Disasters/Disease

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

Highlights The rapid spread of the COVID-19 delta variant in Asia will re-focus precious metals markets anew on the possibility of another round of lockdowns and the implications for demand, particularly in Greater China and India, which account for 33% and 12% of global physical demand for gold (Chart of the Week).1 Regulatory crackdowns across various sectors in China will continue to roil markets over coming months.  Policy uncertainty around these crackdowns is elevated in local financial markets, and could spill into global markets.  This will support the USD at the margin, which creates a headwind for gold and silver prices. Ambiguous and contradictory signaling from Fed officials following the July FOMC meeting re its $120-billion-per-month bond-buying program also adds uncertainty to precious-metals and general commodity forecasts. Despite this uncertainty, we remain bullish gold and silver.  More efficacious jabs will become available, which will support the global economic re-opening, particularly in EM economies.  In DM economies, vaccination uptake likely increases as risks become more apparent.  We continue to expect gold to trade to $2,000/oz and silver to trade to $30/oz this year. Feature Markets once again are focused on the possibility lockdowns will follow rising COVID-19 infections and deaths, as the delta variant – the most contagious variant to date – spreads through Asia and elsewhere. Chart of the WeekCOVID-19 Delta Variant Rampages Uncertainty Checks Gold's Recovery Uncertainty Checks Gold's Recovery Chart 2COVID-19 Infections, Deaths Rising Uncertainty Checks Gold's Recovery Uncertainty Checks Gold's Recovery Infection and death rates are moving higher globally (Chart 2). COVID-19 infections are still rising in 78 countries. Based on the latest 7-day-average data, the countries reporting the most new infections daily are the US, India, Indonesia, Brazil, and Iran. The countries reporting the most deaths each day are Indonesia, Brazil, Russia, India, and Mexico. Globally, more than 42% of infections were in Asia and the Middle East, where ~ 1mm new infections are reported every 4 days. We expect more efficacious jabs will become available, which will support the global economic re-opening, particularly in EM economies. In DM economies, vaccination uptake likely increases as risks become more apparent. China's Regulatory Crackdown Markets also are contending with a regulatory crackdowns across multiple sectors in China, which is part of a years-long reform process initiated by the Politburo.2 Industries ranging from internet, property, education, healthcare to capital markets will have new rules imposed on them under China's 14th Five-Year Plan as part of this process. Our colleagues in BCA's China Investment Service note the pace of regulatory tightening will not moderate in the near term, as policymakers transition from an annual planning cycle focused on setting economic growth targets to a multi-year planning horizon. "This allows policymakers to have a higher tolerance for near-term distress in exchange for long-term benefits," according to our colleagues. The overarching goal of this reform process is to introduce more social equality in the society. Of immediate import for precious metals markets is the potential for spillover effects outside China arising from the policy uncertainty that already is emanating from that market. Uncertainty boosts the USD and gold. This makes its effect uncertain. In our most recent modeling of gold prices, we have found strong two-way feedback between US and Chinese policy uncertainty.3 We also find that broad real foreign exchange rates for the USD and RMB exert a negative influence on gold prices, while higher economic uncertainty pushes gold prices higher (Chart 3). In addition, across markets – Chinese and US economic policy uncertainty – have similar effects, suggesting economic uncertainty across these markets has a similar effect as domestic uncertainty at home (Chart 4).4 Chart 3Domestic Uncertainty, Real FX Rates Strongly Affect Gold Prices... Domestic Uncertainty, Real FX Rates Strongly Affect Gold Prices... Domestic Uncertainty, Real FX Rates Strongly Affect Gold Prices... Chart 4...As Do Cross-Border Uncertainty, Real FX Rates ...As Do Cross-Border Uncertainty, Real FX Rates ...As Do Cross-Border Uncertainty, Real FX Rates This is yet another reason to pay close attention to PBOC and Fed policy innovations and surprises: they affect each other in similar ways within and across borders. Fed Officials Add Uncertainty Following the FOMC meeting at that end of last month, various Fed officials expressed their views of Chair Jerome Powell's post-meeting remarks, or again resumed their campaigns to begin tapering the US central bank's bond-buying program. Chair Powell's remarks reinforced the data-dependency of the Fed in directing its bond buying and monetary accommodation. He emphasized the need to see solid improvement in the jobs picture in the US before considering any lift-off of rates. As to the Fed's bond-buying program, this, too, will depend on progress on reducing unemployment in the US. Powell also reiterated the Fed views the current inflation in the US as transitory, a point that was emphasised by Fed Governor Lael Brainard two days after Powell's presser. Some very important Fed officials, most notably Fed Vice Chair Richard Clarida, are staking out an early position on what will get them to consider reducing the Fed's current accommodative policies, chiefly an "overshoot" of PCE inflation, the Fed's favored gauge, above 3%. Other Fed officials are urging strong action now: St. Louis Fed President James Bullard is adamant that tapering of the Fed's bond-buying program needed to begin in the Autumn and should be done early next year. Bullard is supported by Governor Christopher Waller. The Fed's bond-buying program is more than a year old. Beginning in July 2020, the Fed started buying $80 billion of Treasurys and $40 billion of mortgage-backed securities every month, or ~ $1.6 trillion so far. This lifted the Fed's balance sheet to ~ $8.3 trillion. Thinking about this as a commodity, that's a lot of asset supply removed from the Treasury and MBS market, which likely explains the high cost of the underlying debt instruments (i.e., their low interest rates). It is understandable why the gold market would get twitchy whenever Fed officials insist the winddown of this program must begin forthwith and be done in relatively short order. The loss of that steady stream of buying could send interest rates higher quickly, possibly raising nominal and real interest rates in the process, which, given the sensitivity of gold prices to US real rates would be bearish (Chart 5). While it is impossible to know when the tapering of the Fed's asset-purchase program will end, these occasional choruses of its imminent inauguration add to uncertainty in the US, which also depresses precious metals prices, as Chart 5 indicates. A larger issue attends this topic: economic policy uncertainty is not contained within national borders. Above, we noted there is a two-way feedback between US and China economic policy uncertainty. There also is a long-term relationship in levels of economic policy uncertainty re China and Europe, which makes sense given the trading relationship between these states. Changes in the two measures of economic policy uncertainty exhibit strong co-movement (Chart 6). Chart 5Taper Talk Makes Precious Metals Markets Twitchy Taper Talk Makes Precious Metals Markets Twitchy Taper Talk Makes Precious Metals Markets Twitchy Chart 6Economic Policy Uncertainty Goes Across National Borders Uncertainty Checks Gold's Recovery Uncertainty Checks Gold's Recovery Investment Implications The increase in COVID-19 infection and re-infection rates, and death rates, is forcing commodity markets to reevaluate demand projections and the likelihood of continued monetary accommodation globally. This ultimately affects the prospects for commodity prices. Conflicting interpretations of the state of local and the global economies increases uncertainty across markets, especially precious metals, which are exquisitely sensitive to even a hint of a change in policy. This uncertainty is compounded when top officials at systematically important central banks provide sometimes-contradictory interpretations of the state of their economies. Despite this uncertainty we remain bullish gold and silver, expecting efficacious vaccines to become more widely available, which will allow the global recovery to regain its footing. We are less sanguine about the prospects for the winding down of the massive monetary accommodation globally, particularly that of the US, where data-dependent policymakers still feel compelled to provide almost-certain policy prescriptions in an increasingly uncertain world.This is a fundamental factor driving global uncertainty. We remain long gold expecting it to trade to $2,000/oz this year, and long silver, expecting it to hit $30/oz.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com   Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish While US crude oil inventories rose 3.6mm barrels in the week ended 30 July 2021 gasoline stocks fell 5.3mm barrels, contributing to an overall decline in crude and product inventories in the US of 1.2mm barrels, according to the US EIA's latest tally (Chart 7). US crude and product stocks have been falling throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, and now stand ~ 13% below year earlier levels at 1.7 billion barrels. Crude oil stocks, at 439mm barrels, are just over 15% below year-ago levels. This reflects the decline in US domestic production, which is down 7.1% y/y and now stands at 11.2mm b/d. US refined-product demand, however, is up close to 9% over the January-July period y/y, and stands at 21.2mm b/d. Base Metals: Bullish Workers at the world's largest copper mine, Escondida in Chile, are in government-mediated talks with management that end on Saturday to see if they can avert a strike. There is a chance talks could be extended five days beyond that date, under Chilean law. The mine is majority owned by BHP. Workers at a Codelco-owned mine also voted to strike and will enter government-mediated talks as well. These potential strikes most likely explain why copper prices have been holding relatively steady as other commodities have come under pressure, as markets reassess the odds of a demand slowdown brought about by surging COVID-19 infections, which are hitting Asian markets particularly hard (Chart 8). Chart 7 Uncertainty Checks Gold's Recovery Uncertainty Checks Gold's Recovery Chart 8 Copper Prices Recovering Copper Prices Recovering   Footnotes 1     We flagged this risk in our July 8, 2021 report entitled Assessing Risks To Our Commodity Views, which is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2     Please see Pricing A Tighter Regulatory Grip published on August 4, 2021 by our China Investment Strategy.  It is available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3    We measure this using Granger-Causality tests. 4    These broad real FX rates are handy explanatory variables, in that they combine two very important factors affecting gold prices – inflation and broad FX trade-weighted indexes.  Additional modelling also suggests these broad real FX rates for the USD and RMB coupled with US real 2- and 5-year rates also provide good explanatory models for gold prices. Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2021 Summary of Closed Trades Image

Highlights Recent progress on the path to a post-pandemic state and the return to pre-COVID economic conditions has been mixed. The share of vaccinated individuals continues to rise globally, and the number of confirmed UK cases has recently peaked. However, vaccine penetration remains comparatively low in the US, and there has been no meaningful change in the pace of vaccination. Given the emergence of the delta variant as well as vaccine hesitancy in some countries, policymakers currently face a trilemma that is conceptually similar to the Mundell-Fleming Impossible Trinity. The pandemic version of the Impossible Trinity suggests that policymakers cannot simultaneously prevent the reintroduction of pandemic control measures while maintaining a functioning medical system and the complete freedom of individuals to choose whether or not to be vaccinated. Were they to occur, the imposition of renewed pandemic control measures or a dangerous rise in hospitalizations this fall would likely weigh on earnings expectations, at a time when income support for households negatively impacted by the pandemic will be withdrawn. The delta variant of COVID-19 is not vaccine-resistant, meaning that a delta-driven surge in hospitalizations this fall could delay – but not prevent – eventual asset purchase tapering and rate hikes from the Fed. 10-year Treasury yields are well below the fair value implied by a mid-2023 rate hike scenario, underscoring that the recent decline in long-maturity yields is overdone. The recent (slight) tick higher in China’s credit impulse is perhaps a sign that the worst of the credit slowdown has already occurred, but we do not expect a rising trend without a genuine shift toward a looser monetary policy stance. As such, a normalization in services spending in advanced economies remains the likely impulse for global growth over the coming year, at least over the coming 3-6 months. On a 12-month time horizon, we would recommend that investors position for the underperformance of financial assets that are negatively correlated with long-maturity government bond yields. However, for investors more focused on the near term, we would note the potential for further underperformance of cyclical sectors, value stocks, international equities, and most global ex-US currencies versus the US dollar – depending heavily on the evolution of the medical situation in the US and the subsequent response from policymakers. Feature Since we published our last report, progress made on the path to a post-pandemic state and the return to pre-COVID economic conditions have been mixed. Encouragingly, Chart I-1 highlights that the share of people who have received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine continues to rise outside of Africa, which continues to be impacted by India’s ban on vaccine exports. By the end of September, at least a quarter of the world’s population will have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19, and many more will have received at least one dose. Pfizer’s plan to request emergency authorization for its vaccine for children aged 5-11 by October also stands to raise total vaccination rates in advanced economies even further by the end of the year. In addition, Chart I-2 presents further evidence that the relationship between new cases of COVID-19 and hospitalization has truly been altered. The chart shows that the number of patients in UK hospitals is much lower than what would be implied by the number of new cases, which itself now appears to have peaked at a lower level than that of January. Given that the strain on the medical system is the dominant constraint facing policymakers, a modest rise in hospitalizations implies a durable end to pandemic restrictions and a return to economic normality. Chart I-1Global Vaccination Progress Continues Global Vaccination Progress Continues Global Vaccination Progress Continues Chart I-2Vaccines Have Truly Altered The Relationship Between Cases And Hospitalizations Vaccines Have Truly Altered The Relationship Between Cases And Hospitalizations Vaccines Have Truly Altered The Relationship Between Cases And Hospitalizations   However, the risk from the delta variant appears to be higher in the US than in the UK, due to a lower level of vaccine penetration. Only 56% of the US population has received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, compared with 67% in Israel, 69% in the UK, and 71% in Canada. And thus far, there has been no meaningful change in the pace of vaccination in the US in response to the threat from the delta variant, despite recent exhortations from politicians and media personalities from both sides of the political spectrum. The Impossible Trinity: Pandemic Edition Last year, most investors would have said that the existence of a safe and effective vaccine would likely be enough to durably end the pandemic. But given the development of more dangerous variants of the disease, and the existence of vaccine hesitancy in many countries, policymakers now face a trilemma that is conceptually similar to the concept of the “Impossible Trinity” as described by Mundell and Fleming. The upper portion of Chart I-3 illustrates the standard view of the Impossible Trinity, which posits that policymakers must choose one side of the triangle, while foregoing the opposite economic attribute. For example, most modern economies have chosen “B,” gaining the free flow of capital and independent monetary policy by giving up a fixed exchange rate regime (and allowing currency volatility). By contrast, Hong Kong has chosen side “A,” meaning that its monetary policy is driven by the Federal Reserve in exchange for a pegged currency and an open capital account. The lower portion of Chart I-3 presents the pandemic version of the trilemma, which sees policymakers having to choose two of these three outcomes: No economically-damaging pandemic control restrictions placed on society A functioning medical system The complete freedom of individuals to choose whether or not to be vaccinated Chart I-3Variants And Vaccine Hesitancy Have Created A Difficult Choice For Policymakers August 2021 August 2021 In reality, the pandemic version of the Impossible Trinity is likely to be resolved in a fashion similar to how China views the original trilemma,1 which is to distribute a 200% “adoption rate” among the three competing choices. In essence, this means that policymakers will likely partially adopt all three measures with a degree of intensity that will change over time in response to the prevailing circumstances. Chart I-4No Sign Yet Of A Pickup In US Vaccination Rates No Sign Yet Of A Pickup In US Vaccination Rates No Sign Yet Of A Pickup In US Vaccination Rates But Chart I-4 is a clear example of the differences in approach adopted by the US in response to vaccine hesitancy compared to other. So far, attempts to convince vaccine-hesitant Americans to get their shot have relied mostly on “carrot” approaches in an attempt to preserve individual freedom of choice, i.e. side “B” in Chart I-3. As noted above, these measures, so far, have failed, as there has been no noticeable uptick in the pace of vaccine doses administered in the US over the past month. By contrast, France, like several other countries, has begun to use “stick” approaches that push it more toward side “A” of the trilemma. In mid-July, French President Emmanuel Macron announced that French citizens who want to visit cafes, bars or shopping centers must show proof of vaccination or a negative test result. The policy also mandated that French health care and nursing home workers must be vaccinated. The result was a sharp, and thus far sustained, uptick in the pace of doses administered. For equity investors, the risk is that the politically contentious nature of vaccine mandates in the US will cause policymakers to acquiesce to renewed pandemic control measures this fall if the delta variant continues to spread widely over the coming few months (as seems likely). Alternatively, policymakers may allow a dangerous increase in hospitalizations, but this would merely postpone the imposition of control measures – and they would be more severe once reintroduced. Thus, there is a legitimate risk that the spread of the delta variant in the US does weigh on earnings expectations, especially for consumer-oriented services companies, at a time when income support for households negatively impacted by the pandemic will be withdrawn. Bond Yields, Delta, And Slowing Growth Momentum Chart I-5Growth Momentum Has Slowed... Growth Momentum Has Slowed... Growth Momentum Has Slowed... Of course, many investors would point to the significant decline in US 10-year bond yields since mid-March as having already acted in response to waning growth momentum. For example, the peak in US bond yields coincided with the March peak in the ISM manufacturing PMI, as well as a meaningful shift lower in the US economic surprise index (Chart I-5). Without a soaring inflation surprise index, the overall economic surprise index for the US would likely already be negative. The takeaway for some investors has been that a decline in yields has been normal given that the economy has passed its point of maximum strength. But there are two aspects of this narrative that do not accord with the data. First, Chart I-6 highlights that growth is peaking from an extremely strong pace, making it difficult to justify the magnitude of the decline in long-term yields over the past few months. And second, Chart I-7 highlights that the decline in the US 10-year yield closely corresponds to delta variant developments in the US. The chart shows that the 10-year yield broke below 1.5% shortly after the effective US COVID-19 reproduction rate (“R0”) began to rise, and the significant decline in yields over the past month began once R0 rose above 1. Chart I-7 does suggest that yields have reacted in response to the growth outlook, but in a different way than the “maximum strength” narrative suggests. Chart I-6…But Growth Itself Remains Quite Strong August 2021 August 2021 Chart I-7The Yield Decline Over The Past Month Seems Related To Delta The Yield Decline Over The Past Month Seems Related To Delta The Yield Decline Over The Past Month Seems Related To Delta Chart I-810-Year Yields Are Too Low, Even If Variants Delay The Fed 10-Year Yields Are Too Low, Even If Variants Delay The Fed 10-Year Yields Are Too Low, Even If Variants Delay The Fed While we can identify the apparent trigger for the decline in bond yields since mid-March, we do not agree that the decline is fundamentally justified. The delta variant of COVID-19 is not vaccine-resistant, meaning that a delta-driven surge in hospitalizations this fall could delay – but not prevent – eventual asset purchase tapering and rate hikes from the Fed. For example, Chart I-8 highlights that the 10-year yield is now 60 basis points below its fair value level in a scenario in which the Fed only begins to raise interest rates in mid-2023, underscoring that the recent decline in yields is overdone. And, although it is also true that market-based measures of inflation compensation have eased from their May highs, we have noted in previous reports that the Fed’s reaction function is almost exclusively driven by progress in the labor market back toward “maximum employment” levels – not inflation. Chart I-9 highlights that US real output per worker has grown at a much faster pace since the onset of the pandemic than what occurred on average over the past four economic recoveries, reflecting the success that US fiscal policy has had in supporting aggregate demand as well as constraints on labor supply in services industries. These factors will wane in intensity over the coming year, suggesting that real output per worker is unlikely to rise meaningfully further over that time horizon. Based on consensus market expectations for growth as well as the Fed’s most recent forecasts, a flat trend in real output per worker over the coming year would imply that the employment gap will be closed by Q2 of next year. This would be consistent with the recent trend in high frequency mobility data, such as US air traveler throughput and public transportation use in New York City (Chart I-10), the epicenter of the negative impact on urban core services employment stemming from the pandemic “work from home” effect. Chart I-9Real Output Per Worker Unlikely To Rise Much Further Over The Coming Year Real Output Per Worker Unlikely To Rise Much Further Over The Coming Year Real Output Per Worker Unlikely To Rise Much Further Over The Coming Year Chart I-10High-Frequency Data Points To A Closed Jobs Gap By Mid-2022 High-Frequency Data Points To A Closed Jobs Gap By Mid-2022 High-Frequency Data Points To A Closed Jobs Gap By Mid-2022   A closed employment gap by the middle of next year would imply that the Fed will begin to raise rates sometime in 2H 2022. Even if this were delayed by several months due to delta, Chart I-8 illustrated that 10-year Treasury yields are still too low. No Help From China If the spread of the delta variant over the coming few months does temporarily weigh on developed market economic activity via renewed pandemic control measures, investors should note that the lack of a countervailing growth impulse from China may act as an aggravating factor. Chart I-11 highlights that China’s PMI remains persistently below its 12-month trend, as it has tended to do following a decline in China’s credit impulse. And while some investors were hoping that the PBOC’s recent cut to the reserve requirement ratio represented a pivot in Chinese monetary policy towards sustained easing, Chart I-12 highlights that the 3-month repo rate remains well off its low from last year – and is only modestly lower than it was on average during most of the 2018/2019 period. Chart I-11China Is Slowing, And Policy Has Not Yet Reversed Course August 2021 August 2021 Chart I-12The Recent RRR Cut Was Not The Start Of A Dovish PBOC Shift The Recent RRR Cut Was Not The Start Of A Dovish PBOC Shift The Recent RRR Cut Was Not The Start Of A Dovish PBOC Shift   The recent (slight) tick higher in China’s credit impulse is perhaps a sign that the worst of the credit slowdown has already occurred, but we do not expect a rising trend without a genuine shift toward a looser monetary policy stance. As such, a normalization in services spending in advanced economies remains the likely impulse for global growth over the coming year, at least over the coming three to six months. Investment Conclusions Chart I-13Assets That Benefit From Lower Yields May Remain Well-Bid In The Near Term Assets That Benefit From Lower Yields May Remain Well-Bid In The Near Term Assets That Benefit From Lower Yields May Remain Well-Bid In The Near Term The unprecedented nature of the pandemic, as well as the unclear impact the delta variant will have given prevailing rates of vaccination in advanced economies, has clouded the near-term economic outlook. It is unlikely that the delta variant of SARS-COV-2 will have a long-lasting impact on economic activity in advanced economies, but it does have the potential to cause the temporary reintroduction of some pandemic restrictions and, thus, modestly delay the transition to a post-pandemic state. While long-term government bond yields are set to rise on a 12-month time horizon, financial assets that are negatively correlated with long-term bond yields could remain well-bid over the next few months. Chart I-13 highlights that cyclical equity sectors have underperformed defensive equity sectors over the past month, and banks have underperformed the overall index. The correlation between long-maturity real Treasury yields and the relative performance of value and growth stocks has also held up, with growth stocks outperforming since the end of March. Global ex-US equities have also underperformed US stocks, and the dollar has modestly risen. On a 12-month time horizon, we would recommend that investors position for a reversal of all these recent moves. However, for investors more focused on the near term, we would note the potential for further underperformance of cyclical sectors, value stocks, international equities, and most global ex-US currencies versus the US dollar – depending heavily on the evolution of the medical situation in the US and the subsequent response from policymakers. This underscores that cyclical investment strategy will be even more data dependent than usual throughout the second half of the calendar year. The pace of nonfarm payrolls growth in the US remains the single most important data release driving US monetary policy, and investors should especially focus on whether jobs growth this fall is consistent with the Fed’s maximum employment objective, as the impact of the delta variant becomes clearer, as constraints to labor supply are removed, and as employees progressively return to work. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst July 29, 2021 Next Report: August 26, 2021 II. The Social Media Magnification Effect: Austerity, Populism, And Slower Growth Investors should view social media as a technological innovation with negative productivity growth. Social media has contributed to policy mistakes – such as fiscal austerity and protectionism – that have acted as shocks to aggregate demand over the past 15 years. The cyclical component of productivity was long lasting in nature during the last economic expansion. Forces that negatively impact economic growth but do not change the factors of production necessarily reduce measured productivity, and repeated policy mistakes strongly contributed to the slow growth profile of the last economic cycle. Political polarization in a rapidly changing world is the root cause of these policy shocks, but social media likely facilitated and magnified them. The risks of additional mistakes from populism remain present, even before considering other risks to society from social media: a reduction in mental health among young social media users, and the role that social media has played in spreading misinformation. A potential revival in protectionist sentiment is a risk to a constructive cyclical view that we will be closely monitoring over the coming 12-24 months. Investors with concentrated positions in social media stocks should be aware of the potential idiosyncratic risks facing these companies from the public’s impression of the impact of social media on society – especially if social media companies come to be widely associated with political gridlock, the polarization of society, and failed economic policies (as already appears to be the case). Investors should view social media as a technological innovation with negative productivity growth. Social media has contributed to policy mistakes – such as fiscal austerity and protectionism – that have acted as shocks to aggregate demand over the past 15 years. Political polarization in a rapidly changing world is the root cause of these policy shocks, but social media likely facilitated and magnified them. While the risk of premature fiscal consolidation appears low today compared to the 2010-14 period, the pandemic and its aftermath could force the Biden administration or Congressional Democrats toward protectionist or otherwise populist actions over the coming year in the lead up to the 2022 mid-term elections. The midterms, for their part, are expected to bring gridlock back into US politics, which could remove fiscal options should the economy backslide. Frequent shocks during the last economic expansion reinforced the narrative of secular stagnation. In the coming years, any additional policy shocks following a return to economic normality will again be seen by both investors and the Fed as strong justification for low interest rates – despite the case for cyclically and structurally higher bond yields. In addition, investors with concentrated positions in social media companies should take seriously the long-term idiosyncratic risks facing these stocks. These risks stem from the public’s impression of the impact of social media on society, particularly if social media comes to be widely associated with political gridlock, the polarization of society, and failed economic policies. A Brief History Of Social Media The earliest social networking websites date back to the late 1990s, but the most influential social media platforms, such as Facebook and Twitter, originated in the mid-2000s. Prior to the advent of modern-day smartphones, user access to platforms such as Facebook and Twitter was limited to the websites of these platforms (desktop access). Following the release of the first iPhone in June 2007, however, mobile social media applications became available, allowing users much more convenient access to these platforms. Charts II-1 and II-2 highlight the impact that smartphones have had on the spread of social media, especially since the release of the iPhone 3G in 2008. In 2006, Facebook had roughly 12 million monthly active users; by 2009, this number had climbed to 360 million, growing to over 600 million the year after. Twitter, by contrast, grew somewhat later, reaching 100 million monthly active users in Q3 2011. Chart II-1Facebook: Monthly Active Users August 2021 August 2021 Chart II-2Twitter: Monthly Active Users Worldwide August 2021 August 2021   Social media usage is more common among those who are younger, but Chart II-3 highlights that usage has risen over time for all age groups. As of Q1 2021, 81% of Americans aged 30-49 reported using at least one social media website, compared to 73% of those aged 50-64 and 45% of those aged 65 and over. Chart II-4 highlights that the usage of Twitter skews in particular toward the young, and that, by contrast, Facebook and YouTube are the social media platforms of choice among older Americans. Chart II-3A Sizeable Majority Of US Adults Regularly Use Social Media A Sizeable Majority Of US Adults Regularly Use Social Media A Sizeable Majority Of US Adults Regularly Use Social Media Chart II-4Older Americans Use Facebook Far More Than Twitter August 2021 August 2021 Chart II-5Social Media Has Changed The Way People Consume News August 2021 August 2021 As a final point documenting the development and significance of social media, Chart II-5 highlights that more Americans now report consuming news often (roughly once per day) from a smartphone, computer, or tablet other than from television. Radio and print have been completely eclipsed as sources of frequent news. The major news publications themselves are often promoted through social media, but the rise of the Internet has weighed heavily on the journalism industry. Social media has, for better and for worse, enabled the rapid proliferation of alternative news, citizen journalism, rumor, conspiracy theories, and foreign disinformation. The Link Between Social Media And Post-GFC Austerity Following the 2008-2009 global financial crisis (GFC), there have been at least five deeply impactful non-monetary shocks to the US and global economies that have contributed to the disconnection between growth and interest rates: A prolonged period of US household deleveraging from 2008-2014 The Euro Area sovereign debt crisis Fiscal austerity in the US, UK, and Euro Area from 2010 – 2012/2014 The US dollar / oil price shock of 2014 The rise of populist economic policies, such as the UK decision to leave the European Union, and the US-initiated trade war of 2018-2019. Among these shocks to growth, social media has had a clear impact on two of them. In the case of austerity in the aftermath of the Great Recession, a sharp rise in fiscal conservatism in 2009 and 2010, emblematized by the rise of the US Tea Party, profoundly affected the 2010 US midterm elections. It is not surprising that there was a fiscally conservative backlash following the crisis: the US budget deficit and debt-to-GDP ratio soared after the economy collapsed and the government enacted fiscal stimulus to bail out the banking system. And midterm elections in the US often lead to significant gains for the opposition party However, Tea Party supporters rapidly took up a new means of communicating to mobilize politically, and there is evidence that this contributed to their electoral success. Chart II-6 illustrates that the number of tweets with the Tea Party hashtag rose significantly in 2010 in the lead-up to the election, which saw the Republican Party take control of the House of Representatives as well as the victory of several Tea Party-endorsed politicians. Table II-1 highlights that Tea Party candidates, who rode the wave of fiscal conservatism, significantly outperformed Democrats and non-Tea Party Republicans in the use of Twitter during the 2010 campaign, underscoring that social media use was a factor aiding outreach to voters. Chart II-6Tea Party Supporters Rapidly Adopted Social Media To Mobilize Politically Tea Party Supporters Rapidly Adopted Social Media To Mobilize Politically Tea Party Supporters Rapidly Adopted Social Media To Mobilize Politically Table II-1Tea Party Candidates Significantly Outperformed In Their Use Of Social Media August 2021 August 2021   And while it is more difficult to analyze the use and impact of Facebook by Tea Party candidates and supporters owing to inherent differences in the structure of the Facebook platform, interviews with core organizers of both the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street movements have noted that activists in these ideologically opposed groups viewed Facebook as the most important social networking service for their political activities.2 Under normal circumstances, we agree that fiscal policy should be symmetric, with reduced fiscal support during economic expansions following fiscal easing during recessions. But in the context of multi-year household deleveraging, the fiscal drag that occurred in following the 2010 midterm elections was clearly a policy mistake. This mistake occurred partially under full Democratic control of government and especially under a gridlocked Congress after 2010. Chart II-7 highlights that the contribution to growth from government spending turned sharpy negative in 2010 and continued to subtract from growth for some time thereafter. In addition, panel of Chart II-7 highlights that the US economic policy uncertainty index rose in 2010 after falling during the first year of the recovery, reaching a new high in 2011 during the Tea Party-inspired debt ceiling crisis. Chart II-7The Fiscal Drag That Followed The 2010 Midterm Elections Was A Clear Policy Mistake The Fiscal Drag That Followed The 2010 Midterm Elections Was A Clear Policy Mistake The Fiscal Drag That Followed The 2010 Midterm Elections Was A Clear Policy Mistake Chart II-8Policy Mistakes Significantly Contributed To Last Cycle's Subpar Growth Profile Policy Mistakes Significantly Contributed To Last Cycle's Subpar Growth Profile Policy Mistakes Significantly Contributed To Last Cycle's Subpar Growth Profile In addition to the negative impact of government spending on economic growth, this extreme uncertainty very likely damaged confidence in the economic recovery, contributing to the subpar pace of growth in the first half of the last economic expansion. Chart II-8 highlights the weak evolution in real per capita GDP from 2009-2019 compared with previous economic cycles, which was caused by a prolonged household balance sheet recovery process that was made worse by policy mistakes. To be sure, the UK and the EU did not have a Tea Party, and yet political elites imposed fiscal austerity. It is also the case that President Obama was the first president to embrace social media as a political and public relations tool. So it cannot be said that either social media or the Republican Party are uniquely to blame for the policy mistakes of that era. But US fiscal policy would have been considerably looser in the 2010s if not for the Tea Party backlash, which was partly enabled by social media. Too tight of fiscal policy in turn fed populism and produced additional policy mistakes down the road. From Fiscal Drag To Populism While social media is clearly not the root cause of the recent rise of populist policies, it has had a hand in bringing them about – in both a direct and indirect manner. The indirect link between social media use and the rise in populist policies has mainly occurred through the highly successful use of social media by international terrorist organizations (chiefly ISIL) and its impact on sentiment toward immigration in several developed market economies. Chart II-9Terrorism And Immigration Likely Contributed To Brexit Terrorism And Immigration Likely Contributed To Brexit Terrorism And Immigration Likely Contributed To Brexit Chart II-9 highlights that public concerns about immigration and race in the UK began to rise sharply in 2012, in lockstep with both the rise in UK immigrants from EU accession countries and a series of events: the Syrian refugee crisis, the establishment and reign of the Islamic State, and three major terrorist attacks in European countries for which ISIL claimed responsibility. Given that the main argument for “Brexit” was for the UK to regain control over its immigration policies, these events almost certainly increased UK public support for withdrawing from the EU. In other words, it is not clear that Brexit would have occurred (at least at that moment in time) without these events given the narrow margin of victory for the “leave” campaign. The absence of social media would not have prevented the rise of ISIL, as that occurred in response to the US’s precipitous withdrawal from Iraq. The inevitable rise of ISIL would still have generated a backlash against immigration. Moreover, fiscal austerity in the UK and EU also fed other grievances that supported the Brexit movement. But social media accelerated and amplified the entire process.  Chart II-10Brexit Weakened UK Economic Performance Prior To The Pandemic Brexit Weakened UK Economic Performance Prior To The Pandemic Brexit Weakened UK Economic Performance Prior To The Pandemic Chart II-10 presents fairly strong evidence that Brexit weakened UK economic performance relative to the Euro Area prior to the pandemic, with the exception of the 2018-2019 period. In this period Euro Area manufacturing underperformed during the Trump administration’s trade war as a result of its comparatively higher exposure to automobile production and its stronger ties to China. Panel 2 highlights that GBP-EUR fell sharply in advance of the referendum, and remains comparatively weak today. Turning to the US, Donald Trump’s election as US President in 2016 was aided by both the direct and indirect effects of social media. In terms of indirect effects, Trump benefited from similar concerns over immigration and terrorism that caused the UK to leave the EU: Chart II-11 highlights that terrorism and foreign policy were second and third on the list of concerns of registered voters in mid-2016, and Chart II-12 highlights that voters regarded Trump as the better candidate to defend the US against future terrorist attacks. Chart II-11Terrorism Ranked Highly As An Issue In The 2016 US Election August 2021 August 2021 Chart II-12Voters Regarded Trump As Better Equipped To Defend Against Terrorism August 2021 August 2021 Trump’s election; and the enactment of populist policies under his administration, were directly aided by Trump’s active use of social media (mainly Twitter) to boost his candidacy. Chart II-13 highlights that there were an average of 15-20 tweets per day from Trump’s Twitter account from 2013-2015, and 80% of those tweets occurred before he announced his candidacy for president in June 2015. This strongly underscores that Trump mainly used Twitter to lay the groundwork for his candidacy as an unconventional political outsider rather than as a campaign tool itself, which distinguishes his use of social media from that of other politicians. In other words, new technology disrupted the “good old boys’ club” of traditional media and elite politics. Some policies of the Trump administration were positive for financial markets, and it is fair to say that Trump fired up animal spirits to some extent: Chart II-14 highlights that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act caused a significant rise in stock market earnings per share. But the Trump tax cuts were a conventional policy pushed mostly by the Congressional leadership of the Republican Party, and they did not meaningfully boost economic growth. Chart II-15 highlights that, while the US ISM manufacturing index rose sharply in the first year of Trump’s administration, an uptrend was already underway prior to the election as a result of a significant improvement in Chinese credit growth and a recovery in oil prices after the devastating collapse that took place in 2014-2015. Chart II-13Trump Used Twitter To Lay The Groundwork For His Candidacy Trump Used Twitter To Lay The Groundwork For His Candidacy Trump Used Twitter To Lay The Groundwork For His Candidacy Chart II-14The Trump Tax Cuts A Huge Rise In Corporate Earnings The Trump Tax Cuts A Huge Rise In Corporate Earnings The Trump Tax Cuts A Huge Rise In Corporate Earnings   Chart II-15But The Tax Cuts Did Not Do Much To Boost Growth But The Tax Cuts Did Not Do Much To Boost Growth But The Tax Cuts Did Not Do Much To Boost Growth Similarly, Chart II-15 highlights that the Trump trade war does not bear the full responsibility of the significant slowdown in growth in 2019, as China’s credit impulse decelerated significantly between the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and the onset of the trade war because Chinese policymakers turned to address domestic concerns. Chart II-16The Trade War Caused An Explosion In Global Trade Uncertainty The Trade War Caused An Explosion In Global Trade Uncertainty The Trade War Caused An Explosion In Global Trade Uncertainty But Chart II-16 highlights that the aggressive imposition of tariffs, especially between the US and China, caused an explosion in trade uncertainty even when measured on an equally-weighted basis (i.e., when overweighting trade uncertainty, in countries other than the US and China), which undoubtedly weighed on the global economy and contributed to a very significant slowdown in US jobs growth in 2019 (panel 2). Moreover, Chinese policymakers responded to the trade onslaught by deleveraging, which weighed on the global economy; and consolidating their grip on power at home. In essence, Trump was a political outsider who utilized social media to bypass the traditional media and make his case to the American people. Other factors contributed to his surprising victory, not the least of which was the austerity-induced, slow-growth recovery in key swing states. While US policy was already shifting to be more confrontational toward China, the Trump administration was more belligerent in its use of tariffs than previous administrations. The trade war thus qualifies as another policy shock that was facilitated by the existence of social media. Viewing Social Media As A Negative Productivity-Innovation A rise in fiscal conservatism leading to misguided austerity, the UK’s decision to leave the European Union, and the Trump administration’s trade war have represented significant non-monetary shocks to both the US and global economies over the past 12 years. These shocks strongly contributed to the subpar growth profile of the last economic expansion, as demonstrated above. Chart II-17Policy Mistakes, Partially Enabled By Social Media, Reduced Productivity During The Last Expansion Policy Mistakes, Partially Enabled By Social Media, Reduced Productivity During The Last Expansion Policy Mistakes, Partially Enabled By Social Media, Reduced Productivity During The Last Expansion Given the above, it is reasonable for investors to view social media as a technological innovation with negative productivity growth, given that it has facilitated policy mistakes during the last economic expansion. Chart II-17 underscores this point, by highlighting that multi-factor productivity growth has been extremely weak in the post-GFC environment. While productivity is usually driven by supply-side factors over the longer term, it has a cyclical component to it – and in the case of the last economic expansion, the cyclical component was long lasting in nature. Any forces negatively impacting economic growth that do not change the factors of production necessarily reduce measured productivity; it is for this reason that measured productivity declines during recessions; and policy mistakes negatively impact productivity growth. The Risk Of Aggressive Austerity Seems Low Today… Chart II-18State & Local Government Finances Are In Much Better Shape Today State & Local Government Finances Are In Much Better Shape Today State & Local Government Finances Are In Much Better Shape Today Fiscal austerity in the early phase of the last economic cycle was the first social media-linked shock that we identified, but the risk of aggressive austerity appears low today. Much of the fiscal drag that occurred in the aftermath of the global financial crisis happened because of insufficient financial support to state and local governments – and the subsequent refusal by Congress to authorize more aid. But Chart II-18 highlights that state and local government finances have already meaningfully recovered, on the back of bipartisan stimulus in 2020, while the American Rescue Plan provides significant additional funding. While it is true that US fiscal policy is set to detract from growth over the coming 6-12 months, this will merely reflect the unwinding of fiscal aid that had aimed to support household income temporarily lost, as a result of a drastic reduction in services spending. As we noted in last month’s report,3 goods spending will likely slow as fiscal thrust turns to fiscal drag, but services spending will improve meaningfully – aided not just by a post-pandemic normalization in economic activity, but also by the deployment of some of the sizable excess savings that US households have accumulated over the past year. Fiscal drag will also occur outside of the US next year. For example, the IMF is forecasting a two percentage point increase in the Euro Area’s cyclically-adjusted primary budget balance, which would represent the largest annual increase over the past two decades. But here too the reduction in government spending will reflect the end of pandemic-related income support, and is likely to occur alongside a positive private-sector services impulse. During the worst of the Euro Area sovereign debt crisis, the impact of austerity was especially acute because it was persistent, and it occurred while the output gap was still large in several Euro Area economies. Chart II-19 highlights that Euro Area fiscal consolidation from 2010-2013 was negatively correlated with economic activity during that period, and Chart II-20 highlights that, with the potential exception of Spain, this austerity does not appear to have led to subsequently stronger rates of growth. Chart II-19Euro Area Austerity Lowered Growth During The Consolidation Phase… August 2021 August 2021 Chart II-20…And Did Not Seem To Subsequently Raise Growth August 2021 August 2021   This experiment in austerity led the IMF to conclude that fiscal multipliers are indeed large during periods of substantial economic slack, constrained monetary policy, and synchronized fiscal adjustment across numerous economies.4 Similarly, attitudes about austerity have shifted among policymakers globally in the wake of the populist backlash. Given this, despite the significant increase in government debt levels that has occurred as a result of the pandemic, we strongly doubt that advanced economies will attempt to engage in additional austerity prematurely, i.e., before unemployment rates have returned close-to steady-state levels. …But The Risk Of Protectionism And Other Populist Measures Looms Large The role that social media has played at magnifying populist policies should be concerning for investors, especially given that there has been a rising trend towards populism over the past 20 years. In a recent paper, Funke, Schularick, and Trebesch have compiled a cross-country database on populism dating back to 1900, defining populist leaders as those who employ a political strategy focusing on the conflict between “the people” and “the elites.” Chart II-21 highlights that the number of populist governments worldwide has risen significantly since the 1980s and 1990s, and Chart II-22 highlights that the economic performance of countries with populist leaders is clearly negative. Chart II-21Populism Has Been On The Rise For The Past 30 Years August 2021 August 2021 The authors found that countries’ real GDP growth underperformed by approximately one percentage point per year after a populist leader comes to power, relative to both the country’s own long-term growth rate and relative to the prevailing level of global growth. To control for the potential causal link between economic growth and the rise of populist leaders, Chart II-23 highlights the results of a synthetic control method employed by the authors that generates a similar conclusion to the unconditional averages shown in Chart II-22: populist economic policies are significantly negative for real economic growth. Chart II-22Populist Leaders Are Clearly Growth Killers Even After… August 2021 August 2021 Chart II-23… Controlling For The Odds That Weak Growth Leads To Populism August 2021 August 2021 Chart II-24Inequality: The Most Important Structural Cause Of Populism And Polarization Inequality: The Most Important Structural Cause Of Populism And Polarization Inequality: The Most Important Structural Cause Of Populism And Polarization This is especially concerning given that wealth and income inequality, perhaps the single most important structural cause of rising populism and political polarization, is nearly as elevated as it was in the 1920s and 1930s (Chart II-24). This trend, at least in the US, has been exacerbated by a decline in public trust of mainstream media among independents and Republicans that began in the early 2000s and helped to fuel the public’s adoption of alternative news and social media. The decline in trust clearly accelerated as a result of erroneous reporting on what turned out to be nonexistent weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and other controversies of the Bush administration. Chart II-21 showed that the rise in populism has also yet to abate, suggesting that social media has the potential to continue to amplify policy mistakes for the foreseeable future. It is not yet clear what economic mistakes will occur under the Biden administration, but investors should not rule out the possibility of policies that are harmful for growth. The likely passage of a bipartisan infrastructure bill or a partisan reconciliation bill in the second half of this year will most likely be the final word on fiscal policy until at least 2025,5 underscoring that active fiscal austerity is not likely a major risk to investors. Spending levels will probably freeze after 2022: Republicans will not be able to slash spending, and Democrats will not be able to hike spending or taxes, if Republicans win at least one chamber of Congress in the midterms (as is likely). Biden has preserved the most significant of Trump’s protectionist policies by maintaining US import tariffs against China, and the lesson from the Tea Party’s surge following the global financial crisis is that major political shifts, magnified by social media, can manifest themselves as policy with the potential to impact economic activity within a two-year window. Attitudes toward China have shifted negatively around the world because of deindustrialization and now the pandemic.6 White collar workers in DM countries have clearly fared better during lockdowns than those of lower-income households. This has created extremely fertile ground for a revival in populist sentiment, which could force the Biden administration or Congressional Democrats toward protectionist or otherwise populist actions over the coming year, in the lead up to the 2022 mid-term elections. Investment Conclusions In this report, we have documented the historical link between social media, populism, and policy mistakes during the last economic expansion. It is clear that neither social media nor even populism is solely responsible for all mistakes – the UK’s and EU’s ill-judged foray into austerity was driven by elites. Furthermore, we have not addressed in this report the impact of populism on actions of emerging markets, such as China and Russia, whose own behavior has dealt disinflationary blows to the global economy. Nevertheless, populism is a potent force that clearly has the power to harness new technology and deliver shocks to the global economy and financial markets. The risks of additional mistakes from populism are still present, and that is even before considering other risks to society from social media: a reduction in mental health among young social media users, and the role that social media has played in spreading misinformation – contributing to the vaccine hesitancy in some DM countries that we discussed in Section 1 of our report. Two investment conclusions emerge from our analysis. First, we noted in our April report that there is a chance that investor expectations for the natural rate of interest (“R-star”) will rise once the economy normalizes post-pandemic, but that this will likely not occur as long as investors continue to believe in the narrative of secular stagnation. Despite the fact that the past decade’s shocks occurred against the backdrop of persistent household deleveraging (which has ended in the US), these shocks reinforced that narrative, and any additional policy shocks following a return to economic normality will again be seen by both investors and the Fed as strong justification for low interest rates. Thus, while the rapid closure of output gaps in advanced economies over the coming year argues for both cyclically and structurally higher bond yields, a revival in protectionist sentiment is a risk to this view that we will be closely monitoring over the coming 12-24 months. Chart II-25The Underperformance Of Social Media Would Not Excessively Weigh On The Broad Market The Underperformance Of Social Media Would Not Excessively Weigh On The Broad Market The Underperformance Of Social Media Would Not Excessively Weigh On The Broad Market Second, for tech investors, the bipartisan shift in public sentiment to become more critical of social media companies is gradually becoming a real risk, potentially affecting user growth. Based solely on Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, and Snapchat, social media companies do not account for a very significant share of the overall equity market (Chart II-25), suggesting that the impact of a negative shift in sentiment toward social media companies would not be an overly significant event for equity investors in general. Chart II-25 highlights that the share of social media companies as a percent of the broad tech sector rises if Google is included; YouTube accounts for less than 15% of Google’s total advertising revenue, however, suggesting modest additional exposure beyond the solid line in Chart II-25. Still, investors with concentrated positions in social media stocks should be aware of the potential idiosyncratic risks facing social media companies as a result of the public’s impression of the impact of social media on society. If social media companies come to be widely associated with political gridlock, the polarization of society, and failed economic policies (as already appears to be the case), then the fundamental performance of these stocks is likely to be quite poor regardless of whether or not tech companies ultimately enjoy a relatively friendly regulatory environment under the Biden administration. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst III. Indicators And Reference Charts BCA’s equity indicators highlight that the “easy” money from expectations of an eventual end to the pandemic have already been made. Our technical, valuation, and sentiment indicators are very extended, highlighting that investors should expect positive but modest returns from stocks over the coming 6-12 months. Our monetary indicator has aggressively retreated from its high last year, reflecting a meaningful recovery in government bond yields since last August. The indicator still remains above the boom/bust line, however, highlighting that monetary policy remains supportive for risky asset prices. Forward equity earnings are pricing in a substantial further rise in earnings per share, but for now there is no meaningful sign of waning forward earnings momentum. Net revisions remain very strong, and positive earnings surprises have risen to their highest levels on record. Within a global equity portfolio, global ex-US equities have underperformed alongside cyclical sectors, banks, and value stocks more generally. On a 12-month time horizon, we would recommend that investors position for the underperformance of financial assets that are negatively correlated with long-maturity government bond yields. But investors more focused on the near term, we would note the potential for further underperformance of cyclical sectors, value stocks, international equities, and most global ex-US currencies versus the US dollar – depending heavily on the evolution of the medical situation in the US and the subsequent response from policymakers. The US 10-Year Treasury yield has fallen sharply since mid-March. This decline was initially caused by waning growth momentum, but has since morphed into concern about the impact of the delta variant of SARS-COV-2 and the implications for US monetary policy. 10-year Treasury yields are well below the fair value implied by a mid-2023 rate hike scenario, underscoring that the recent decline in long-maturity yields is overdone. The extreme rise in some commodity prices over the past several months has eased. Lumber prices have normalized, whereas industrial metals have moved mostly sideways since late-April and agricultural prices remain 13% below their early-May high. We had previously argued that a breather in commodity prices was likely at some point over the coming several months, and we would expect further declines in some commodity prices as supply chains normalize, labor supply recovers, and Chinese demand for metals slows. US and global LEIs remain very elevated, but are starting to roll over. Our global LEI diffusion index has declined very significantly, but this likely reflects the outsized impact of a few emerging market countries (whose vaccination progress is still lagging). Still-strong leading and coincident indicators underscore that the global demand for goods is robust, and that output is below pre-pandemic levels in most economies because of very weak services spending. The latter will recover significantly at some point over the coming year, as social distancing and other pandemic control measures disappear. EQUITIES: Chart III-1US Equity Indicators US Equity Indicators US Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3US Equity Sentiment Indicators US Equity Sentiment Indicators US Equity Sentiment Indicators   Chart III-4US Stock Market Breadth US Stock Market Breadth US Stock Market Breadth Chart III-5US Stock Market Valuation US Stock Market Valuation US Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6US Earnings US Earnings US Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance   FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9US Treasurys And Valuations US Treasurys And Valuations US Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Yield Curve Slopes Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected US Bond Yields Selected US Bond Yields Selected US Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components Chart III-13US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets   CURRENCIES: Chart III-16US Dollar And PPP US Dollar And PPP US Dollar And PPP Chart III-17US Dollar And Indicator US Dollar And Indicator US Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18US Dollar Fundamentals US Dollar Fundamentals US Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals   COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning   ECONOMY: Chart III-28US And Global Macro Backdrop US And Global Macro Backdrop US And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29US Macro Snapshot US Macro Snapshot US Macro Snapshot Chart III-30US Growth Outlook US Growth Outlook US Growth Outlook Chart III-31US Cyclical Spending US Cyclical Spending US Cyclical Spending Chart III-32US Labor Market US Labor Market US Labor Market Chart III-33US Consumption US Consumption US Consumption Chart III-34US Housing US Housing US Housing Chart III-35US Debt And Deleveraging US Debt And Deleveraging US Debt And Deleveraging   Chart III-36US Financial Conditions US Financial Conditions US Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China   Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Footnotes 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report “Moderate Releveraging And Currency Stability: An Impossible Dream?” dated September 5, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 2 Grassroots Organizing in the Digital Age: Considering Values and Technology in Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street by Agarwal, Barthel, Rost, Borning, Bennett, and Johnson, Information, Communication & Society, 2014. 3 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst “July 2021,” dated June 24, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 4 “Are We Underestimating Short-Term Fiscal Multipliers?” IMF World Economic Outlook, October 2012 5 Please see US Political Strategy Outlook "Third Quarter Outlook 2021: Game Time," dated June 30, 2021, available at usps.bcaresearch.com 6 “Unfavorable Views of China Reach Historic Highs in Many Countries,” PEW Research Center, October 2020.

Highlights Economy – The inevitable deceleration has arrived, but the economy is still growing far faster than trend and will continue to do so through 2022: A wide range of data series shows that US growth has likely peaked but deceleration from way, way above the long-run potential growth rate to way above it is not cause for concern. Markets – Growth worries pulled equities lower for one day last week before investors rushed back in to buy the dip: Stock volatility made a brief return at the beginning of the week before the S&P 500 snapped back to resume taking aim at new highs. Fundamentals supported the reversal as earnings are on a path to blow away expectations for the fifth consecutive quarter. Strategy – Investors should stay the course by overweighting risk assets in multi-asset portfolios: As long as the spread of the Delta variant does not lead to punishing new restrictions, the economy will continue to grow at an extremely rapid clip and the strong-growth, easy-policy backdrop will continue to support equities and credit. Feature The S&P 500 had its worst one-day performance since early April last Monday, shedding 1.6% and sending the VIX above 20 for only the ninth time since it broke into the teens in March (Chart 1). We do not read too much into day-to-day moves in financial markets, but the tumult seems to have resulted from equities’ delayed reaction to investor unease about decelerating growth. It makes intuitive sense that forward-looking markets often assign greater importance to the direction of a key data series than its level. In Wayne Gretzky terms, the level is largely an indication of where conditions have been, while the direction offers more insight into where they are headed. Direction does not always trump level, however, and investors should bear in mind that the current pace of growth is extremely elevated. The Bloomberg consensus of economists is calling for 6.6% real GDP growth in 2021 and 4.2% in 2022. Those figures project a tapering, especially from quarter to quarter (Table 1), but they still represent red-hot growth for an economy with an annual long-term potential growth rate in the range of 1.75% to 2%. They also reflect a gentle tapering, with growth expected to remain comfortably above trend through 2023. Chart 1Lower Highs, Lower Lows Lower Highs, Lower Lows Lower Highs, Lower Lows Table 12% Is So Last Decade Thrill Ride Thrill Ride   We are far less concerned about deceleration from high single-digit growth than we would be about sub-trend readings. Falling below trend was the persistent fear in the aftermath of the Global Financial Crisis when economists and investors alike worried that the economy would not be able to stay above stall speed. Growth likely peaked in the second quarter, and supply bottlenecks and wavering confidence in the face of the spread of COVID-19’s Delta variant have brought the economic surprise index back down to earth (Chart 2). To take one example of a series that recently generated a negative surprise, however, we think the month-over-month decline in the ISM non-manufacturing index has less to say about the economy than its fourth straight reading in the 60s, a level it had reached just eight times in the previous 23 years (Chart 3). Chart 2The Economy Is Cooling Off, ... The Economy Is Cooling Off, ... The Economy Is Cooling Off, ... Chart 3... But It's Still Quite Hot Thrill Ride Thrill Ride   Is The Bond Market Trying To Warn Us? Chart 4Inflation Fears Have Ebbed Inflation Fears Have Ebbed Inflation Fears Have Ebbed We did not foresee the steep decline in 10-year Treasury yields that has played out since mid-June and it has led us to ask if underlying economic conditions are weaker than we perceived. Based on the available data, we do not think so. It seems like the rally in long-dated Treasuries can be attributed to an unwinding of inflation fears, concerns about slowing growth and the reversal of a Treasury sell-off that had gone too far too fast. We remain constructive on the economy, assuming vaccine-resistant COVID-19 variants do not emerge, and we still expect the 10-year Treasury yield will end the year north of 1.75%. Inflation fears have cooled considerably, with 10-year TIPS breakevens having retreated to the lower end of the Fed’s desired range, while the 5-year-on-5-year series (the 5-year breakeven five years from now) has dropped out of it (Chart 4). Though we do not expect inflation to become a problem for the economy for another couple of years, we do expect that it will re-emerge as a worry for investors once the primary impediments to labor supply disappear in September, especially if the year-over-year CPI readings continue to come in way above 2%. Our Global Fixed Income Strategy service stresses that investors should watch the mix of components driving inflation. If accelerated wage gains appear to be on their way to becoming entrenched or the rate of growth in rents inflects higher, the transitory inflation narrative might begin to weaken, leading the Fed to dial back accommodation sooner and/or faster than the bond market currently anticipates. Though we are not concerned about a widely anticipated peak in the rate of growth, a revival of COVID-19 after it seemed to have been defanged would throw a spanner into the works. A surge in new infections, even in countries like the UK and the US which have been ahead of the pack in terms of vaccinations, indicates that the Delta variant is especially transmissible. The spike in infections here (Chart 5, top panel) and abroad has apparently dampened economic optimism, helping to push Treasury and other developed world sovereign yields lower. The good news, however, is that the Delta variant does not appear to be particularly lethal (Chart 5, bottom panel) and the leading Pfizer and Moderna vaccines have acquitted themselves well against it. We are watching virus developments carefully, but we do not yet see evidence that suggests new rounds of activity restrictions are in store and we therefore expect virus variants will ultimately have little economic impact. Chart 5The Delta Variant Is More Contagious But Less Serious The Delta Variant Is More Contagious But Less Serious The Delta Variant Is More Contagious But Less Serious Aside from the pendulum shifting from too-hot concerns to too-cold concerns, much of the Treasury rally appears to have been a reaction to the speed and extent of the backup in yields. Our Global Fixed Income Strategy colleagues point out that Treasuries became quite oversold in the first quarter. The 10-year yield got as far above its 200-day moving average as it did during the taper tantrum in 2013 (Chart 6, second panel), with both real-money investors (Chart 6, third panel) and speculators (Chart 6, bottom panel) shunning duration. Speculators have trimmed their short positions but the real money has yet to capitulate, suggesting that yields may be able to hang around current levels or edge even lower before returning to a level that better aligns with underlying economic strength, robust inflation readings and the future path of the fed funds rate. Earnings Continue To Crush Expectations Every equity investor is familiar with the earnings season dance. About halfway through the quarter, companies begin to guide analysts’ expectations lower. Analysts duly adjust their estimates down a few percentage points over the ensuing ten weeks before companies begin to report. Company earnings then come in about the level initially expected midway through the quarter and – voila! – three-quarters of S&P 500 constituents beat expectations and the overall index beats by around 3%. The typical pattern looks very much like it did across 2019 (Chart 7, top panel). Chart 6The Treasury Selloff Was Overdone The Treasury Selloff Was Overdone The Treasury Selloff Was Overdone Chart 7Not The Same Old Song-And-Dance Thrill Ride Thrill Ride Beginning with the second quarter of 2020, when the most stringent lockdown measures meant to stymie the spread of the pandemic were fully in force, the picture has been very different. S&P 500 constituents have barely guided down heading into earnings before proceeding to demolish estimates by close to 20% (Chart 7, bottom panel). The established practice of companies guiding analysts to position the bar at a height they think they can comfortably clear produced a narrow and consistent dispersion of earnings beats across the 32 quarters from 2012 to 2019, with a mean of 3.7% and a standard deviation of 1.4%, all clustered within a narrow 1-to-6% range (Chart 8). Chart 8Blasting Out Of The Old Range Thrill Ride Thrill Ride Something else entirely has unfolded over the last four quarters, when earnings beat by an average of 19.5%, more than three times above the previous eight years’ peak and five times their mean. Even with the pandemic numbers pushing the mean higher and quadrupling the standard deviation, the four quarters’ beats have been 3.2, 2.2, 1.8 and 3.1 standard deviations above the mean, respectively. With a quarter of the S&P 500 having reported results through last Friday, the second quarter appears to be on a path to extend the blowout streak to five quarters (Chart 7, bottom panel). Investors, conditioned to the S&P 500 unfailingly beating earnings, don’t seem to be cognizant of how unusual the magnitude of the beats has been. Gigantic year-over-year earnings gains, which will peak this quarter, also seem to have obscured how low the bar has been set on a quarter-over-quarter basis. As our US Equity Sector Strategy colleagues have highlighted, year-over-year comparisons that span pandemic-distorted quarters are of limited use. To get a more relevant read, they compare 2021 results to 2019 results. (For the full year, 2021 earnings per share for the S&P 500 are projected to come in 18.2% above 2019, for 8.7% annualized growth). Table 2A Remarkably Low Bar Thrill Ride Thrill Ride We have been tracking quarter-over-quarter changes and were surprised to see that forward four-quarter earnings were expected to decline 2% from their first-quarter run rate ($196.52, annualized) when the reporting season began, with the second quarter declining by 8% (Table 2). Given manifold signs of economic revival, an 8% sequential contraction strikes us as highly improbable. With real GDP expected to grow by 9% on an annualized quarter-over-quarter basis, or better than 12% in nominal terms, 2% growth seems reasonable, so we see $50 as a more realistic and easily attainable ballpark estimate, which would have earnings beat by 11%. Regardless of where earnings end up, the bar has been set extremely low – the analyst consensus has not forecasted contraction in any forward four-quarter period since 1980 (Chart 9). Our takeaway is that earnings estimates have scope to move higher, taking the S&P 500 with them if multiples don’t contract, or giving valuations a chance to cool if the index moves sideways or turns lower. Chart 9An Odd Time To Call For The First Contraction In 40 Years An Odd Time To Call For The First Contraction In 40 Years An Odd Time To Call For The First Contraction In 40 Years Investment Implications Our investment strategy recommendations follow from our ongoing analysis of the business cycle, the credit cycle, the monetary policy cycle and (when applicable) the sentiment cycle. Although the consistency of our risk-friendly asset allocation recommendations may have begun to seem boring, nothing in our cycle analysis calls for a change in our views. There is no reason to expect a recession when households are sitting on $2.4 trillion of excess savings, household net worth has advanced at the fastest rate on record, retail inventories have been depleted to record-low levels and payrolls are set to continue expanding at a furious rate over the next year-plus. The credit cycle is set to continue its charmed path, as rising incomes, cash-stuffed households and businesses, and zero interest rate policy suppress borrower distress and keep lenders eager to make loans. Monetary policy may get incrementally less accommodative as asset purchases shrink, but a rate hike is more than a year away. One can make a reasonable argument that the Fed will be unable to lift the fed funds rate to a truly restrictive level in the next policy tightening cycle once it begins to hike rates, even if it’s not our base case. We are certain that monetary policy settings will remain extremely easy well beyond our one-year investment timeframe. Sentiment is generally buoyant, but it is not at extreme levels that would warrant factoring it into our strategy as a contrarian indicator. We will therefore stay the course, while monitoring pandemic developments and keeping a sharp lookout for signs that we’re wrong about inflation or growth. If we are correct that the threat from COVID-19 will remain contained, we expect that earnings revisions will ensure that the next catalyst for equities will be a positive one. The consensus expectation for a decline in the earnings run rate is simply incompatible with observed conditions on the ground. Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com

Highlights The Delta variant will continue causing jitters but there is much greater evidence today than there was in early 2020 that humanity can curb the virus, both with vaccines and government stimulus. Delta jitters will reinforce the Fed’s dovishness and will, if anything, increase the odds that President Biden passes his mammoth spending package this fall. The very near term could easily see more volatility but by the end of the year the reflationary cast of global policy will have won the day. Tax hikes and rate hikes lurk beyond 2021. There is still no stabilization in US-China policy and the US and its allies have called out China for cyber aggression, signaling a new front of open competition. A cyber event is one of the leading contenders for the next negative shock to the global economy. Structural factors strongly support rising concerns among the global elite about cyber insecurity. Stick to this year’s key themes and views: long gold, long value over growth, long international stocks, long Mexico, long aerospace and defense, and short emerging market “strongmen” regimes. Feature Global equities sank and rose over the past week as investors struggled with “peak growth” in the US and China, the prospect of monetary policy normalization, and other risks on the horizon, including immediate concerns over the Delta variant of COVID-19. The rapid rebound, including for cyclicals like European stocks, suggested that investors are still buying the dip given a very supportive macro and policy backdrop (Chart 1). The BCA House View consists of accommodative policy, economic recovery, a weakening dollar, and the outperformance of cyclical risk assets. We largely agree, with the caveat that there will be “No Return To Normalcy” in the geopolitical realm. Meaning that over the medium and long term the US dollar will remain firmer than expected and cyclical economies and sectors will face headwinds.   Chart 1Equity Market Hits Wall Of Worry Equity Market Hits Wall Of Worry Equity Market Hits Wall Of Worry The pandemic will have unforeseen consequences, such as social unrest and regime failures, while China’s secular slowdown and the Great Power competition between the US and its rivals will intensify. Not only is China slowing but also President Joe Biden has been confirmed as a China hawk, coopting President Trump’s aggressive stance and courting US allies to pile the pressure on Beijing.    For most of this year the “normalcy” narrative has prevailed. Now investors are becoming fearful of the “abnormalcy” narrative. The US dollar has surprised its doubters on the basis of relative growth and interest rate differentials (Chart 2). Chart 2Dollar Remains Firm, Reflation Indicator Abates Dollar Remains Firm, Reflation Indicator Abates Dollar Remains Firm, Reflation Indicator Abates Over the next six months, the key point is that until these geopolitical risks boil over and explode, they reinforce the bullish macro view, since government spending will surge to address national challenges. The rich democracies have awoken to the threat posed by malaise at home and autocracy abroad. They have reactivated fiscal policy to rebuild their states and expand the social safety net. They are increasing investments in infrastructure, renewables, and defense. This trend is especially positive for US allied economies, global manufacturers ex-China, commodity prices, and commodity producing emerging markets, at least until the next shock erupts. We discuss the risk of a cyber shock as well as the points above in this report. Policy Responses To The Delta Variant The Delta variant began in India and has now swept the world. So far the variants respond to COVID vaccines, which are being rolled out globally. National and local political leaders will promote vaccination campaigns first – only if hospital systems are clogged will they resort to social restrictions. New infections have risen much faster than hospitalizations and deaths, although the latter are lagging indicators and will eventually follow cases (Chart 3). But financial markets will largely look past the scare, as they looked past the various waves of the original virus over the past 15 months. Today investors have greater evidence of humanity’s ability to curb the virus and can expect government spending to tide over the economy if new restrictions are necessary. New social restrictions should not be ruled out. They are not politically impossible. Public opinion in the developed countries shows that about 77% of people believe restrictions were about right or should have been tighter, while only 23% believe there should have been fewer restrictions (Chart 4). About 40% of Germans oppose the lifting of restrictions even for the vaccinated! Chart 3Delta Variant: A Limited Risk Unless Hospitals Clog Delta Variant: A Limited Risk Unless Hospitals Clog Delta Variant: A Limited Risk Unless Hospitals Clog Chart 4ANew Lockdowns Not Impossible Stay The Course (But Gird For Cyber War) Stay The Course (But Gird For Cyber War) Chart 4BNew Lockdowns Not Impossible Stay The Course (But Gird For Cyber War) Stay The Course (But Gird For Cyber War) Any financial or economic distress from virus variants will reinforce ultra-accommodative monetary policy. The European Central Bank adopted a symmetric inflation target of 2% as it completed its strategic review, up from a previous goal which simply aimed at inflation just under 2%. It is likely to expand rather than taper asset purchases (Chart 5). At the Fed, the balance of power between hawks and doves on the Federal Open Market Committee reflects the political and geopolitical trends of the day. In the wake of the Great Recession, the doves overwhelmed the hawks (Chart 6). The institution has fully transitioned today – it now aims to generate an inflation overshoot – and it will not jeopardize its new average inflation targeting regime by tightening policy too soon this year or next. Chart 5Central Banks Will Delay Normalization If COVID Crisis Persists Central Banks Will Delay Normalization If COVID Crisis Persists Central Banks Will Delay Normalization If COVID Crisis Persists Chart 6Doves Firmly In Ascendancy At Federal Reserve Stay The Course (But Gird For Cyber War) Stay The Course (But Gird For Cyber War) The Delta variant makes it more likely that governments will increase fiscal support. The European Union’s Recovery Fund has a modest impact but the EU Commission is not patrolling budget deficits anymore, in the event that new social restrictions set back the recovery. The Democratic Party will pass President Biden’s $3.5-$4.1 trillion American Jobs and Families Plan through Congress by Christmas (with a net deficit increase of $1.3-$2.5 trillion over eight years). Support rates among independents and Democrats suggest Biden will come up with the votes (Chart 7). A renewed sense of crisis will compel any straggling senators. Chart 7ADelta Variant Makes Biden Stimulus Even More Likely To Pass Stay The Course (But Gird For Cyber War) Stay The Course (But Gird For Cyber War) Chart 7BDelta Variant Makes Biden Stimulus Even More Likely To Pass Stay The Course (But Gird For Cyber War) Stay The Course (But Gird For Cyber War) Markets will cheer more government spending as they have done throughout the vast surge in budget deficits across the world, not least in the developed markets, where austerity stunted the recovery in the wake of the Great Recession (Chart 8). Beyond Delta jitters and reactive stimulus, there are clouds forming on the horizon over the medium and long term. Budget deficits will start contracting, central banks will start hiking rates, and taxes will go up (and not only in the US). Geopolitical risks that are suppressed today will erupt later. Bottom Line: The very near term could easily see more volatility but by the end of the year the reflationary cast of global economic policy will have won the day. The bigger problems come clearly into review after the ink dries on the last installment of the great Biden budget blowout. Chart 8Market Will Cheer Another Round Of Government Spending Market Will Cheer Another Round Of Government Spending Market Will Cheer Another Round Of Government Spending China Policy And Cyber War What might the next major negative shock be? A leading candidate is China, with its confluence of internal and external risks. China’s policymakers opened the floodgates of credit-and-fiscal stimulus to combat the global pandemic in 2020. They quickly shifted to tightening policy to prevent destabilizing asset bubbles. Now they are easing again. Stimulus and growth have both peaked. Authorities are on the verge of overtightening policy but tactical shifts in economic policy often occur in July. Right on cue the State Council ordered across-the-board cuts to bank reserve requirements on July 9. The Politburo’s July meeting on economic policy will bring an even more important policy signal. The concrete impact of the RRR cut should not be overstated. China has been lowering RRRs since late 2011 as its broad money growth has continually declined. The trend is indicative of China’s secular slowdown. A new series of RRR cuts is often attended by a global equity selloff (Chart 9). Chart 9China Blinked - But One RRR Cut Will Not Prevent A Global Selloff China Blinked - But One RRR Cut Will Not Prevent A Global Selloff China Blinked - But One RRR Cut Will Not Prevent A Global Selloff Our China Investment Strategy highlights that policy remains restrictive in other areas. Local governments have been told not to borrow if they have hidden debts. Moreover the crackdown on China’s tech sector also continues apace. These regulatory crackdowns are characteristic of the Xi Jinping administration and can continue for a while as it further consolidates power in advance of the twentieth National Party Congress in fall 2022. The US-China conflict is getting worse. The Biden administration took several punitive actions over the past month. It warned businesses against investing in Hong Kong and Xinjiang. It rejected a restart of the strategic and economic dialogue. While a bilateral summit between Biden and Xi Jinping is possible on October 30-31, it is not yet scheduled and would only temporarily improve relations. One of Biden’s more significant recent moves was to orchestrate a joint statement with allies condemning China for aggressive behavior in cyber space.1 A massive cyber attack should be high up on any investor’s list of “gray rhino” events (high-probability, high-impact events). The world has suffered large shocks from global terrorism, financial crisis, and pandemic. Lightning rarely strikes the same place twice. Of course, nobody knows what will cause the next upset. But a devastating cyber event has been underrated in the investment community and that is changing (Table 1). Fed Chair Powell, asked by a reporter what was the chief risk to the global financial system, said “cyber risk.” To quote in full: So you would worry about a cyber event. That's something that many, many government agencies, including the Fed and all large private businesses and all large private financial companies in particular, monitor very carefully, invest heavily in. And that's really where the risk I would say is now, rather than something that looked like the global financial crisis.2 Table 1Cyber Event Underrated In Consensus View Of Global Risks Stay The Course (But Gird For Cyber War) Stay The Course (But Gird For Cyber War) Here are six structural reasons that cyber risk will continue to escalate: Cyber space is one of the truly ungoverned spaces. The US is the preponderant power in cyber space, as elsewhere, but there is no regular order or code of conduct. The US cyber bureaucracy is decentralized and uncoordinated while its opponents are centrally commanded, aggressive, and sophisticated. Great power competition is escalating. The US is struggling with China, Russia, and Iran and all sides seek to intimidate enemies and gain allies. Cyber capabilities enhance essential tasks like spying, sabotage, and information warfare. The tech race is intensifying, with companies and governments investing heavily in innovation and industry, while US export controls exacerbate China’s frantic efforts to obtain advanced tech by any means. The pandemic boosted digital dependency across industry and commerce, creating a “perfect storm” for cyber attacks and hacking.3 The US and its allies are threatening to retaliate more actively against cyber attacks, which may initially lead to an increase in the total number of attacks. In addition, Israel will need to sabotage Iran’s nuclear program if it is not halted by diplomacy. The US is polarized and war-weary yet claiming greater commitment to its allies, a paradox that encourages foreign rivals to use cyber tools to foment US divisions; strike at regional opponents that lack US security guarantees; and test the US commitment to its allies. The current US-Russia negotiations toward a truce against cyber attacks on critical infrastructure are the sole example of a potential structural improvement. The US and Russia could conceivably lay down some rules of the road in cyber space. There may be a basis for an agreement in that already this year the US refrained from blocking the Nordstream II pipeline with Germany while Russia refrained from re-invading Ukraine. However, a Russo-American truce would not dispel the risk of a global cyber surprise. It could even increase the odds. Russia this year alone showed with the Colonial Pipeline hack and the JBS meat-packing hack that its proxies can disrupt critical US infrastructure. It would make sense to agree to a truce so that the US does not demonstrate the same capability against Russia. Even without a truce, Russia does not benefit from provoking massive US cyber attacks. The US is the world’s leading cyber power and has pledged that it will retaliate. Rather Russia will concentrate its efforts closer to home: suppressing dissent, intimidating the former Soviet Union, and testing the US’s willingness to defend its allies. It would be useful for Russia to use cyber attacks to undermine NATO unity and demonstrate that the US is reluctant to defend NATO members’ critical infrastructure. Remember the cyber strike against Estonia in 2007. Hence huge shocks could still emerge in Europe or elsewhere even if the US and Russia make a ceasefire regarding their own critical infrastructure.  The same can be said for China, Iran, and North Korea. Attacks in their neighborhood are even more likely than direct provocations against the United States now that the US is threatening graver consequences. Beijing is concentrating its cyber power on technological acquisition. But it will also try to intimidate its neighbors into neutrality and test America’s commitment to its allies. This applies to markets like Taiwan, South Korea, the Philippines, and Vietnam. Not all cyber attacks would cause a global shock but the danger of Biden’s emphasis on alliances and multilateralism is that the US will be tested and its commitments will expand. Local cyber attacks could escalate if the US believes it must prove its resolve.   Bottom Line: Cyber firms’ share prices have risen since we made our contrarian buy call back in March. True, fundamentals are poor despite the strong geopolitical tailwind. The BCA Equity Analyzer shows that valuations, debt, liquidity, and return on equity have deteriorated relative to the global large cap equity universe (Chart 10). Still, as long as liquidity is ample and geopolitical risk is high we expect cyber firms’ share prices to keep grinding upward. Chart 10Cyber Stocks: Poor Fundamentals But Geopolitics A Secular Driver Stay The Course (But Gird For Cyber War) Stay The Course (But Gird For Cyber War) Investment Takeaways We are sticking with our key themes and views: long gold; long value over growth; long DM-ex-US stocks such as FTSE100 (Chart 11) and European industrials; long US neighbors Mexico and Canada; long defense and cyber stocks; and short the assets of emerging market “strongman” regimes from China and Russia to Brazil, Turkey, and the Philippines. Taking several of our trade recommendations alongside the copper-to-gold ratio, a key measure of global reflation, there could be more near-term downside (Chart 12). Nevertheless these are strategic trades designed to bear rewards over 12 months and beyond. Mainland Chinese investors should book gains on long Chinese 10-year government bonds. We would not rule out a bigger bond rally later given China’s risks at home and abroad, but RRR cuts often lead to a selloff and the signal is that the socialist policy “put” remains in place. Book gains on long Italian / short Spanish equities. This tactical trade is now hitting the top of its range and will likely mean revert. We are still optimistic on European stocks and the euro as a whole and view the German election as a positive catalyst almost regardless of outcome. Chart 11Stay The Course: Long Value Over Growth Stay The Course: Long Value Over Growth Stay The Course: Long Value Over Growth   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Chart 12Stick To Cyclical Trades Over Near-Term Volatility Stick To Cyclical Trades Over Near-Term Volatility Stick To Cyclical Trades Over Near-Term Volatility   Footnotes 1     White House, “The United States, Joined by Allies and Partners, Attributes Malicious Cyber Activity and Irresponsible State Behavior to the People’s Republic of China,” July 19, 2021, whitehouse.gov. 2     “Jerome Powell: Full 2021 60 Minutes Interview Transcript,” CBS News, April 11, 2021, cbsnews.com. 3    Connor Fairman, “2020: Cybercrime’s Perfect Storm,” Council on Foreign Relations, January 20, 2021, cfr.org.

Dear Client, We will be presenting our quarterly webcast next week, and, as a result, will not be publishing on 29 July 2021.  We will cover our major calls for the quarter and provide a look-ahead.  I look forward to the Q+A, and am hopeful you will tune in. Bob Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist   Highlights Chart Of The WeekOPEC 2.0's Hand Strengthened By Production Agreement OPEC 2.0s Hand Strengthened By Production Agreement OPEC 2.0s Hand Strengthened By Production Agreement The deal crafted by OPEC 2.0 over the weekend to add 400k b/d of oil every month from August preserves the coalition, and sends a credible signal of its ability to raise output after its 5.8mm b/d of spare capacity is returned to market next year.1 KSA and Russia will remain primi inter pares, but the position of OPEC 2.0's core producers – not just the UAE, which negotiated an immediate baseline increase – was enhanced for future negotiations. This deal explicitly recognizes they are the only ones capable of increasing output over an extended period. We assume the revised production baselines for core OPEC 2.0 effective May 2022 reflect the coalition's demand expectations from 2H22 onward. Our modeling indicates core OPEC 2.0's output will almost converge on the revised baseline production of 34.3mm b/d by 2H23, when we expect these producers to be at ~ 33.4mm b/d. Holding our demand estimates constant from last week, our revised supply expectations prompt us to move our forecast closer to our June forecast. We expect Brent to average $70/bbl in 2H21, with 2022 and 2023 averaging $74 and $80/bbl (Chart of the Week). Feature The deal concluded by OPEC 2.0 over the weekend will do more than add 400k b/d of spare capacity to the market every month beginning next month. It also does more than preserve the producer coalition's successful production-management strategy.  The big take-away from the deal is the clear message being sent by the coalition's core members – KSA, Russia, Iraq, UAE and Kuwait – that they are able to significantly increase output after their 5.8mm b/d of spare capacity has been returned to the market over the next year or so. It does so by raising the baselines of the core producers starting in May 2022, clearly indicating the capacity and willingness to raise output and keep it there (Table 1). Table 1Baseline Increases For Core OPEC 2.0 OPEC 2.0's Forward Guidance In New Baselines OPEC 2.0's Forward Guidance In New Baselines What OPEC 2.0's Deal Signals Internally, the deal is meant to recognize the investment made by the UAE in particular, which was not being accounted for in its current baseline. Externally – i.e., to competitors outside the coalition – the deal signals OPEC 2.0's successful production management strategy will continue, by raising the likelihood the coalition will remain intact. This has kept the level of supply below demand over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic (Chart 2), and is responsible for the global decline in inventories (Chart 3). Chart 2OPEC 2.0 Durability Increases OPEC 2.0 Durability Increases OPEC 2.0 Durability Increases Chart 3Inventories Will Remain Under Control Inventories Will Remain Under Control Inventories Will Remain Under Control Specifically, the massive spare capacity still to be returned to the market between now and 2H22 can be accomplished with minimal risk of a market-share war breaking out among the core OPEC 2.0 members seeking to monetize their off-the-market production before the other members of the coalition. Most importantly, the revised benchmark production levels that becomes effective May 2022 signal the coalition members with the capacity to increase production can do so. Longer-Term Forward Guidance We assume the revised production baselines for core OPEC 2.0 effective May 2022 reflect the coalition's demand expectations from 2H22 onward. Our modeling indicates core OPEC 2.0's output will approach the revised baseline reference levels of 34.3mm b/d, hitting 33.4mm b/d for crude and liquids output by 2H23 (Table 2).  Table 2BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) To Dec23 OPEC 2.0's Forward Guidance In New Baselines OPEC 2.0's Forward Guidance In New Baselines This implies the core group expects to be able to cover production declines within the coalition and to meet demand increases going forward. The estimates are far enough into the future to prepare ahead of time to increase production. Our estimates for core OPEC 2.0 production reflects our assumption the revised baseline levels do reflect demand expectations of the coalition. In estimating the coalition's production, we rely on historical data from the US EIA, which allows us to estimate future production using regressors we consider reliable (e.g., GDP estimates from the IMF and World Bank).  Non-OPEC 2.0 Production We use EIA historical data for non-OPEC 2.0 production as well. In last week’s balances, we substituted the EIA's estimates for non-OPEC 2.0 producers ex-US for our estimates, which resulted in lower supply numbers throughout our forecast sample.  This threw off our balances estimates in particular, as we did not balance the decrease in supply from this group using the new data set with an increase from another group. We corrected this oversight this week: We will continue to use EIA estimates for non-OPEC 2.0 ex-US countries, but will balance the decrease in oil production from this cohort with increased supply from other countries. Chart 4US Shales Are The Marginal Barrel US Shales Are The Marginal Barrel US Shales Are The Marginal Barrel For US oil production, we will continue to estimate it as a function of WTI price levels, the forward curve and financial variables – chiefly high-yield rates, which serve as a good proxy for borrowing costs for the marginal US shale producer, which we view as the quintessential marginal producer in the global price-taking cohort (Chart 4). Our research indicates US shale producers – like all producers, for that matter – are prioritizing shareholder interests first and foremost. This means they will focus on profitability and margins. While we have observed this tendency for some time, it appears it is gaining speed, as oil and gas producers are now considering whether they want to retain their existing exposure to their hydrocarbon assets.2   There appears to be a reluctance among resource producers generally – this is true in copper, as we have noted – to substantially increase capex. This could be the result of covid uncertainty, demand uncertainty, monetary-policy uncertainty or a real attempt to provide competitive returns. We think it is a combination of all of these, but the picture is clouded by the difficulty in separating all of these uncertainties. Income Drives Oil Demand Chart 5Income Drives Oil Demand Income Drives Oil Demand Income Drives Oil Demand Our demand estimates will continue to be driven by estimates of GDP from the IMF and the World Bank. We have found the level of oil consumption is highly correlated with GDP, particularly for EM states (Chart 5). Holding our demand estimates constant from last week, our revised supply expectations prompt us to move our forecast closer to our June forecast.  This week, we also will adjust our inventory calculations, which will rely less on EIA estimates of OECD stocks. In the recent past, these estimates played a sizeable role in our forecasts. From this month on, they will play a smaller part. This is why, even though our supply estimates have risen from last week, there is not a significant change to our inventory levels. Investment Implications Holding our demand estimates constant from last week, our revised supply expectations prompt us to move our forecast closer to our June forecast. We expect Brent to average $70/bbl in 2H21, with 2022 and 2023 averaging $74 and $80/bbl. We remain bullish commodities in general, given the continued tightness in these markets. We expect this to persist, as capex remains elusive in oil, gas and metals markets. This underpins our long S&P GSCI and COMT ETF commodity recommendations, and our long MSCI Global Metals & Mining Producers ETF (PICK) recommendation.   Robert P. Ryan  Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com   Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish US natural gas exports via pipeline to Mexico averaged just under 7 bcf/d in June, according to the EIA. Exports hit a record high of 7.4 bcf/d on 24 June 2021. The record high for the month was 7.4 Bcf/d on June 24. The EIA attributes the higher exports to increases in industrial and power demand, and high temperatures, which are driving air-conditioning demand south of the US border. Close to 5 bcf/d of the imported gas is used to generate power, according to the EIA. This was up close to 20% y/y. Increases in gas-pipeline infrastructure are allowing more gas to flow to Mexico from the US. Base Metals: Bullish China reportedly will be selling additional copper from its strategic stockpiles later this month, in an effort to cool the market. According to reuters.com, market participants expect China to auction 20k MT of Copper on 29 July 2021. This will bring total sales via auction to 50k MT, as the government earlier this month sold 30k MT at $10,500/MT (~ $4.76/lb). Prior to and since that first auction, copper has been trading on either side of $4.30/lb (Chart 6). Market participants expected a higher volume than the numbers being discussed as we went to press. In addition to auctioning copper, the government reportedly will auction other base metals. Precious Metals: Bullish Interest rates on 10-year inflation-linked bonds remain below -1%, as U.S. CPI inflation rises. US 10-year treasury yields have rebounded since sinking to a five-month low at the beginning of this week. The positive effect of negative real interest rates on gold is being balanced by a rising USD (Chart 7). Safe-haven demand for the greenback is being supported by uncertainty caused by COVID-19’s Delta variant. Gold prices are still volatile after the Fed’s ‘dot shock’ in mid-June.3 This volatility is reducing safe-haven demand for the yellow metal despite rising economic and policy uncertainty. Ags/Softs: Neutral Hot, dry weather is expected over most of the grain-growing regions of the US for the balance of July, which will continue to support prices, according to Farm Futures. Chart 6Copper Prices Going Down Copper Prices Going Down Copper Prices Going Down Chart 7Weaker USD Supports Gold Weaker USD Supports Gold Weaker USD Supports Gold   Footnotes 1Please see 19th "OPEC and non-OPEC Ministerial Meeting concludes" published by OPEC 18 July 2021. 2Please see "BHP said to seek an exit from its petroleum business" published by worldoil.com July 20, 2021.  3Please refer to ‘“Dot Shock” Continues To Roil Gold; Oil…Not So Much’, which we published on  July 1, 2021 for additional discussion. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed In 2021 Summary of Trades Closed OPEC 2.0's Forward Guidance In New Baselines OPEC 2.0's Forward Guidance In New Baselines

Feature June’s economic data and second-quarter GDP indicate that China’s economic recovery may have peaked. Slight improvements in some sectors, including manufacturing investment, exports and consumption, were offset by slowing in China’s old economy, such as infrastructure and real estate. A softening economy will weigh on Chinese corporate profits in 2H21. Inflation in Producer Price Index (PPI) has likely peaked, but it remains far above its historic average. Downstream industries may benefit from low interest rates and slightly less inflationary pressures on input prices, however, their profit growth has rolled over given weakening domestic demand and base effect. Industrial profits will shift downward in 2H21, meanwhile China’s macro policy will probably disappoint investors. Last week’s GDP’s numbers show that small-to-medium enterprises (SMEs) and private-sector businesses bore the brunt of rising global commodity prices and a slow recovery in domestic household consumption and services. The data, coupled with recent policy moves, support our view that China’s leadership is focused on helping vulnerable segments of the economy rather than boosting domestic demand by broadly easing policies (Chart 1). Nonetheless, the authorities may resort to easing policy later in 2021 if export growth weakens significantly in the second half of the year. A series of Reserve Requirement Ratio (RRR) and/or interest rate cuts, increased infrastructure project approvals, and/or looser real estate regulations, will signal that China’s ongoing policy tightening cycle has ended. In recent weeks both Chinese onshore and offshore stocks slipped further in absolute terms and relative to global benchmarks (Chart 2). We continue to recommend that investors remain cautious on Chinese stocks, at least through Q3. Chart 1No Broad Easing Yet No Broad Easing Yet No Broad Easing Yet Chart 2Investors Still Cautious On China's Economy And Policy Investors Still Cautious On China's Economy And Policy Investors Still Cautious On China's Economy And Policy   Qingyun Xu, CFA Associate Editor qingyunx@bcaresearch.com Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com   Q2 GDP: Recovering At A Slower Pace China’s official GDP growth, on a year-over-year basis, slowed to 7.9% in Q2 from 18.3% in Q1 (Chart 3, top panel). While Q2’s weaker reading reflects the base effect in the data, it was slightly below the market’s expectation of 8.0-8.5%. Moreover, on a sequential basis (quarter-over-quarter), Q2’s seasonally adjusted GDP growth was one of the slowest in the past decade (Chart 3, bottom panel). These figures and the underlying data highlight that China’s economic growth momentum, which historically lags the credit impulse by six to nine months, has peaked (Chart 4). However, in 1H21, China aggregate output still grew by a 5.5% average annual rate during the same period over the past two years, well within Chinese policymakers’ target of above 5% growth needed to maintain a stable economy.  Meanwhile, the bifurcation in China’s economic recovery continues.  While robust external demand for Chinese goods helped to underpin manufacturing output, the sector’s profit growth has lagged upstream industries. Moreover, state-owned enterprises (SOEs) are experiencing soaring profit growth whereas SMEs have struggled with rising global commodity prices and sluggish domestic consumption as discussed below. We expect that the pace in credit growth deceleration will moderate in 2H21 and interest rates will stay at historically low levels. However, the authorities are unlikely to loosen macro policies until more signs of economic weaknesses emerge. Chart 3Q2 GDP: Slowing From An Elevated Level Q2 GDP: Slowing From An Elevated Level Q2 GDP: Slowing From An Elevated Level Chart 4Chinese Economic Growth Should Soften Further In 2H21 Chinese Economic Growth Should Soften Further In 2H21 Chinese Economic Growth Should Soften Further In 2H21   Robust Exports, Sluggish Manufacturing Investment Chart 5Subdued Manufacturing Investment Recovery Despite Robust Exports Subdued Manufacturing Investment Recovery Despite Robust Exports Subdued Manufacturing Investment Recovery Despite Robust Exports China’s export growth in June beat market expectations, despite shipping disruptions at major ports in Guangdong province due to a resurgence in COVID-19 cases. However, the recovery in manufacturing investment was muted through most of 1H21 even though export growth was resilient (Chart 5). There are several reasons for the sluggish recovery: the RMB’s rapid appreciation in the first five months of 2021, rising inflation and the limited pricing power that Chinese exporters gained in the first half of the year likely impeded their profits and curbed their propensity to invest (Chart 6). Total export values in USD significantly outpaced those in RMB terms, suggesting that the profit gains by Chinese exporters were offset by the strengthening local currency (Chart 7). Chart 6Rapid RMB Appreciation Will Weigh On Industrial Profits Rapid RMB Appreciation Will Weigh On Industrial Profits Rapid RMB Appreciation Will Weigh On Industrial Profits Chart 7Divergence Between Exports In USD versus RMB Divergence Between Exports In USD versus RMB Divergence Between Exports In USD versus RMB Furthermore, manufacturers in mid-to-downstream industries have been unable to fully pass on rising input costs to domestic consumers, which is evidenced in the faster growth of manufacturing output volume compared with price increases. It contrasts with the previous inflationary cycles, where surging prices for manufactured goods surpassed output volume (Chart 8A & 8B). Chart 8AChina's Manufacturing Recovery: Stronger Volume Than Prices China's Manufacturing Recovery: Stronger Volume Than Prices China's Manufacturing Recovery: Stronger Volume Than Prices Chart 8BMuted Profit Margin Recovery In Manufacturing Compared With Mining Muted Profit Margin Recovery In Manufacturing Compared With Mining Muted Profit Margin Recovery In Manufacturing Compared With Mining June’s improvement in manufacturing investment may not advance into 2H21 without added policy support. The nearly 2% depreciation in the RMB against the dollar in recent weeks will alleviate some pressure on exporters’ profit margins. However, export prices in USD also started to weaken (Chart 9). In addition, June’s manufacturing PMI and a Chinese business school survey,1 reported a deterioration in business conditions among smaller businesses. The weaker sentiment will depress manufacturing investments since China’s manufacturing sector is dominated by private and smaller businesses (Chart 10). Chart 9Chinese Export Prices In USD Are Rolling Over Chinese Export Prices In USD Are Rolling Over Chinese Export Prices In USD Are Rolling Over Chart 10Deteriorating Business Sentiment Will Depress Manufacturing Investments Deteriorating Business Sentiment Will Depress Manufacturing Investments Deteriorating Business Sentiment Will Depress Manufacturing Investments Recent policy measures to keep a low interest-rate environment will help the export and manufacturing sectors by reducing operating costs. The measures are also in keeping with China’s shift from boosting its service sector to maintaining a steady share of manufacturing output in its domestic economy (Chart 11). Chart 11Maintaining A Steady Share Of Manufacturing Output In China's Economy Maintaining A Steady Share Of Manufacturing Output In China's Economy Maintaining A Steady Share Of Manufacturing Output In China's Economy   Policy Tightening In The Old Economy Continues Chart 12Investments In Real Estate Have Lost Steam Investments In Real Estate Have Lost Steam Investments In Real Estate Have Lost Steam Infrastructure investment growth slowed further in June. Investments in real estate, which drove China’s economic recovery in the second half of 2020, are also losing momentum (Chart 12). The slowdown, engineered by policymakers, will likely endure for the rest of the year. Bank loans to real estate developers tumbled to a cyclical low (Chart 13). In addition, deposit and advance payments, the main source of funds for real estate projects, nose-dived along with home sales (Chart 14).  Chart 13No Signs Of Looser Financing Regulations In Property Sector No Signs Of Looser Financing Regulations In Property Sector No Signs Of Looser Financing Regulations In Property Sector Chart 14Falling Home Sales Will Further Depress Real Estate Investments Falling Home Sales Will Further Depress Real Estate Investments Falling Home Sales Will Further Depress Real Estate Investments Chart 15Sharp Pullback In New Infrastructure Project Approvals This Year Sharp Pullback In New Infrastructure Project Approvals This Year Sharp Pullback In New Infrastructure Project Approvals This Year Infrastructure project approvals by the Ministry of Finance remain on a downward trend (Chart 15). Last week, China’s Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission (CBIRC) announced a new rule to stop financial institutions from lending to local government financing vehicles (LGFV) that hold off-balance sheet government debt. LGFVs are largely used by provincial governments to borrow from banks to help fund infrastructure projects. Regulations targeting the real estate sector will further dampen real estate investments in the second half of this year. Land purchases and housing starts, both leading indicators for real estate investment, have declined since February. Excavator sales and investment in construction equipment also deteriorated sharply (Chart 16). Given that housing prices remain elevated, we do not expect real estate regulations to shift to an easier tone.  The deceleration in China’s old economy is reflected in imports. While the value of imports remains strong, the volume has slowed, which suggests that the surge was due to soaring commodity prices (Chart 17, top panel). In particular, the growth in China’s imports of copper and steel, on a year-over-year basis and in volume terms, contracted in June (Chart 17, bottom panel). Chart 16Construction Activities Set To Slow Further Construction Activities Set To Slow Further Construction Activities Set To Slow Further Chart 17Falling Import Volume Falling Import Volume Falling Import Volume   The Key To A Consumption Recovery Retail sales picked up slightly in June following two consecutive months of decline.  However, retail sales remain below their pre-pandemic level (Chart 18). Labor market dynamics and household income growth, which stayed sluggish through 1H21, hold the key to the speed and magnitude of a recovery in consumption this year (Chart 19). Chart 18Sluggish Recovery In Household Consumption Sluggish Recovery In Household Consumption Sluggish Recovery In Household Consumption Chart 19A Lackluster Consumption Recovery Due To Slow Recovery in Household Income A Lackluster Consumption Recovery Due To Slow Recovery in Household Income A Lackluster Consumption Recovery Due To Slow Recovery in Household Income Household precautionary savings, which remain elevated compared with their historical norms, have depressed the propensity to spend (Chart 20). While the overall unemployment rate in China’s urban centers has steadily declined this year, the rate of jobless young graduates (ages 16-24) picked up and is nearly three percentage points higher than its historical mean (Chart 21). However, the high unemployment among graduates will not encourage policymakers to stimulate the economy. The number of new graduates in both 2020 and 2021 is larger than the historical average, while the growth in new job creation has nearly recovered to that of the pre-pandemic years (Chart 22). Chart 20Households' Propensity For Precautionary Savings Remains Elevated Households' Propensity For Precautionary Savings Remains Elevated Households' Propensity For Precautionary Savings Remains Elevated Chart 21Rising Unemployment Rate Among Younger Workers Rising Unemployment Rate Among Younger Workers Rising Unemployment Rate Among Younger Workers Moreover, labor market slack among young graduates seems to be concentrated in the services sector, and this sector’s improvement is dependent on China’s domestic pandemic situation and inoculation rates rather than on stimulus (Chart 23). Chart 22Urban Job Creation Growth Still On The Mend Urban Job Creation Growth Still On The Mend Urban Job Creation Growth Still On The Mend Chart 23Interruptions In Service Sector Recovery Due To Lingering COVID Cases Interruptions In Service Sector Recovery Due To Lingering COVID Cases Interruptions In Service Sector Recovery Due To Lingering COVID Cases   Elevated Inflation, Downshifting Industrial Profits Chart 24China's PPI May Have Reached A Cyclical Peak... China's PPI May Have Reached A Cyclical Peak... China's PPI May Have Reached A Cyclical Peak... China’s domestic inflationary pressures eased slightly in June with a small decline in both consumer and producer prices. The input price component of the manufacturing PMI, which normally leads the PPI by about three months, dropped sharply last month, which indicates that the PPI may have reached its cyclical peak (Chart 24). However, producer price inflation will likely remain elevated in the second half of the year. Although global industrial metal prices have rolled over since May, they remain at their highest level since 2011 (Chart 25). A rapid deceleration in Chinese credit growth and weakening demand in 2H21 will remove some pressure in the sizzling hot commodity market, but global supply-side constraints will limit the downside in raw material prices, at least through the next six months. Therefore, diminishing inflationary pressures on the PPI will only slightly reduce input costs for China’s mid-to- downstream manufacturers, which have been unable to pass on rising commodity prices to domestic consumers (Chart 26). As discussed earlier, Chinese export prices in both USD and RMB terms have also rolled over. Chart 25...But Global Commodity Prices Are Still Elevated ...But Global Commodity Prices Are Still Elevated ...But Global Commodity Prices Are Still Elevated Chart 26Absence Of Inflation Pass-Through Absence Of Inflation Pass-Through Absence Of Inflation Pass-Through Given that price changes are more important to corporate profits than volume changes, Chinese mid-to-downstream industries will continue to face downward pressure on their profit margins. Profit growth in mid-to-downstream industries consistently lagged their upstream counterparts in the past 12 months (Chart 27). Moreover, state-holding enterprises, which dominate upstream industries, have seen a 150% jump in profit growth from a year ago, while the rate of profit gains among privately owned industrial companies tumbled this year (Chart 28). Chart 27A Faster Mean Reversal In Profit Growth Among Private Companies Taking The Pulse Of China’s Slowing Economy Taking The Pulse Of China’s Slowing Economy Chart 28A Faster Mean Reversal In Profit Growth Among Private Companies A Faster Mean Reversal In Profit Growth Among Private Companies A Faster Mean Reversal In Profit Growth Among Private Companies Chinese policymakers will probably focus on addressing imbalances in China’s industrial sector and economy by supporting SMEs and the private sector. Meanwhile, industrial profit growth will decline in 2H21 from its V-shaped recovery last year, given weakening domestic demand and the waning base effect. Table 1China Macro Data Summary Taking The Pulse Of China’s Slowing Economy Taking The Pulse Of China’s Slowing Economy Table 2China Financial Market Performance Summary Taking The Pulse Of China’s Slowing Economy Taking The Pulse Of China’s Slowing Economy Footnotes 1The CKGSB (Cheung Kong Graduate School Of Business) Business Conditions Index (BCI) comprises four sub-indices: corporate sales, corporate profits, corporate financing environment and inventory levels. Equity Sector Recommendations Cyclical Investment Stance

Highlights Metals prices are likely to suffer in the short term on the back of weakening Chinese demand and fading inflationary pressures. Accordingly, in our most recent Global Asset Allocation (GAA) Quarterly Outlook, we downgraded the AUD to underweight against the greenback. Bond yields, globally, are bound to rise moderately over the course of the coming 12 months. Australian yields, however, are likely to rise slower than those in the US. The RBA has been explicit in communicating what it would take to adjust its policy stance and is likely to lag behind other central banks in DM. We therefore recommend investors favor Australian government bonds in a global bond portfolio. Australian equities, now dominated by Financials rather than the Materials sector, would benefit from a rise in bond yields. However, a weaker AUD and declining metal prices warrant no more than a benchmark exposure to Australian equities within a global equity portfolio. Introduction Recently, clients have often been asking about Australia. The reasons seem clear. With a potential commodities “super-cycle” driven by a shift to renewable energy and electric vehicles (EVs), both the Australian economy and equities should be in a position to benefit. The reality, however, has been much less positive. Particularly the divergence between the core driver of the Australian market, industrial metals, and the performance of both equities and the currency over the past few years has been a concern (Chart 1). Over the past year and a half, Australian equities have underperformed the MSCI ACWI by 12.4% (Chart 2, panel 1). This underperformance was mainly due to the outperformance of the US. However, even against global markets excluding the US, Australian equities did not match the rise in commodity prices – particularly industrial metals (Chart 2, panel 2). Chart 1Despite The Rise In Metals Prices... Despite The Rise In Metals Prices... Despite The Rise In Metals Prices... Chart 2...Australian Equities Have Not Outperformed ...Australian Equities Have Not Outperformed ...Australian Equities Have Not Outperformed   Chart 3Financials Dominate Australian Equities Financials Dominate Australian Equities Financials Dominate Australian Equities The structure of the Australian market has changed over the past few years. The commodities boom and subsequent global liquidity boom over the past two decades have fueled a housing bubble in Australia and an unsustainable rise in household debt. As a result, Australian equities are no longer dominated by metals and mining stocks, but rather by banks (Chart 3). We structured this Special Report in a Q&A format, answering questions we think are most relevant for investors to assess both the short- and long-term outlook for Australia. We aim to provide an overview of the economy and draw some conclusions on how investors should be positioned. Our conclusions are as follows: Over the past year and a half, the Australian economy has shown how complementary actions between fiscal and monetary policy, as well as social restriction measures, can mitigate both economic and human damage. The Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) will be in no rush to adjust its policy stance until wage growth is back to its 3% target. However, RBA officials risk running the economy hot in the meantime given that measures of employment are back to their pre-pandemic levels. The RBA is not likely to change its policy stance before reaching its wage growth and inflation targets and will probably lag behind other global central banks in tightening. In that case, investors should favor Australian government bonds in a global bond portfolio. Australian banks remain well-funded and in good health. But their excessive exposure to the housing sector puts them at grave risk if home prices collapse. Despite this, there seems to be a feedback loop where a decline in mortgage rates fuels further demand for loans, pushing up home prices. A slowdown in Chinese credit growth and economic activity will hamper commodity demand, weighing down on Australian equities. The longer-term outlook remains compelling for Australian equities and metals as we enter into a new commodities “supercycle” fueled by a transition to renewable and alternative energy. The Australian economy stands to benefit given that the country has high levels of both production and reserves of the minerals needed for this transition.   Q: How Does The Economy Look In The Short-Term? A: Australia can be regarded as one of the few countries that successfully navigated the pandemic with a minimal amount of damage, both to its population and economy. With swift measures to limit travel and implement social restrictions, the spread of the outbreak was curtailed to slightly over 30,000 total cases, representing only 0.12% of its population (Chart 4). On the other hand, its vaccination campaign has been much slower (at 38 doses administered per 100 people) than in other DM economies such as the US, UK, France, or Germany with 100, 120, 90, and 102 doses per 100 people, respectively. In the short term, this might not seem particularly damaging to the economy. However, if vaccination rates do not pick up rapidly, Australia’s international travel restrictions (which cannot sustainably be kept in place) will hamper economic growth and become a major drag on the tourism and education sectors (Chart 5, panels 1 & 2). Chart 4Government Policies Contained The Pandemic Outbreak... Government Policies Contained The Pandemic Outbreak... Government Policies Contained The Pandemic Outbreak... Chart 5...At The Expense Of Tourism ...At The Expense Of Tourism ...At The Expense Of Tourism Ample fiscal support – in the form of wage subsidies and business support through the JobKeeper program – mitigated the shortfall in household incomes (Chart 6). This provided a boost to both consumers and businesses with Q1 GDP growth coming in at 1.8% quarter-on-quarter (7.4% annualized). GDP expectations for the remainder of this year and next show a resilient strong momentum for Australian growth and domestic demand (Chart 7). Chart 6Fiscal Stimulus Supported Employment... A Deeper Dive Into The Land Down Under A Deeper Dive Into The Land Down Under Chart 7...And Overall Growth ...And Overall Growth ...And Overall Growth Chart 8Labor Market Back To Pre-Pandemic Levels... Labor Market Back To Pre-Pandemic Levels... Labor Market Back To Pre-Pandemic Levels...   The labor market recovery has been an excellent example of how fiscal support and lockdown measures complement each other. Most employment indicators have almost recovered or surpassed their pre-pandemic levels: The unemployment rate stands at 4.90%, compared to 5.13%, the underemployment rate is at 7.44%, compared to 8.60%. The total number of those employed is now above its pre-pandemic level, albeit still below the 2018-2019 growth trend (Chart 8).   Q: When Will The RBA Shift Its Policy Stance? A: The RBA has been explicit in communicating that changes in its policy stance hinge on Australian wage growth rising sustainably towards 3% – a level last reached in Q1 2013. Even with economic activity mostly restored, wage growth remains low at 1.49% (Chart 9). Our belief is that until that occurs, the RBA will probably maintain its accommodative stance. Our global fixed-income strategists, in a recent report, highlighted their belief that the RBA is likely to be less hawkish than markets currently expect – on both tapering and hiking rates. We agree with that assessment. Comments by RBA Governor Lowe earlier last month back our dovish belief: He stated that “The Board is committed to maintaining highly supportive monetary conditions to support a return to full employment in Australia and inflation consistent with the target…This is unlikely to be until 2024 at the earliest”. Market expectations nevertheless remain much more hawkish – pointing to a first rate hike by mid 2022 and almost 70 basis points of hikes by 2024 (Chart 10). Chart 9...However Wage Growth Remains Muted ...However Wage Growth Remains Muted ...However Wage Growth Remains Muted Chart 10Market Expects A Hawkish RBA... Market Expects A Hawkish RBA Market Expects A Hawkish RBA   Chart 11...And Is Already Pricing That Down The Curve ...And Is Already Pricing That Down The Curve ...And Is Already Pricing That Down The Curve Chart 12Inflation Remains Well-Below The RBA's Target Inflation Remains Well-Below The RBA's Target Inflation Remains Well-Below The RBA's Target This means that the RBA will probably risk running the economy hot for a while. With total employment back to its pre-pandemic level and other employment indicators closely behind, inflationary pressures, sooner or later, will begin to mount. Higher growth prospects and inflation risks are being discounted further down the curve (Chart 11). The June CPI print is likely to reflect a transitory short-term base effect and the RBA is mostly going to see through that. In the meantime, we would watch other broad inflation indicators to gauge for price pressures. Broader measures such as the trimmed-mean inflation index or median inflation remain subdued at 1.1% and 1.3%, respectively. The 10-year breakeven rate currently stands at 2.1%, within the RBA’s range of 2%-3%, highlighting the market’s belief that long-term inflation remains well under control (Chart 12). Bottom Line: The RBA is likely to maintain its dovish stance for longer than the market expects. A return to sustainable levels of wage growth and inflation will remain the top objectives and it is unlikely that policy will be reversed before they are achieved. Our global fixed-income strategists laid out a checklist of what would make the RBA turn less dovish. So far, only 1 out of 5 items on their list (the recovery in private-sector demand) signals the need for a more hawkish stance. The remaining items signal no imminent pressure on the RBA to adjust policy (Table 1). The RBA is also wary of the currency appreciating if it took a more hawkish stance ahead of other central banks (e.g., the Fed) and is therefore likely to switch policy only after other central banks do so (Chart 13). Accordingly, investors should favor Australian government bonds within a global bond portfolio. Table 1RBA Checklist A Deeper Dive Into The Land Down Under A Deeper Dive Into The Land Down Under Chart 13The RBA Will Be Wary Of A Rising AUD The RBA Will Be Wary Of A Rising AUD The RBA Will Be Wary Of A Rising AUD   Q: Are There Signs Of Improvement In The Banking Sector? A: Headline indicators of the health of the Australian banking sector paint a picture of a well-capitalized, highly funded, and profitable industry. Return on equity (ROE) has averaged 12.1% over the past decade. Capital adequacy and Tier 1 capital ratios stand at 14.5% and 18.2%, respectively – much higher than at the start of the Global Financial Crisis (GFC). The ratio of non-performing loans remains low and Australian banks’ reliance on leverage has also decreased (Chart 14). Chart 14Banks Look Healthy... Banks Look Healthy... Banks Look Healthy... Chart 15...But Remain Exposed To The Housing Sector... ...But Remain Exposed To The Housing Sector ...But Remain Exposed To The Housing Sector However, these indicators mask a major underlying risk. Banks remain heavily exposed to the housing market, with housing loans as high as 62% of banks’ gross outstanding loans and 40% of total assets (Chart 15, panel 1). Over the past decade and a half, banks have lent an average of A$56 of housing-related loans for every A$100 in total loans (Chart 15, panel 2).   Chart 16...Which Is Showing No Signs Of Slowing Down ...Which Is Showing No Signs Of Slowing Down ...Which Is Showing No Signs Of Slowing Down Chart 17Households Remain Heavily Indebted Households Remain Heavily Indebted Households Remain Heavily Indebted With interest rates falling over the past few decades, construction activity has boomed. Consequently, the demand for loans for new homes has been rising, leading home prices higher (Chart 16). This also meant that household debt levels have climbed and currently standing at a staggering 130% of GDP and 180% of disposable income (Chart 17).   So what does this mean for banks’ stock prices? The short answer is that absent a bursting of the bubble in house prices, banks should continue to fare well. Interestingly, the long-standing relationship between bond yields and banks’ relative stock price returns – one that works in other financial-heavy markets such as the euro area – did not hold in Australia, at least until recently. In fact, we find that, historically, Australian banks outperformed the broad market when bond yields were falling. This relationship changed post-GFC, most likely when inflation expectations became unanchored and trended lower – reflecting lower commodity prices (Chart 18). Bottom Line: Rising rates, reflecting better growth prospects and higher long-term inflation, should be a tailwind for bank stocks in the short term. Accommodative monetary policy will spur activity in the property market, propping up bank profits. This, however, puts banks at even greater risk when profitability starts to decline, NPLs rise and regulations tighten further. The latter risk is one we would highlight following RBA deputy governor Guy Debelle’s statement that monetary policy will not be used as a tool to curtail housing prices and that there are other tools to address that issue. Chart 18Rising Yields Will Be A Tailwind For Australian Equities Rising Yields Will Be A Tailwind For Australian Equities Rising Yields Will Be A Tailwind For Australian Equities   Q: How Does Chinese Policy Impact Australian Growth? A: China's role in global supply chains, as both a producer and consumer, has increased dramatically since the early 2000s. China’s demand for commodities generally and industrial metals in particular has grown over the past two decades from an average of 10% of total global demand to 50% for most metals (Chart 19). Australia stood to benefit, redirecting more and more of its metals’ production away from the rest of the world and towards China. For example, during the same period, the share of Australian iron ore exports to China increased fourfold (Chart 20). Chart 19China Is A Major Consumer Of Metals... China Is A Major Consumer Of Metals... China Is A Major Consumer Of Metals... Chart 20...And This Has Benefited Australia Over The Past Two Decades ...And This Has Benefited Australia Over The Past Two Decades ...And This Has Benefited Australia Over The Past Two Decades     However, this dynamic leaves the Australian economy very exposed to the Chinese business cycle – one that is heavily reliant on policymakers’ decisions on how much liquidity to inject into the economy. After strong credit and fiscal support throughout 2020, the Chinese authorities – wary of excessive leverage in the economy – have begun paring back stimulus which is likely to lead to weaker growth in the second half of the year and put downward pressure on metal demand (Chart 21). Chart 21Weakening Chinese Demand Will Hurt Metals In The Short-Term Weakening Chinese Demand Will Hurt Metals In The Short-Term Weakening Chinese Demand Will Hurt Metals In The Short-Term Heightened political tensions between Australia and China have also played a role. China recently imposed restrictions, including additional tariffs and bans, on Australian imports such as beef, wine, coal, and other goods. Consequently, Australian exports to China slowed. However, the goods not imported by China were absorbed by other economies – Australian export growth did not fall that much. It is unlikely that a new commodity-heavy marginal buyer will emerge in the short-term to replace Chinese demand. The recent rise in commodity prices reflected a return to economic activity, as well as inflationary fears, and supply, shipping, and logistical backlogs. These will ease in the short term, weighing on both the AUD and Australian equities.   Q: Can The Shift To Renewable Energy Spur Future Australian Growth? A: The shift to renewable energy and electrification – particularly in the transport sector – will occur sooner rather than later. Some commodity-exporting countries stand to benefit, and Australia is likely to be one. We previously highlighted that modeling longer-term demand is tricky since it relies on assumptions for the emergence of new technologies, metals’ efficiency and recycling rates, and the rate of conversion to renewables. Chart 22The Shift To Renewables Will Require More Resources... A Deeper Dive Into The Land Down Under A Deeper Dive Into The Land Down Under The mechanics of the future demand/supply relationship hinge on the following: Demand will rise during this energy transition period – simply due to the fact that the new clean energy systems require more minerals (such as copper and zinc) than the current traditional hydrocarbon-fueled energy system (Chart 22, panel 1). Electric vehicles (EVs) require about four and a half times more of certain commodities – particularly copper, nickel, and graphite – than conventional vehicles do (Chart 22, panel 2). Supply limitations, on the other hand, are what might propel metal prices even higher and lead the world economy into a new commodities “supercycle”. A study by the Institute for Sustainable Futures has shown that, in the most positive energy transition scenarios, demand for some metals will exceed supply, in terms of both available resources and reserves (Table 2). Table 2...Which Are Likely To Be In Short Supply A Deeper Dive Into The Land Down Under A Deeper Dive Into The Land Down Under For some of those metals, Australia is either among the top producers, or has the largest reserves. For example, Australia produces almost 45% and 12% of the world’s lithium and zinc, and has 22% and 27% of the world’s reserves. Looking at other metals, supply disruptions – particularly in economies where political, social, and environmental influences are an issue – might be the driver of further price rises. For example, Chile has the largest shares of global lithium reserves (~44%), and copper reserves (~23%), while South Africa has the largest share of global manganese reserves (~40%). Bottom Line: The transition to renewable energy is already underway and is likely to intensify. Forecast demand should outstrip supply and Australia stands to benefit given its large share of current production and/or reserves. How much will depend on the pace of renewable energy integration but miners are likely to be long-term winners.   Q: What Is The Outlook For The AUD? A: The Global Asset Allocation (GAA) service, in its latest Quarterly Outlook, turned negative on the AUD. The currency has historically had a high positive correlation with commodity prices and industrial metals prices, which in turn are very sensitive to Chinese demand (Chart 23). Given our outlook for metals in the short term (falling demand driven by slowing Chinese activity), we expect some weakening in the AUD over the coming 9-to-12 months (Chart 24). Chart 23The AUD Is Highly Correlated To Metal Prices... The AUD Is Highly Correlated To Metal Prices... The AUD Is Highly Correlated To Metal Prices... Chart 24...Which In Turn Are Highly Correlated To Chinese Activity ...Which In Turn Are Highly Correlated To Chinese Activity ...Which In Turn Are Highly Correlated To Chinese Activity Additionally, short-term weakness in the economy, caused by further lockdowns as Delta-variant COVID cases rise, is a risk since it might reduce domestic demand. From a valuation perspective, the AUD is slightly below its fair value (Chart 25). However, this on its own does not compel us to remain positive on the currency. We also consider other indicators such as investor positioning – which has reached a decade high, according to Citibank’s FX Positioning Alert Indicator (PAIN) (Chart 26). This indicator suggests that active FX traders hold substantial long positions in the AUD against the USD. Historically, this indicator has provided contrarian signals, with extreme optimism (pessimism) providing useful short (long) signals. Chart 25The AUD Is Close To Fair Value The AUD Is Close To Fair Value The AUD Is Close To Fair Value Chart 26Investors Are Long The AUD Investors Are Long The AUD Investors Are Long The AUD Bottom Line: Short-term weakness in the economy and a reversal in metal prices warrant caution on the currency. While valuations do not signal overbought conditions, investor positioning (a contrarian indicator) does.   Q: How Should Equity Investors Be Positioned? A: Our recent Special Report on whether country or sector effects drive equity performance showed that sector composition was relatively important in Australia, given the large difference in sector weightings relative to the global benchmark. Our analysis showed that cumulative Australian sector performance over the past two decades detracted from overall returns (Chart 27). Given that framework, and the relationship between the Australian economy and industrial metals, we find that Australian equity performance relative to the US mirrors the performance of global metal and mining relative to global tech stocks (Chart 28). This underperformance makes sense: Commodity prices have been in a structural downtrend throughout the past decade. Chart 27Country Vs Sector Effect Country Vs Sector Effect Country Vs Sector Effect Chart 28Australia / US = Metals / Tech Australia / US = Metals / Tech Australia / US = Metals / Tech Therefore, given our view of the outlook for metals, we would not want to shun Australian equities. The Global Asset Allocation (GAA) service is currently neutral the Australian market within a global equity portfolio, and underweight the Materials sector over the next 12 months. We believe this positioning makes sense given the slowdown in the Chinese economy and the improbability that another country will emerge as the alternative marginal buyer of commodities. The longer-term outlook is more compelling however, as the shift to decarbonization, renewables, and alternative energy gets underway. Conclusions In the short term metals prices are likely to suffer on the back of weakening Chinese demand (with no immediate substitute as a marginal buyer) as well as fading inflationary fears and an easing of supply/logistical issues. Our analysis shows that sector composition is a larger driver of Australian equity relative performance than country composition. While Australian equities – dominated by Financials – would benefit from a moderate rise in global bond yields, yields will rise more slowly in Australia than in the US and the AUD is likely to weaken. Over the next 12 months, investors should remain neutral on Australian equities within a global equity portfolio. The RBA is likely to lag other central banks in tightening policy. Investors should therefore favor Australian government bonds over other developed economies such as the US and Canada.   Amr Hanafy, Senior Analyst Global Asset Allocation amrh@bcaresearch.com