evidenced by the latest PMI and home sales data – will keep pressure on copper prices. Higher inflation will continue to drive the cost of labor, fuels and materials higher. Lower copper prices and higher input costs will weaken margins, leading to reduced capex. This also will put pressure on the rate of spending on projects already sanctioned. Payouts to shareholders – buybacks and dividends – will fall, reducing the appeal of miners’ equities. Debt-service costs will rise as interest rates are pushed higher by central banks. Civil unrest in critically important metals-producing provinces is forcing some miners to suspend production guidance. This will be exacerbated in Chile by changing tax regimes, which likely will reduce capex as well. Bottom Line: As global demand for copper increases with the renewable-energy transition and higher arms spending in Europe, miners’ ability to expand supply is being seriously challenged. Falling prices and rising costs – along with higher tax burdens and civil unrest in key mining provinces – are forcing copper miners to lower production and capex guidance, which will redound to the detriment of supply growth. With demand expected to double by 2030-35, copper prices will have to move higher to keep capex flowing to support supply growth. We remain long the XME ETF as the best way to express our bullish, decade-long view. Feature Just as the world is scrambling to develop additional energy supplies in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, copper supplies – the critical element of the renewable-energy buildout – are being squeezed by an unusual convergence of fundamental, financial and social factors. Chart 1China Copper Consumption Failed To Revive Post-Pandemic Firstly, copper demand is weak, which, all else equal, is suppressing prices. This is largely down to China’s zero-tolerance COVID-19 policy, and uncertainty over whether the EU will be pushed into a massive recession, following the cutoff of its natural gas supplies from Russia. These are two of the three major pillars of the global economy, and their economies are entwined via trade in goods. China’s COVID-19 policy is hammering its critically important property market – sales were down almost 40% y/y in July – and forcing a contraction in manufacturing. Construction represents ~ 30% of total copper demand in China. Manufacturing is contracting, based on China’s official July PMI report, which showed the index fell below 50 to 49.0 for July.1 Related Report  Commodity & Energy StrategyOne Hot Mess: EU Energy Policy China accounts for more than half of global copper demand, and, because of its zero-tolerance COVID-19 policy, was the only major economy to register a year-on-year contractions in copper demand throughout the pandemic up to the present (Chart 1). The EU accounts for ~ 12.5% of global copper demand, which we expect will continue to be supported by the bloc’s renewable-energy and defense buildouts.2 We noted in earlier research the odds of the EU going into recession remain high as the bloc scrambles to prepare for winter, in the wake of its attempts to replace its dependence on Russian natural gas supplies.3 We continue to expect the EU will avoid a major recession, and that it will be able to navigate this transition, leaving it on a better energy footing in subsequent years.4 Lower Copper Prices Will Hurt Capex Chart 2Copper Price Rally Fades After bottoming in March 2020 at $2.12/lb on the COMEX, copper prices staged a 125% rally that ended in March of this year. This was due to the post-pandemic reopening of most economies ex-China, which was accompanied by massive fiscal and monetary stimulus that super-charged consumer demand. Copper prices have since fallen ~33% from their March highs on the back of a substantial weakening of demand resulting from China’s zero-tolerance COVID policy and a concerted global effort to rein in the inflation caused by governments’ largess (Chart 2). Most year-end 2021 capex expectations for 2022 and into the future among copper miners were drawn up prior to the price collapse in June. After that, fear of central-bank policy mistakes – chiefly over-tightening of monetary policy that pushes the global economy into recession – and weak EM demand took prices from ~ $4.55/lb down to less than $3.20/lb by mid-July. A strong USD also pushed demand lower during this time. Chart 3DRC Offsets Chile, Peru Weakness Following the copper-price rout, miners are re-thinking production goals, dividend policy and capex. Social and governance issues also are contributing to weaker copper output. Rio Tinto, for example, notified markets it would shave $500mm from its $8 billion 2022 capex budget. For 1H22, Rio cut its dividend to $2.67/share from $5.61/share in 1H21. Elsewhere, Glencore said copper output from its Katanga mine in the DRC now is expected to come in 15% lower this year, at 1.06mm MT, owing to geological difficulties. Separately, output guidance for Chinese miner MMG Ltd’s Las Bambas mine in Peru has been suspended, following a 60% drop in production. The company expected it would be producing up to 320k tons this year. Civil unrest at Las Bambas has been ongoing since production started in 2016, according to Reuters. Big producers like Chile and Peru – accounting for ~ 35% of global ore production – along with the DRC face multiple challenges. Chile accounts for ~ 25% of global copper ore production. Its output fell ~ 6% in 2Q22 vs year-earlier output due to falling ore quality, water-supply constraints, and rising input costs (Chart 3). Chile’s government expects copper ore output to decline 3.4% y/y in 2022, with many of the country’s premier mines faltering (Chart 4). Chart 4Chile Expecting Lower Copper Output Chile also is proposing to increase taxes and royalties, to raise money for its budget. However, this may have the effect of driving away investment in the country’s copper mining industry. Fitch notes, “Increased costs will decrease mining cash flows and discourage new mining investments in Chile, favoring the migration of investors to other copper mining districts.”5 BHP Billiton, on que, said it will reconsider further investment in Chile, if the new legislation is approved. Renewables Buildout Will Widen Copper Deficit Markets appear to be trading without regard for the huge increase in copper supply that will be required for the global renewable-energy transition, to say nothing of the upcoming re-arming of the EU and continued military spending by the US and China. In our modeling of supply-demand balances, we move beyond our usual real GDP-based estimates of demand, which estimates the cyclical copper demand, and include assumptions for the demand the green-energy transition will contribute. Hence, this additional copper demand for green energy needs to be added to the copper demand forecast generated by the model. Using projections for global supply taken from the Resource and Energy Quarterly published by the Australian Government’s Department of Industry, Science and Resources, we estimate there will be a physical refined copper deficit of 224k tons in 2022 and 135K tons next year (Chart 5). Among other things, we are assuming refined copper demand will double by 2030 and reach 50mm tons/yr by then. This is a somewhat more aggressive assumption than S&P Global’s estimate of demand doubling by 2035. If we assume refined copper production is 2% lower than the REQ’s estimate, we expect the physical deficit in the refined copper market rise to a ~ 532k-ton deficit in 2022 and ~ 677k-ton deficit in 2023. These results including renewables demand highlight the need to not only account for cyclical demand but also the new demand that will be apparent as the EU, the US and China kick their renewables investments into high gear. Importantly, this kick-off is occurring with global commodity-exchange inventories still more than ~ 35% below year-ago levels (Chart 6). Chart 5Coppers Deficit Will Narrow On Lower Demand​​​​​​ Chart 6Exchange Inventories Remain Exceptionally Low​​​​​​ Investment Implications Copper prices will have to move higher to keep capex flowing to support supply growth normal cyclical demand and renewable-energy demand will require over coming decades. Falling prices and rising costs – along with higher tax burdens and civil unrest in key mining provinces – are forcing copper miners to lower production and capex guidance, which will redound to the detriment of supply growth. This situation cannot persist unless governments call off their renewable-energy transition, and, in the case of the EU, their efforts to re-arm Europe’s militaries following the invasion of Ukraine by Russia. We remain bullish base metals, particularly copper. We remain long the XME ETF as the best way to express this decade-long view. Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish OPEC 2.0 agreed a token increase in oil production Wednesday of 100k b/d, partly as a sop to the US following President Biden’s visit to the Kingdom last month. KSA will be producing close to 11mm b/d in 2H22. We have argued this is about all KSA will be willing to put on the market, in order to maintain some spare capacity in the event of another exogenous shock. OPEC 2.0 spare capacity likely falls close to 1.5mm b/d in 2023 vs. an average of 3mm b/d this year, which will limit the capacity of core OPEC 2.0 – KSA and the UAE – to backstop unforeseen production losses. Separately, the US EIA reported total US stocks of crude oil and refined products rose 3.5mm barrels (ex SPR inventory). Demand for refined products in the US was down 28mm barrels in the week ended 29 July, or 4mm b/d. We continue to expect prices to average $110/bbl this year and $117/bbl next year (Chart 7). Base Metals: Bullish China flipped from a net importer of refined zinc in 2021 to a net exporter for the first half of 2022, despite a high export tax on the metal. This is indicative of the premium Western zinc prices are commanding over the domestic price. Chinese zinc demand has fallen, following reduced manufacturing activity and an ailing property sector. Thursday’s Politburo meeting did little to encourage markets of a Chinese rebound later this year. A subdued Chinese recovery, along with European zinc smelters operating at reduced capacity, if at all, could see this reversal in trade flow perpetuate for the rest of the year. Precious Metals: Bullish As BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy highlighted, US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan will increase tensions between the US and China but will not lead to war. For now. Increased uncertainty normally is good for gold and its rival, the USD. While geopolitical uncertainty from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine initially buoyed the yellow metal, gold has since dropped below the USD 1800/oz level. The greenback was the main beneficiary from the war (Chart 8). It is yet to be seen how this round of geopolitical risk will impact gold and USD, with the backdrop of increasing odds of a US recession and a hawkish Fed. Chart 7 Chart 8   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com Paula Struk Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy paula.struk@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Please see China’s factory activity contracts unexpectedly in July as Covid flares up published by cnbc.com on July 31, 2022. The PMI summary noted contractions in oil, coal and metals smelting industries led the index’s decline. 2     Please see One Hot Mess: EU Energy Policy, which we published on May 26, 2022, for additional discussion. 3     Please see Copper Prices Decouple From Fundamentals, which we published on July 7, 2022. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4     Please see Energy Security Rolls Over EU's ESG Agenda published on July 28, 2022. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 5     Please see Proposed Tax Reform Weakens Cost Positions for Chilean Miners (fitchratings.com), published by Fitch Ratings on July 7, 2022.   Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Trades Closed in 2022

Executive Summary An Optimal Control Policy We could see some modest near-term downside in Treasury yields as inflation rolls over during the next few months, but we caution against turning overly bullish on bonds even if you anticipate a recession. An optimal control approach to monetary policy tells us that the Fed should be willing to accept a significant increase in the unemployment rate to tame inflation. The implication is that the next recession may not be met with the dramatic easing of monetary policy we have become accustomed to. Short-maturity real yields remain deeply negative, but they will move into positive territory before the end of the economic cycle. Indicators of corporate balance sheet health are not flashing red, but they are moving in the wrong direction.   Bottom Line: Investors should keep portfolio duration close to benchmark, maintain a defensive posture on corporate bonds and short 2-year TIPS.   The Return Of Optimal Control Bonds rallied into the close last week and, as of Monday morning, their gains have only been partially unwound. The 2-year Treasury yield is down to 3.07% from its recent high of 3.45% and the 10-year yield is down to 3.16% from its recent high of 3.49% (Chart 1). The 2-year/10-year Treasury slope remains close to inversion at 9 bps (Chart 1, bottom panel). Increasingly, the message from the Treasury market is that the Fed is no longer playing catch-up to runaway inflation. Rather, the dominant market narrative is that the Fed may have to moderate its hiking pace to avoid an economic recession. With the unemployment rate at 3.6% and nonfarm payroll growth averaging +408k during the past three months, the US economy is clearly not in a recession today. That said, leading indicators are pointing to increased risk of a downturn within the next 12 months. For example, the S&P Global Manufacturing PMI fell sharply last week from 57.0 to 52.4 (Chart 2). The more widely tracked ISM Manufacturing PMI remains elevated at 56.1, but regional Fed surveys and trends in financial conditions suggest that the ISM could dip into contractionary territory during the next few months (Chart 2, bottom 2 panels). Chart 1Treasury Yields Chart 2Recession Risk Is Rising This is obviously a tricky situation for the Fed as there is a risk that its two mandates of price stability and maximum employment could come into conflict. Not surprisingly, the Fed has a playbook for these sorts of situations, one that was described by Janet Yellen as “optimal control” in a 2012 speech.1 Under an optimal control approach to policymaking the Fed specifies a loss function that is based on deviations of inflation from its 2% target and of the unemployment rate from its estimated full employment level. Understanding that it will be impossible to perfectly achieve both of its objectives, the Fed attempts to set policy so that the output of the loss function is minimized. One example of a simple loss function was given by St. Louis Fed President James Bullard in a speech from 2014.2 That function is as follows: Distance From Goals = (π – π*)2 + (μ - μ*)2 Where: π = inflation π* = The Fed’s target inflation rate μ = the unemployment rate μ* = The Fed’s estimate of the unemployment rate consistent with full employment Chart 3An Optimal Control Policy Let’s apply Bullard’s loss function to the present-day economic situation. The top panel of Chart 3 shows the square root of the function’s output. The Fed’s goal, of course, is to get that line as close to zero as possible. First, let’s see what happens if we input the median FOMC member’s forecast for core PCE inflation and the unemployment rate. That forecast has core PCE inflation falling to 4.3% by the end of this year and it has the unemployment rate edging up to 3.7%. Not surprisingly, this scenario leads to a modest improvement in Bullard’s loss function. Now let’s examine an alternative scenario where core PCE inflation falls to 4% by the end of the year but we set the loss function to remain at its current level. That outcome can be achieved even with the unemployment rate rising to 6.68%. This scenario is instructive. It tells us that, from an optimal control perspective, the Fed would be willing to tolerate an increase in the unemployment rate all the way up to 6.68% if it meant that inflation would fall back down to 4%. Why is this example important? It’s important because it gives us some perspective on what sort of labor market pain the Fed may be willing to tolerate to tame inflation. More specifically, there is a growing sense among some market participants that the US economy will soon fall into recession and that recessions are usually accompanied by Fed rate cuts. However, the magnitude of the increase in the unemployment rate that is shown in our alternative scenario would almost certainly be classified as a recession, but an optimal control perspective tells us that the Fed shouldn’t back away from tightening if that were to occur. The bottom line is that while we could see some modest near-term downside in Treasury yields as inflation rolls over during the next few months, we caution against turning overly bullish on bonds even if you anticipate a recession within the next 6-12 months. Given where inflation is today, there are strong odds that the Fed would respond to a rising unemployment rate by simply tempering its pace of rate hikes or perhaps temporarily pausing. Optimal control tells us that we would need to see an extremely large employment shock for the Fed to consider reversing course and cutting rates. Investors should stick with ‘at benchmark’ portfolio duration for the time being. A Quick Note On Real Yields   Chart 4Short 2-Year TIPS The 2-year real yield has risen to -0.70% from a 2021 low of -3.05%, but we have high conviction that it has further to run (Chart 4). At the press conference following the June FOMC meeting, Fed Chair Powell hinted that he viewed positive real yields across the entire Treasury curve as a reasonable intermediate-term goal. He then made similar claims when testifying before the Senate last week: It’s really only the very short end of the curve where our rates are still in negative territory from a real perspective. If you look further out, real rates are positive right across the curve and that’s really what you’re trying to achieve in a situation like this where we have 40 year highs in inflation.3 One way or another, we think it is highly likely that the Fed will achieve its goal of positive real yields across the entire curve. This could happen in a benign scenario where falling inflation expectations push short-maturity real yields higher. Or, it could happen in a more dramatic fashion where inflation expectations remain elevated but that only quickens the pace of Fed tightening. In that scenario, rising short-maturity nominal yields would drag real yields with them. Either way, investors should continue to hold outright short positions in 2-year TIPS. Corporate Health Check-Up In prior reports we noted the extremely good condition of corporate balance sheets, while also suggesting that balance sheet health would deteriorate going forward.4  An updated read on the status of corporate balance sheets suggests that conditions are still favorable, but much less so than even a few months ago. We begin with our Corporate Health Monitor (CHM), a composite indicator of six financial ratios calculated from the US National Accounts data for the nonfinancial corporate sector. This indicator was deep in “improving health” territory at the end of 2021, but it moved close to neutral in 2022 Q1 (Chart 5). Ratings trends, meanwhile, send a similar message. Through the end of May, upgrades continued to dramatically outpace downgrades in the investment grade space (Chart 5, panel 2), but the rate of net upgrades slowed somewhat in high-yield (Chart 5, bottom panel). Digging deeper, we find that the main culprit behind the CHM’s recent jump is a large drop in the ratio of Free Cash Flow to Total Debt (Chart 6). This drop occurred because after-tax cash flows held roughly flat in Q1 but capital expenditures surged, causing free cash flow to dip (Chart 6, panel 2). Chart 5Corporate Health Monitor Chart 6Capex Surged In Q1 This trend is confirmed by another important indicator of corporate balance sheet health, the financing gap. The financing gap is the difference between capital expenditures and retained earnings. A positive financing gap means that retained earnings are insufficient to cover capital expenditures and firms therefore have an incentive to tap debt markets. We see that the financing gap jumped sharply in Q1, from deeply negative into positive territory (Chart 7). Chart 7The Financing Gap Is Positive A positive financing gap on its own does not send a negative signal for corporate defaults. However, when a positive financing gap coincides with tightening lending standards, then an increase in the default rate becomes likely. For now, lending standards are close to unchanged (Chart 7, bottom panel), but there is a strong chance that continued Fed hiking will push them into ‘net tightening’ territory in the months ahead. Investment Implications Chart 8Attractive Value In HY Corporate balance sheet health isn’t quite flashing red, but it is certainly trending in the wrong direction. With continued Fed tightening likely to weigh on lending standards and interest coverage going forward, a defensive posture toward corporate bonds is warranted. We continue to recommend an underweight allocation (2 out of 5) to investment grade corporate bonds in US fixed income portfolios. We maintain a somewhat higher neutral (3 out of 5) allocation to high-yield bonds for the time being. This is because high-yield valuation is quite attractive, and we see potential for some near-term spread tightening as inflation rolls over (Chart 8). That said, the sector’s long-term return prospects are not good, and we will consider turning more defensive should the average high-yield spread narrow to its 2017-19 average or should core inflation move closer to our 4% target.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/yellen20120606a.htm 2 https://www.stlouisfed.org/from-the-president/-/media/project/frbstl/stlouisfed/files/pdfs/bullard/remarks/bullardowensborokychamberofcommerce17july2014final.pdf   3 https://www.c-span.org/video/?521106-1/federal-reserve-chair-jerome-powell-testifies-inflation-economy 4 Please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “Turning Defensive On US Corporate Bonds”, dated April 12, 2022. Recommended Portfolio Specification Other Recommendations Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns

Dear Client, Next Friday we will publish a Special Report on Gold in conjunction with our colleagues in BCA Research’s Foreign Exchange and Global Investment strategy groups.  We will return to our regular schedule of publishing on Thursdays the following week, with our June 30 ESG report.  Sincerely, Robert Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist Executive Summary Brent Forecast Slightly Lower On Global Growth Downgrade The World Bank’s somewhat sanguine expectation re stagflation risks for 2023 and beyond misreads continuing pressure on commodity markets due to low capex, and disincentives to invest. If central banks are successful in cooling consumer spending via a policy-induced recession, pressure on spare capacity in oil-producing and refining markets will lessen slightly. However, higher interest rates will increase capex costs. Weaker demand from a recession will not batter crude oil prices: core-OPEC 2.0 – KSA and the UAE – and US shale producers will maintain their production-management strategies, keeping markets relatively balanced. Our forecast for 2H22 and 2023 Brent is $115/bbl and $117/bbl on average, down ~ $6 and $5/bbl from last month’s forecast. WTI will trade $3/bbl lower. Europe will enter a recession earlier than other DMs, with natural-gas shipments to the EU from the US and Russia set to decline precipitously. This will tighten food and metals markets, and keep inflation expectations elevated. Bottom Line: Low spare capacity and continued production management by core-OPEC 2.0 and US shale producers will offset lower demand, and continue to support crude and product prices. The odds of prices exceeding $140/bbl remain high. We remain long the S&P GSCI index, and the COMT and CRAK ETFs. At tonight’s close, we will get long the iShares U.S. Oil Equipment & Services ETF (IEZ). Separately, we were stopped out of our XOP, XME and PICK ETFs, with gains of 19%, 7.2% and 7.6% respectively. We will look for opportunities to re-instate them. Feature Related Report  Commodity & Energy StrategyOne Hot Mess: EU Energy Policy While the World Bank sharply downgraded its global growth expectations for this year and next, it nonetheless maintains a somewhat sanguine view of the risk of stagflation going forward.1 The Bank notes current market conditions closely resemble those of the last bout of prolonged stagflation in the 1970s – characterized by flat-to-lower economic growth and high inflation – but differs in important ways that reduce the likelihood of a recurrence.2 In particular, the Bank cites research indicating the proximate causes of the 1970s stagflation have mostly been addressed, and how central banks are better equipped to avoid the mistakes that produced it: Thus far, markets expect that inflation in the near future will decline, albeit remaining elevated, as global growth cools, monetary policy gets tighter, fiscal support is withdrawn, energy and food prices level off, and supply bottlenecks ease. Moreover, most commentators argue that monetary policy has the tools to return inflation to target rates over time (pp. 53-4). We disagree with this assessment, and expect stagflation risks to remain elevated. This is driven by our high-conviction view that weak capex – and, importantly, continued disincentives to invest in hydrocarbon production and refining – will keep industrial-commodity markets tight well into this decade. Base metals producers also have been parsimonious in capex allocations. The Russia-Ukraine war brought forward the capex reckoning for commodity markets and inflation by highlighting the EU’s near-total dependence on Russian oil and natural gas imports, and the risks on outsourced manufacturing and refining away from domestic markets.3 Addressing long-term policy errors and re-forging global supply chains will be expensive, and will require decades of capex investment to overcome the lack of capacity needed to meet higher demand for coal, oil and natgas. This will delay the global energy-transition to a zero- or low-carbon economy and – because exploration, production, refining and distribution of hydrocarbon-based fuels remains constrained – will keep energy markets, particularly oil, tight. As a result, these markets will be predisposed to frequent price spikes, which will lift the average cost of crude oil and refined products over the foreseeable future. Downgrading Oil Demand Again We are once again downgrading our demand expectation for this year and next, on the back of the macro forces outlined in the World Bank’s June forecast: 1) Tightening monetary policy globally, led by the Fed; 2) Higher inflation, which has been exacerbated by the Russia-Ukraine war; and 3) Supply dislocations in energy and grain markets. Global GDP growth this year is expected to be close to half that of 2021 – 2.9% in real terms vs 5.7% – and was revised sharply lower vs the Bank’s January forecast of 4% growth. On the heels of the Bank’s lower growth expectation, we lowered our 2022 oil demand growth forecast to 2.0mm b/d this year vs 4.8mm b/d in our January forecast (Chart 1). For next year, we expect oil demand to grow 1.8mm b/d. Of particular interest, China’s growth in the first five months of this year was negative – actual demand from Jan-May22 averaged 15.2mm b/d vs 15.4mm b/d last year. This reflects the demand destruction caused by the lockdowns arising from China’s COVID-19 zero-tolerance policy, and is the first time since 2009 y/y growth has fallen (Chart 2). Chart 1Oil Demand Downgraded Following Lower Growth Expectation Chart 2Oil Demand Destruction In China OPEC 2.0 Will Adjust Output We expect core-OPEC 2.0 – the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and the UAE – to continue to calibrate its supply to match the ebb and flow of demand. As a result we expect production declines among “the other guys” – i.e., member states that cannot increase supply or maintain current output – to not be fully compensated by the core producers if they see actual demand falling sharply in 2H22 and next year (Chart 3). As the supplier of the last resort, crude oil production from core-OPEC 2.0 tracks demand. This is the cohort of suppliers within OPEC 2.0 which has sufficient spare capacity to bring supply online and, importantly, is able to maintain higher levels of production in order to meaningfully influence oil markets. Chart 3Core-OPEC 2.0 Might Be Slower Offseting Declines Among "The Other Guys" All else equal, in 2023 KSA and UAE – the two core-OPEC 2.0 nations with most spare capacity within OPEC 2.0 – will need to collectively raise supply by ~ 2mm b/d relative to average oil production in 2021 to ensure inventories do not draw sharply. OPEC 2.0 has been unable to stick to the 400 kb/d monthly crude oil production increases agreed in its July 2021 meeting, as declining investment and weak governance have plagued output from member states. Most recently, Libya has closed nearly all oil fields over the course of this month and last, taking nearly 1.1 mmb/d of oil supply off the market. The difference between the actual and agreed OPEC 2.0 output increases accumulated to ~ 2.0mm b/d as of May 2022. We continue to expect Russia to be firmly in the camp of the “other guys,” with production falling 1.6mm b/d this year and 2mm b/d in 2023 (vs 2021 levels). The production lost due to not being able to fully offset lost sales to the EU following its invasion of Ukraine could approach 3mm b/d next year (vs 2021 levels), depending on how successful Russia is in finding new customers. We also expect the US shale-oil producers to continue to maintain their capital discipline, and not ramp production in response to higher prices (Chart 4). This will be critical for maintaining access to capital markets, particularly if oil demand weakens in response to a global GDP decline. Chart 4US Shale Producers Forced To Maintain Capital Discipline Markets Will Remain Balanced Our supply-demand assessments leave oil markets relatively balanced with slightly lower prices resulting from lower demand (Chart 5). Oil inventories likely rise somewhat before resuming their downward trajectory as supply and demand adjust to lower growth prospects (Chart 6). Chart 5Expect Oil Markets To Remain Balanced Chart 6Oil Inventories Will Draw Importantly, OPEC 2.0’s core producers might welcome a slight rebuilding of inventories, given the relatively low levels of spare capacity available to meet unexpected supply outages or product shortages, say, for a hurricane in the US Gulf (Chart 7). This becomes particularly acute next year, when, as mentioned above, we expect core-OPEC 2.0 will have to increase their output by 2mm b/d vs 2021 levels to balance markets. Given the dynamics of our supply-demand modeling described above, our price forecasts for 2H22 and 2023 are little changed from last month’s estimates (Chart 8). We expect 2H22 Brent prices to average $115/bbl vs $121.30/bbl. This leaves the 2022 average at $110/bbl vs. $113/bbl estimate last month. For 2023, we expect Brent to average $117/bbl vs our earlier estimate of $122/bbl. Chart 7OPEC Spare Capacity Likely Will Tighten Chart 8Brent Forecast Slightly Lower On Global Growth Downgrade These price forecasts and balances are our base case (Table 1). We do not estimate the risk premium the market is likely to impound in prices to cover the high level of uncertainty around oil, natgas and electricity prices in global markets. A sudden cut-off of Russian oil supplies to the EU could easily spike Brent prices above $140/bbl, e.g. Indeed, we continue to accord this outcome a non-trivial probability. Likewise, the Atlantic Hurricane Season starts this month, with the US Climate Prediction Center calling for a higher-than-average number of hurricanes for 2022, given above-average Atlantic temperatures and an ongoing La Niña event.4 Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) To Dec23 Investment Implications The World Bank’s weaker GDP growth forecast leads us to expect slightly lower demand in 2H22 and 2023. However, low spare capacity and continued production management by core-OPEC 2.0 and US shale producers will keep Brent prices close to $115-117/bbl in 2H22 and 2023, which, as our base case, is not far removed from last month’s forecasts. The odds of prices exceeding $140/bbl remain high, reflecting the razor-thin back-up supply margins available to the crude and product markets globally. We remain long the S&P GSCI index, and the COMT and CRAK ETFs. At tonight’s close, we will get long the iShares U.S. Oil Equipment & Services ETF (IEZ). We will look for opportuities to re-establish our XOP, XME and PICK ETF positions, which were stopped out with gains of 19%, 7.2% and 7.6%, respectively, over the course of this past week.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com Paula Struk Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy paula.struk@bcaresearch.com     Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish European natural gas prices are surging on the back of a loss of exportable LNG volumes from the US Gulf, and on press reports Russia will cut exports to Germany on the Nord Stream (NS) 1 pipeline by ~ 40%. The US supply loss arises from an explosion to at a Freeport LNG terminal in Texas, which accounts for more than 15% of US LNG exports and takes ~ 5 bcm of gas out of the export market. Repairs reportedly will take three months. The loss of natgas supplies on NS1 is being blamed by Russia on an inability to move parts needed to repair the line from Canada due to sanctions imposed following its invasion of Ukraine in February. European gas prices – at the Title Transfer Facility (TTF) in the Netherlands and the National Balancing Point in the UK – surged on the back of this news, and were up 44.28% and 10.15% respectively from Monday’s close to Wednesday trading this week (Chart 9). US gas futures were down 13.81% this week, reflecting a back-up of pipeline natgas that will not make it to the LNG pool until repairs at Freeport are done. Base Metals: Bullish BCA’s China Investment Strategy reported a possible inflection point in household borrowing after nearly two decades of growth (Chart 10). Pandemic-induced lockdowns and declining home prices reduced households’ propensity to take on new debt. Household deleveraging could reduce demand for durables spending and real estate investment, driving down industrial metals’ demand. If deleveraging and lower demand becomes structural, China’s relevance in global metal demand likely will decline. Precious Metals: Bullish On the back of last Friday’s hot inflation data, the Federal Reserve announced a 75 bps rate hike following the June Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting. This likely will reduce the Fed’s credibility after Powell hinted at a 50 bps rate hike for the June meeting in last month’s meeting. The higher rate hike puts the Fed on a more hawkish path, risking the soft landing it has been aiming for. A US recession will be supportive for gold prices.   Chart 9 Chart 10     Footnotes 1     Please see Stagflation Risk Rises Amid Sharp Slowdown in Growth, which includes a link to the Bank’s full June 2022 update. 2     Please see discussion beginning on p. 51 of the Banks June report, “Special Focus 1, Global Stagflation.”  This focus provides a well-researched history of the evolution of inflation. 3    Please see One Hot Mess: EU Energy Policy and Commodities' Watershed Moment, which we published 26 May and on March 10, 2022, for discussion of the EU’s energy dependence on Russia. See also La Niña And The Energy Transition, published on September 30, 2021, for a discussion of refining-concentration risks – particularly for base metals refining, where roughly half of global capacity is concentrated in China. 4    Please see NOAA predicts above-normal 2022 Atlantic Hurricane Season published on May 24, 2022.   Investment Views and Themes Recommendations  New, Pending And Closed Trades WE WERE STOPPED OUT OF OUR LONG S&P OIL & GAS EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION (XOP) ETF TRADE ON JUNE 13, 2022 WITH A RETURN OF 19%. WE WERE STOPPED OUT OF OUR LONG MSCI GLOBAL METALS & MINING PRODUCERS (PICK) ETF TRADE ON JUNE 9, 2022 WITH A RETURN OF 7.56%. WE WERE STOPPED OUT OF OUR LONG SPDR S&P METALS AND MINING (XME) ETF TRADE ON JUNE 9, 2022 WITH A RETURN OF 7.17%. Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Trades Closed in 2022