Fiscal

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 Last week’s market gyrations do not mark the end of China’s structural reforms. The country’s macro policy setting has shifted to allow a higher tolerance for short-term pain in exchange for long-term gain. Chinese policymakers will temporarily put the brakes on its reform agenda if policy measures threaten domestic economic stability; a spillover from the equity market rout to the currency market and private-sector investment will be a pressure point for the authorities. Messages from last week’s Politburo meeting were only marginally more positive than in April. While policymakers seem to be paying more attention to the economic slowdown, they do not appear to be in a rush to rescue the economy. We present three scenarios describing how the equity markets and policy may develop in the coming months. In all the scenarios, investors should avoid trying to catch a falling knife. Feature July was an extraordinarily difficult time for Chinese stocks and last week’s steep slide intensified as a slew of announced regulatory changes spooked market participants (Chart 1). Chart 1Chinese Stocks Had A Tough Month Pricing A Tighter Regulatory Grip Pricing A Tighter Regulatory Grip We have repeatedly outlined the risks to Chinese equities in the past month. Since the PBoC cut the reserve requirement ratio in early July, the negative impact on the financial markets from tightening industry policies has outweighed the limited positive effects from a slightly more dovish central bank policy stance.  Chart 2Chinese TMT Stock Prices Were Hammered Chinese TMT Stock Prices Were Hammered Chinese TMT Stock Prices Were Hammered Is now a good time to buy Chinese stocks? Multiple compressions have made Chinese equities, particularly the hard-hit technology, media & telecom (TMT) stocks in the offshore market, appear cheap compared with their global counterparts (Chart 2). In this report we present three scenarios how China’s equity market and policies will likely evolve. In our view, more than a week of stock selloffs will be needed for policymakers to halt reforms. Furthermore, even if the pace of reforms eases and policymakers start to reflate the economy, it will likely take between 6 and 12 months for stock prices to find a bottom.  In light of escalating uncertainty over China’s financial market performance, the China Investment Strategy and Global Asset Allocation services will jointly publish a Special Report on August 18. We will examine how global investors can improve the risk-reward profile of their multi-asset portfolios with exposure to Chinese assets.   Three Scenarios While the regulatory landscape is unclear, we can draw on previous experience to analyze how China’s equity market and policy directions may evolve. In the first scenario, which is our baseline case, the economy would weaken, but would not cross policymakers’ pain threshold. There would be marginal policy easing action to alleviate market anxiety and monetary policy would be slightly loosened along with polices on some non-core sectors, such as infrastructure investment. In this scenario, structural reforms could continue for another 6 to 12 months, as suggested by colleagues at the BCA Geopolitical Strategy services. Investors should resist the urge to buy on the dip. Investors would be kept on edge by a confluence of a slowing economy (even though the slowdown is measured) and heighted regulatory oversight. The market would oscillate between technical rebounds when macro policy eases and selloffs when industry regulations tighten. There are two reasons why the pace of regulatory tightening will not moderate in the near term. First, China’s economic policy has shifted from setting an annual economic growth target to multi-year planning. This allows policymakers to have a higher tolerance for near-term distress in exchange for long-term benefits. Despite a deep dive in stock prices last week, China’s bond and currency markets have been stable relative to the market gyrations in both 2015 and 2018 (Chart 3A and 3B).  Furthermore, the newly released PMIs and recent economic data show that the China’s economic activity is weakening, but the speed of softening seems to be within the policymakers’ comfort zone (Chart 4). Chart 3AChinese Bond And Currency Markets Have Been Relatively Calm Despite Equity Market Selloffs Chinese Bond And Currency Markets Have Been Relatively Calm Despite Equity Market Selloffs Chinese Bond And Currency Markets Have Been Relatively Calm Despite Equity Market Selloffs Chart 3BChinese Bond And Currency Markets Have Been Relatively Calm Despite Equity Market Selloffs Chinese Bond And Currency Markets Have Been Relatively Calm Despite Equity Market Selloffs Chinese Bond And Currency Markets Have Been Relatively Calm Despite Equity Market Selloffs Chart 4Economic Pain Has Not Crossed Policymakers' Threshold Economic Pain Has Not Crossed Policymakers' Threshold Economic Pain Has Not Crossed Policymakers' Threshold Secondly, the new rules imposed on industries - ranging from internet, property, education, healthcare to capital markets - are part of China’s long-term structural reform agenda outlined in the 14th Five-Year Plan (FYP).  As China transitions from building a "moderately prosperous society" by 2020 to becoming a "great modern socialist nation" by 2049, the country’s policy priority has shifted from a rapid accumulation of wealth to addressing income inequality and social welfare for average households.  The policy objective is not only to close regulatory loopholes and end the disorderly expansion of capital and market shares, but also assign a larger weight of social equality and responsibility to the private sector’s business practices. The pace in achieving this overarching goal will only moderate when China’s economy and financial markets show meaningful signs of stress. The second possibility would be if policymakers fail to restore investors’ confidence. Foreign and domestic investors would reassess China’s policy directions and reprice the outlook for corporate profit growth. Market selloffs would continue, like in 2015 and 2018 following policy shocks,1 equity market gyrations would spill over to the currency market through capital outflows and real economic sectors through dwindling investment (Chart 5). In this scenario, Chinese policymakers would likely abandon their reform agenda, at least temporarily, and decisively shift policy to reflate the economy (Chart 6). Chart 5Financial Market Panic Spilled Over To Other Sectors In Both 2015 and 2018... Financial Market Panic Spilled Over To Other Sectors In Both 2015 and 2018... Financial Market Panic Spilled Over To Other Sectors In Both 2015 and 2018... Chart 6...Triggering Decisive Reflationary Policy Responses ...Triggering Decisive Reflationary Policy Responses ...Triggering Decisive Reflationary Policy Responses A third scenario would be if China is challenged by the external environment, either due to a significant increase in geopolitical conflicts or a widespread resurgence of new COVID cases. Both aspects would pose sizable downside risks to China’s economic activity. The risks would force authorities to shift to an easier stance and slow the pace of domestic reforms. Chart 7It Took 6 To 12 Months (And Sizable Stimulus) For Stock Prices To Bottom Out It Took 6 To 12 Months (And Sizable Stimulus) For Stock Prices To Bottom Out It Took 6 To 12 Months (And Sizable Stimulus) For Stock Prices To Bottom Out In the second and third scenarios, the rout in the equity market would likely deepen in the near term, before prices bottom in response to a halt in regulatory crackdowns and a decisive turn to reflationary measures. As illustrated in Chart 7, in both 2015 and 2018, it took 6 to 12 months and significant stimulus for Chinese stock prices to bottom in absolute terms. Bottom Line: Our baseline scenario suggests a continuation of structural reforms. Investors should refrain from jumping into the market until there are firm signs that regulatory tightening is over and reflationary measures have started. Key Messages From The Politburo Meeting Last week’s much-anticipated Politburo meeting, chaired by President Xi Jinping, adopted a slightly more dovish tone towards macroeconomic policy than in April, but also indicated that the leadership will stick to its long-term reform agenda. The stance was mildly positive for the overall economy and financial markets. Macro policies in some non-core sectors, such as infrastructure investment, will likely ease at the margin during the rest of the year. However, the meeting’s statement warned “a more complex and challenging external environment” lies ahead, which indicates that heightened concerns over geopolitical tensions will only exacerbate regulatory oversights in data and national security.  Regarding fiscal policy in 2H21, the authorities seem to be growing more concerned about growth outlook.  The meeting mentioned that fiscal support should make “reasonable progress” later this year and early next year. The pace of local government special purpose bond (SPB) issuance will pick up in Q3 and into Q4. However, we maintain our view that without a significant rise in bank credit growth, an acceleration in SPB issuance will only provide a moderate boost to local infrastructure spending. The reference to cross-cycle policy adjustment from the meeting readout is also in line with our view that policymakers may save their fiscal ammunition for next year when the economy comes under greater downward pressure. Odds are rising that the authorities will allow a frontloading of SPBs in Q1 2022 before the National People’s Congress in March next year. The statement also notably mentioned that government officials shall “ensure the supply of commodities and stabilize prices" and called for a more rational pace in carbon reduction. We think this message implies a temporary easing of production curbs in some heavy industries, such as steel, coal, and possibly a further release of strategic reserves of industrial metals (Chart 8A and 8B). The supply-side policy shift should add downward pressure on global industrial prices in addition to the ongoing slowdown in demand from China (Chart 9). Chart 8ASome Backpaddling Likely In Decarbonization Progress Some Backpaddling Likely In Decarbonization Progress Some Backpaddling Likely In Decarbonization Progress Chart 8BSome Backpaddling Likely In Decarbonization Progress Some Backpaddling Likely In Decarbonization Progress Some Backpaddling Likely In Decarbonization Progress Chart 9Downward Pressure On Commodity Prices From China's Weakening Demand And Rising Domestic Production Downward Pressure On Commodity Prices From China's Weakening Demand And Rising Domestic Production Downward Pressure On Commodity Prices From China's Weakening Demand And Rising Domestic Production Meanwhile, the meeting repeated the "three stabilization” policy, which targets stabilizing land prices, housing prices and property market expectations. This sends a strong signal that policymakers are unwilling to soften the tone on restrictions in the housing market. Bottom Line: The July Politburo meeting’s messaging was only modestly more dovish than three months ago. Investment Implications Chinese offshore stocks have fallen by 26% from their February peak, compared with approximately 14% for onshore stocks. The offshore TMT stocks are approaching their long-term technical resistance, measured by the three-year moving average in prices (Chart 10). While the magnitude of last week’s stock price decline seems excessive relative to previous market selloffs, the multiple compression reflects considerable uncertainty surrounding the outlook for China’s policy direction. New antitrust regulations in China are intended to limit the monopolistic business practices of internet companies. As a result, these companies’ operational costs will rise and profit growth will decline, and their valuations will converge with those of non-TMT companies. The trailing P/E ratio in Chinese investable TMT stocks is still elevated, making the equities vulnerable to further regulatory tightening and multiple compressions (Chart 11). Chart 10Chinese TMT Stocks: On The Verge Of Breaking Below Their Technical Resistance... Chinese TMT Stocks: On The Verge Of Breaking Below Their Technical Resistance... Chinese TMT Stocks: On The Verge Of Breaking Below Their Technical Resistance... Chart 11...But Still Vulnerable To Further Multiple Compression ...But Still Vulnerable To Further Multiple Compression ...But Still Vulnerable To Further Multiple Compression     Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1On August 11, 2015, the PBOC surprised the market with three consecutive devaluations of the Chinese yuan, knocking over 3% off its value. On April 3, 2018 former US President Donald Trump unveiled plans for 25% tariffs on about $50 billion of Chinese imports. Market/Sector Recommendations Cyclical Investment Stance

Highlights Globalization is recovering to its pre-pandemic trajectory. But it will fail to live up to potential, as the “hyper-globalization” trends of the 1990s are long gone. China was the biggest winner of hyper-globalization. It now faces unprecedented risks in the context of hypo-globalization. Global investors woke up to China’s domestic political risks this year, which include arbitrary regulatory crackdowns on tech and private business. While Chinese officials will ease policy to soothe markets, the cyclical and structural outlook is still negative for this economy. Growth and stimulus have peaked. Political risk will stay high through the national party congress in fall 2022. US-China relations have not stabilized. India, the clearest EM alternative for global investors, is high-priced relative to China and faces troubles of its own. It is too soon to call a bottom for EM relative to DM. Feature Global investors woke up to China’s domestic political risk over the past week, as Beijing extended its regulatory crackdown to private education companies. Our GeoRisk Indicator shows Chinese political risk reaching late 2017 levels while the broad Chinese stock market continued this year’s slide against emerging market peers (Chart 1). Chart 1China: Domestic Political Risk Takes Investors By Surprise Hypo-Globalization (A GeoRisk Update) Hypo-Globalization (A GeoRisk Update) A technical bounce in Chinese tech stocks will very likely occur but we would not recommend playing it. The first of our three key views for 2021 is the confluence of internal and external headwinds for China. True, today’s regulatory blitz will pass over like previous ones and the fast money will snap up Chinese tech firms on the cheap. The Communist Party is making a show of force, not destroying its crown jewels in the tech sector. However, the negative factors weighing on China are both cyclical and structural. Until Chinese President Xi Jinping adjusts his strategy and US-China relations stabilize, investors do not have a solid foundation for putting more capital at risk in China. Globalization is in retreat and this is negative for China, the big winner of the past 40 years. Hypo-Globalization Globalization in the truest sense has expanded over millenia. It will only reverse amid civilizational disasters. But the post-Cold War era of “hyper-globalization” is long gone.1 The 2010s saw the emergence of de-globalization. In the wake of COVID-19, global trade is recovering to its post-2008 trend but it is nowhere near recovering the post-1990 trend (Chart 2). Trade exposure has even fallen within the major free trade blocs, like the EU and USMCA (Chart 3). Chart 2Hypo-Globalization Hypo-Globalization Hypo-Globalization Chart 3Trade Intensity Slows Even Within Trade Blocs Trade Intensity Slows Even Within Trade Blocs Trade Intensity Slows Even Within Trade Blocs Of course, with vaccines and stimulus, global trade will recover in the coming decade. We coined the term “hypo-globalization” to capture this predicament, in which globalization is set to rebound but not to its previous trajectory.2 We now inhabit a world that is under-globalized and under-globalizing, i.e. not as open and free as it could be. A major factor is the US-China economic divorce, which is proceeding apace. China’s latest state actions – in diplomacy, finance, and business – underscore its ongoing disengagement from the US-led global architecture. The US, for its part, is now on its third presidency with protectionist leanings. American and European fiscal stimulus are increasingly protectionist in nature, including rising climate protectionism. Bottom Line: The stimulus-fueled recovery from the global pandemic is not leading to re-globalization so much as hypo-globalization. A cyclical reboot of cross-border trade and investment is occurring but will fall short of global potential due to a darkening geopolitical backdrop. Still No Stabilization In US-China Relations Chart 4Do Nations Prefer Growth? Or Security? Hypo-Globalization (A GeoRisk Update) Hypo-Globalization (A GeoRisk Update) A giant window of opportunity is closing for China and Russia – they will look back fondly on the days when the US was bogged down in the Middle East. The US current withdrawal from “forever wars” incentivizes Beijing and Moscow to act aggressively now, whether at home or abroad. Investors tend to overrate the Chinese people’s desire for economic prosperity relative to their fear of insecurity and domination by foreign powers. China today is more desirous of strong national defense than faster economic growth (Chart 4). The rise of Chinese nationalism is pronounced since the Great Recession. President Xi Jinping confirmed this trend in his speech for the Communist Party’s first centenary on July 1, 2021. Xi was notably more concerned with foreign threats than his predecessors in 2001 and 2011 (Chart 5).3 China has arrived as a Great Power on the global stage and will resist being foisted into a subsidiary role by western nations. Chart 5Xi Jinping’s Centenary Speech Signaled Nationalist Turn Hypo-Globalization (A GeoRisk Update) Hypo-Globalization (A GeoRisk Update) Meanwhile US-China relations have not stabilized. The latest negotiations did not produce agreed upon terms for managing tensions in the relationship. A bilateral summit between Presidents Biden and Xi Jinping has not been agreed to or scheduled, though it could still come together by the end of October. Foreign Minister Wang Yi produced a set of three major demands: that the US not subvert “socialism with Chinese characteristics,” obstruct China’s development, or infringe on China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity (Table 1). The US’s opposition to China’s state-backed economic model, export controls on advanced technology, and attempts to negotiate a trade deal with the province of Taiwan all violate these demands.4 Table 1China’s Three Demands From The United States (July 2021) Hypo-Globalization (A GeoRisk Update) Hypo-Globalization (A GeoRisk Update) The removal of US support for China’s economic, development – recently confirmed by the Biden administration – will take a substantial toll on sentiment within China and among global investors. US President Joe Biden and four executive departments have explicitly warned investors not to invest in Hong Kong or in companies with ties to China’s military-industrial complex and human rights abuses. The US now formally accuses China of genocide in the Xinjiang region.5 Bottom Line: There is no stabilization in US-China relations yet. This will keep the risk premium in Chinese currency and equities elevated. The Sino-American divorce is a major driver of hypo-globalization. China’s Regulatory Crackdown President Xi Jinping’s strategy is consistent. He does not want last year’s stimulus splurge to create destabilizing asset bubbles and he wants to continue converting American antagonism into domestic power consolidation, particularly over the private economy. Now China’s sweeping “anti-trust” regulatory crackdown on tech, education, and other sectors is driving a major rethink among investors, ranging from Ark-founder Cathie Wood to perma-bulls like Stephen Roach. The driver of the latest regulatory crackdown is the administration’s reassertion of central party control. The Chinese economy’s potential growth is slowing, putting pressure on the legitimacy of single-party rule. The Communist Party is responding by trying to improve quality of life while promoting nationalism and “socialism with Chinese characteristics,” i.e. strong central government control and guidance over a market economy. Beijing is also using state power and industrial policy to attempt a great leap forward in science and technology in a bid to secure a place in the sun. Fintech, social media, and other innovative platforms have the potential to create networks of information, wealth, and power beyond the party’s control. Their rise can generate social upheaval at home and increase vulnerability to capital markets abroad. They may even divert resources from core technologies that would do more to increase China’s military-industrial capabilities. Beijing’s goal is to guide economic development, break up the concentration of power outside of the party, prevent systemic risks, and increase popular support in an era of falling income growth. Sociopolitical Risks: Social media has demonstrably exacerbated factionalism and social unrest in the United States, while silencing a sitting president. This extent of corporate power is intolerable for China. Economic And Financial Risks: Innovative fintech companies like Ant Group, via platforms like Alipay, were threatening to disrupt one of the Communist Party’s most important levers of power: the banking and financial system. The People’s Bank of China and other regulators insisted that Ant be treated more like a bank if it were to dabble in lending and wealth management. Hence the PBoC imposed capital adequacy and credit reporting requirements.6 Data Security Risks: Didi Chuxing, the ride-sharing company partly owned by Uber, whose business model it copied and elaborated on, defied authorities by attempting to conduct its initial public offering in the United States in June. The Communist Party cracked down on the company after the IPO to show who was in charge. Even more, Beijing wanted to protect its national data and prevent the US from gaining insights into its future technologies such as electric and autonomous vehicles. Foreign Policy Risks: Beijing is also preempting the American financial authorities, who will likely take action to kick Chinese companies that do not conform to common accounting and transparency standards off US stock exchanges. Better to inflict the first blow (and drive Chinese companies to Hong Kong and Shanghai for IPOs) than to allow free-wheeling capitalism to continue, giving Americans both data and leverage. Thus Beijing is continuing the “self-sufficiency” drive, divorcing itself from the US economy and capital markets, while curbing high-flying tech entrepreneurs and companies. The party’s muscle-flexing will culminate in Xi Jinping’s consolidation of power over the Politburo and Central Committee at the twentieth national party congress in fall 2022, where he is expected to take the title of “Chairman” that only Mao Zedong has held before him. The implication is that the regulatory crackdown can easily last for another six-to-12 more months. True, investors will become desensitized to the tech crackdown. But health care and medical technology are said to be in the Chinese government’s sights. So are various mergers and acquisitions. Both regulatory and political risk premia in different sectors can persist. The current administration has waged several sweeping regulatory campaigns against monopolies, corruption, pollution, overcapacity, leverage, and non-governmental organizations. The time between the initial launch of one of these campaigns and their peak intensity ranges from two to five years (Chart 6). Often, but not always, central policy campaigns have an express, three-year plan associated with them. Chart 6ABeijing Cracked Down On Monopolies, Corruption, Pollution... Beijing Cracked Down On Monopolies, Corruption, Pollution... Beijing Cracked Down On Monopolies, Corruption, Pollution... Chart 6B...NGOs, Overcapacity, And Leverage ...NGOs, Overcapacity, And Leverage ...NGOs, Overcapacity, And Leverage Chart 7China Tech: Buyer Beware China Tech: Buyer Beware China Tech: Buyer Beware The first and second year mark the peak impact. The negative profile of Chinese tech stocks relative to their global peers suggests that the current crackdown is stretched, although there is little sign of bottom formation yet (Chart 7). The crackdown began with Alibaba founder Jack Ma, and Alibaba stocks have yet to arrest their fall either in absolute terms or relative to the Hang Seng tech index. Bottom Line: A technical bounce is highly likely for Chinese stocks, especially tech, but we would not recommend playing it because of the negative structural factors. For instance, we fully expect the US to delist Chinese companies that do not meet accounting standards. The Chinese Government’s Pain Threshold? The government is not all-powerful – it faces financial and economic constraints, even if political checks and balances are missing. Beijing does not have an interest in destroying its most innovative companies and sectors. Its goal is to maintain the regime’s survival and power. China’s crackdown on private companies goes against its strategic interest of promoting innovation and therefore it cannot continue indefinitely. The hurried meeting of the China Securities Regulatory Commission with top bankers on July 28 suggests policymakers are already feeling the heat.7 In the case of Ant Group, the company ultimately paid a roughly $3 billion fine (which is 18% of its annual revenues) and was forced to restructure. Ant learned that if it wants to behave more like a bank athen it will be regulated more like a bank. Yet investors will still have to wrestle with the long-term implications of China’s arbitrary use of state power to crack down on various companies and IPOs. This is negative for entrepreneurship and innovation, regardless of the government’s intentions. Chart 8China's Pain Threshold = Property Sector China's Pain Threshold = Property Sector China's Pain Threshold = Property Sector Ultimately the property sector is the critical bellwether: it is a prime target of the government’s measures against speculative asset bubbles. It is also an area where authorities hope to ease the cost of living for Chinese households, whose birth rates and fertility rates are collapsing. While there is no risk of China’s entire economy crumbling because of a crackdown on ride-hailing apps or tutoring services, there is a risk of the economy crumbling if over-zealous regulators crush animal spirits in the $52 trillion property sector, as estimated by Goldman Sachs in 2019. Property is the primary store of wealth for Chinese households and businesses and falling property prices could well lead to an unsustainable rise in debt burdens, a nationwide debt-deflation spiral, and a Japanese-style liquidity trap. Judging by residential floor space started, China is rapidly approaching its overall economic pain threshold, meaning that property sector restrictions should ease, while monetary and credit policy should get easier as necessary to preserve the economic recovery (Chart 8). The economy should improve just in time for the party congress in late 2022. Bottom Line: China will be forced to maintain relatively easy monetary and fiscal policy and avoid pricking the property bubble, which should lend some support to the global recovery and emerging markets economies over the cyclical (12-month) time frame. China’s Regulation And Demographic Pressures Is the Chinese government not acting in the public interest by tamping down financial excesses, discouraging anti-competitive corporate practices, and combating social ills? Yes, there is truth to this. But arbitrary administrative controls will not increase the birth rate, corporate productivity, or potential GDP growth. First, it is true that Chinese households cite high prices for education, housing, and medicine as reasons not to have children (Chart 9). However, price caps do not attack the root causes of these problems. The lack of financial security and investment options has long fueled high house prices. The rabid desire to get ahead in life and the exam-oriented education system have long fueled high education prices. Monetary and fiscal authorities are forced to maintain an accommodative environment to maintain minimum levels of economic growth amid high indebtedness – and yet easy money policies fuel asset price inflation. In Japan, fertility rates began falling with economic development, the entrance of women in the work force, and the rise of consumer society. The fertility rate kept falling even when the country slipped into deflation. It perked up when prices started rising again! But it relapsed after the Great Recession and Fukushima nuclear crisis (Chart 10, top panel). Chart 9China: Concerns About Having Children Hypo-Globalization (A GeoRisk Update) Hypo-Globalization (A GeoRisk Update) China’s fertility rate bottomed in the 1990s and has gradually recovered despite the historic surge in property prices (Chart 10, second panel), though it is still well below the replacement rate needed to reverse China’s demographic decline in the absence of immigration. A lower cost of living and a higher quality of life will be positive for fertility but will require deeper reforms.8 Chart 10Fertility Fell In Japan Despite Falling Prices Fertility Fell In Japan Despite Falling Prices Fertility Fell In Japan Despite Falling Prices At the same time, arbitrary regulatory crackdowns that punish entrepreneurs are not likely to boost productivity. Anti-trust actions could increase competition, which would be positive for productivity, but China’s anti-trust actions are not conducted according to rule of law, or due process, so they increase uncertainty rather than providing a more stable investment environment. China’s tech crackdown is also aimed at limiting vulnerability to foreign (American) authorities. Yet disengagement with the global economy will reduce competition, innovation, and productivity in China. Bottom Line: China’s demographic decline will require larger structural changes. It will not be reversed by an arbitrary game of whack-a-mole against the prices of housing, education, and health. India And South Asia Chart 11China Will Ease Policy... Or India Will Break Out China Will Ease Policy... Or India Will Break Out China Will Ease Policy... Or India Will Break Out Global investors have turned to Indian equities over the course of the year and they are now reaching a major technical top relative to Chinese stocks (Chart 11). Assuming that China pulls back on its policy tightening, this relationship should revert to mean. India faces tactical geopolitical and macroeconomic headwinds that will hit her sails and slow her down. In other words, there is no great option for emerging markets at the moment. Over the long run, India benefits if China falters. Following the peak of the second COVID-19 wave in May 2021, some high frequency indicators have showed an improvement in India’s economy. However, activity levels appear weaker than of other emerging markets (Chart 12). Given the stringency levels of India’s first lockdown last spring, year-on-year growth will look faster than it really is. As the base effect wanes, underlying weak demand will become evident. Moreover India is still vulnerable to COVID-19. Only 25% of the population has received one or more vaccine shots which is lower than the global level of 28%. The result will be a larger than expected budget deficit. India refrained from administering a large dose of government spending in 2020 (Chart 13). With key state elections due from early 2022 onwards, the government could opt for larger stimulus. This could assume the form of excise duty cuts on petroleum products or an increase in revenue expenditure. These kinds of measures will not enhance India’s productivity but will add to its fiscal deficit. Chart 12Weak Post-COVID Rebound In India – And Losing Steam Hypo-Globalization (A GeoRisk Update) Hypo-Globalization (A GeoRisk Update) Chart 13India Likely To Expand Fiscal Spending Soon Hypo-Globalization (A GeoRisk Update) Hypo-Globalization (A GeoRisk Update) Such an unexpected increase in India’s fiscal deficit could be viewed adversely by markets. India’s fiscal discipline tends to be poorer than that of peers (see Chart 13 above). Meanwhile India’s north views Pakistan unfavorably and key state elections are due in this region. Consequently, Indian policy makers may be forced to adopt a far more aggressive foreign policy response to any terrorist strikes from Pakistan or territorial incursions by China over August 2021. The US withdrawal from Afghanistan poses risks for India as it has revived the Taliban’s influence. India has a long history of being targeted by Afghani terrorist groups. And its diplomatic footprint in Afghanistan has been diminishing. Earlier in July, India decided temporarily to close its consulate in Kandahar and evacuated about 50 diplomats and security personnel. As August marks the last month of formal US presence in Afghanistan, negative surprises emanating from Afghanistan should be expected. Bottom Line: Pare exposure to Indian assets on a tactical basis. Our Emerging Markets Strategy takes a more optimistic view but geopolitical changes could act as a negative catalyst in the short term. We urge clients to stay short Indian banks. Investment Takeaways US stimulus contrasts with China’s turmoil. The US Biden administration and congressional negotiators of both parties have tentatively agreed on a $1 trillion infrastructure deal over eight years. Even if this bipartisan deal falls through, Democrats alone can and will pass another $1.3-$2.5 trillion in net deficit spending by the end of the year. Stay short the renminbi. Prefer a balance of investments in the dollar and the euro, given the cross-currents of global recovery yet mounting risks to the reflation trade. A technical bounce in Chinese stocks and tech stocks is nigh. China’s policymakers are starting to respond to immediate financial pressures. However, growth has peaked and structural factors are still negative. The geopolitical outlook is still gloomy and China’s domestic political clock is a headwind for at least 12 more months. Prefer developed market equities over emerging markets (Chart 14). Emerging markets failed to outperform in the first half of the year, contrary to our expectation that the global reflation trade would lift them. China/EM will benefit when Beijing eases policy and growth rebounds. Chart 14Emerging Markets: Not Out Of The Woods Yet Emerging Markets: Not Out Of The Woods Yet Emerging Markets: Not Out Of The Woods Yet Stay short Indian banks and strongman EM currencies, including the Turkish lira, the Brazilian real, and the Philippine peso. The biggest driver of EM underperformance this year is the divergence between the US and China. But until China’s policy corrects, the rest of EM faces downside risks.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Ritika Mankar, CFA Editor/Strategist ritika.mankar@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Dani Rodrik, The Globalization Paradox: Democracy and the Future of the World Economy (New York: Norton, 2011). 2 See my "Nationalism And Globalization After COVID-19," Investments & Wealth Monitor (Jan/Feb 2021), pp13-21, investmentsandwealth.org. 3 Our study of Xi’s speech is not limited to this quantitative, word-count analysis. A fuller comparison of his speech with that of his predecessors on the same occasion reveals that Xi was fundamentally more favorable toward Marx, less favorable toward Deng Xiaoping and the pro-market Third Plenum, utterly silent on notions of political reform or liberal reform, more harsh in his rhetoric toward the outside world, and hawkish about the mission of reunifying with Taiwan. 4 The Chinese side also insisted that the US stop revoking visas, punishing companies and institutes, treating the press as foreign agents, and detaining executives. It warned that cooperation – which the US seeks on the environment, Iran, North Korea, and other areas – cannot be achieved while the US imposes punitive measures. 5 See US Department of State, "Xinjiang Supply Chain Business Advisory," July 13, 2021, and "Risks and Considerations for Businesses Operating in Hong Kong," July 16, 2021, state.gov. 6 Top business executives are also subject to these displays of state power. For example, Alibaba founder Jack Ma caricatured China’s traditional banks as “pawn shops” and criticized regulators for stifling innovation. He is now lying low and has taken to painting! 7 See Emily Tan and Evelyn Cheng, "China will still allow IPOs in the United States, securities regulator tells brokerages," CNBC, July 28, 2021, cnbc.com. Officials are sensitive to the market blowback but the fact remains that IPOs in the US have been discouraged and arbitrary regulatory crackdowns are possible at any time. 8 Increasing social spending also requires local governments to raise more revenue but the central government had been cracking down on the major source of revenues for local government: land sales and local government financing vehicles. With the threat of punishment for local excesses and lack of revenue source, local governments have no choice but to cut social services, pushing affluent residents towards private services, while leaving the less fortunate with fewer services. As with financial regulations, the central government may backpedal from too tough regulation of local governments, but more economic and financial pain will be required to make it happen. The Geopolitics Of The Olympics The 2020 Summer Olympics are currently underway in Tokyo, even though it is 2021. The arenas are mostly empty given the global pandemic and economic slowdown. Every four years the Summer Olympics create a golden opportunity for the host nation to showcase its achievements, infrastructure, culture, and beauty. But the Olympics also have a long history of geopolitical significance: terrorist acts, war protests, social demonstrations, and boycotts. In 1906 an Irish athlete climbed a flag pole to wave the Irish flag in protest of his selection to the British team instead of the Irish one. In 1968 two African American athletes raised their fists as an act of protest against racial discrimination in the US after the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. In 1972, the Palestinian terrorist group Black September massacred eleven Israeli Olympians in Munich, Germany. In 1980 the US led the western bloc to boycott the Moscow Olympics while the Soviet Union and its allies retaliated by boycotting the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics. In 2008, Russia used the Olympics as a convenient distraction from its invasion of Georgia, a major step in its geopolitical resurgence. So far, thankfully, the Tokyo Olympics have gone without incident. However, looking forward, geopolitics is already looming over the upcoming 2022 Winter Olympics in Beijing. Hypo-Globalization (A GeoRisk Update) Hypo-Globalization (A GeoRisk Update) How the world has changed. The 2008 Summer Olympics marked China’s global coming-of-age celebration. The breathtaking opening ceremony featured 15,000 performers and cost $100 million. The $350 million Bird’s Nest Stadium showcased to the world China’s long history, economic prowess, and various other triumphs. All of this took place while the western democratic capitalist economies grappled with what would become the worst financial and economic crisis since the Great Depression. In 2008, global elites spoke of China as a “responsible stakeholder” that was conducting a “peaceful rise” in international affairs. The world welcomed its roughly $600 billion stimulus. Now elites speak of China as primarily a threat and a competitor, a “revisionist” state challenging the liberal world order. China is blamed for a lack of transparency (if not virological malfeasance) in handling the COVID-19 pandemic. It is blamed for breaking governance promises and violating human rights in Hong Kong, for alleged genocide in Xinjiang, and for a list of other wrongdoings, including tough “Wolf Warrior” diplomacy, cyber-crime and cyber-sabotage, and revanchist maritime-territorial claims. Even aside from these accusations it is clear that China is suffering greater financial volatility as a result of its conflicting economic goals. Talk of a diplomatic or even full boycott of Beijing’s winter games is already brewing. Sponsors are also second-guessing their involvement. More than half of Canadians support boycotting the winter games. Germany is another bellwether to watch. In 2014, Germany’s president (not chancellor) boycotted the Sochi Olympics; in 2021, the EU and China are witnessing a major deterioration of relations. Parliamentarians in the UK, Italy, Sweden, Switzerland, and Norway have asked their governments to outline their official stance on the winter games. In the age of “woke capitalism,” a sponsorship boycott of the games is a possibility. This is especially true given the recent Chinese backlash against European multinational corporations for violating China’s own rules of political correctness. A boycott which includes any members of the US, Norway, Canada, Sweden, Germany, or the Netherlands would be substantial as these are the top performers in the Winter Olympics. Even if there is no boycott, there is bound to be some political protests and social demonstrations, and China will not be able to censor anything said by Western broadcasters televising the events. Athletes usually suffer backlash at home if they make critical statements about their country, but they run very little risk of a backlash for criticizing China. If anything, protests against China’s handling of human rights will be tacitly encouraged. Beijing, for its part, will likely overreact, as these days it not only controls the message at home but also attempts more actively to export censorship. This is precisely what the western governments are now trying to counteract, for their own political purposes. The bottom line is that the 2008 Beijing Olympics reflected China’s strengths in stark contrast with the failures of democratic capitalism, while the 2022 Olympics are likely to highlight the opposite: China’s weaknesses, even as the liberal democracies attempt a revival of their global leadership.   Jesse Anak Kuri Associate Editor Jesse.Kuri@bcaresearch.com Section II: GeoRisk Indicator China China: GeoRisk Indicator China: GeoRisk Indicator Russia Russia: GeoRisk Indicator Russia: GeoRisk Indicator United Kingdom UK: GeoRisk Indicator UK: GeoRisk Indicator Germany Germany: GeoRisk Indicator Germany: GeoRisk Indicator France France: GeoRisk Indicator France: GeoRisk Indicator Italy Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Canada Canada: GeoRisk Indicator Canada: GeoRisk Indicator Spain Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Taiwan Taiwan: GeoRisk Indicator Taiwan: GeoRisk Indicator Korea Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Turkey Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Brazil Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator Australia Australia: GeoRisk Indicator Australia: GeoRisk Indicator Section III: Geopolitical Calendar

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        

Highlights The August 1 deadline for Congress to raise the debt ceiling will come and go but the looming debt showdown will not replay the 2011-13 crisis. It is not a major risk to the bull market.  The Biden administration still has the political capital to pass a signature piece of legislation via budget reconciliation by end of year.  The tax component of the plan may bring a negative surprise but the market is likely to be more concerned over inflation expectations, eventual Fed rate hikes, and the 2022 fiscal cliff.  The Delta variant of COVID-19 is spreading rapidly in Republican-leaning states but the existence of effective vaccines presents an immediate solution. Any substantial new jitters over the pandemic will increase monetary and fiscal stimulus.  Stay long value over growth stocks despite near term risks and setbacks. Reassess if technical support is broken. Feature The Democratic Party is attempting to achieve two major things before Congress goes on recess in early August. The first is a $1.2 trillion bipartisan infrastructure package – which will take longer than that and may never pass. The second is a $2-$6 trillion budget resolution that will contain reconciliation instructions to enable the Senate to pass President Joe Biden’s proposed $2.5-$4.1 trillion American Jobs and Families Plan with 51 votes. Democrats may very well achieve this resolution before going on recess but that is the very problem when it comes to negotiations with Republicans. Even though divisions within Republican ranks make bipartisanship more likely to succeed than usual, investors should not bet on it. A partisan reconciliation process virtually guarantees both that Democrats pass their next spending bill without major disappointments for the market and that the debt ceiling is not a substantial risk to the bull market. The real risk for investors is that the markets have mostly priced the Democrats’ stimulus spending and will increasingly turn to tax hikes and especially Fed rate hikes. While we expect dovish surprises from the Fed, the strong 4.5% year-on-year growth in core consumer prices, in the context of booming consumer sentiment (Chart 1), suggests the opposite. Chart 1Consumer Confidence Still Rebounding Consumer Confidence Still Rebounding Consumer Confidence Still Rebounding The Debt Ceiling Is Not A Significant Risk To The Bull Market Investors are increasingly concerned about the US debt ceiling, or statutory limit on the national debt, which comes due on August 1. But the debt ceiling does not pose a significant risk to the bull market this time around. The US is not in the same political context as it was in 2011-13 when debt showdowns roiled markets. Investors’ concerns are understandable, of course. In the wake of the Great Recession, congressional Democrats and Republicans quarreled over the debt ceiling, resulting in notable disinflationary episodes in which stocks fell while Treasuries and the dollar rallied (Chart 2). A close look at the debt showdowns of summer 2011 and winter 2012-13 reveals that the “risk off” phase occurred immediately in the first case and over the succeeding month in the second case (Chart 3). The implication is that the whole period from September to December of 2021 could be at risk from any new debt showdown. To understand why risk is not substantial this year one needs to understand what the debt ceiling is. Chart 2ABiden Will Fare Better Than Obama On Debt Ceiling Biden Will Fare Better Than Obama On Debt Ceiling Biden Will Fare Better Than Obama On Debt Ceiling Chart 2BBiden Will Fare Better Than Obama On Debt Ceiling Biden Will Fare Better Than Obama On Debt Ceiling Biden Will Fare Better Than Obama On Debt Ceiling Chart 3A Close Look At Debt Ceiling Showdowns, 2011-13 A Close Look At Debt Ceiling Showdowns, 2011-13 A Close Look At Debt Ceiling Showdowns, 2011-13 The debt ceiling is a legislative instrument intended to constrain the US’s public debt. Congress must authorize a higher debt limit to enable the Treasury Department to make debt payments. Legislating a higher debt ceiling is not the same as legislating government spending. Congress spends money through the annual appropriations process. Government spending amidst recurring budget deficits requires new debt issuance to provide the funds to be spent. But debt in excess of the statutory limit must be authorized by raising the limit. The last time Congress expanded the debt ceiling was in August 2019, leaving August 1, 2021 as the next deadline. Theoretically it is unpopular for congressmen to increase the allowance for their own profligate policies and as such the debt ceiling acts a curb on deficits and debt. In reality the two political parties usually pull together the 60 votes needed in the Senate to raise or suspend the limit and prevent the federal government from defaulting on debt payments that come due. The reason is that, if the debt limit were not raised, the government would default on debt payments and be forced to halt social security payments, civil servant wages, and other essential payments. A failure to write checks to seniors and military veterans would be extremely unpopular and both the president’s party and the opposition party would suffer for it (Chart 4). Chart 4ABoth President And Congress To Suffer From Any Debt Showdown The Debt Ceiling Is The Least Of Your Worries The Debt Ceiling Is The Least Of Your Worries Chart 4BBoth President And Congress To Suffer From Any Debt Showdown The Debt Ceiling Is The Least Of Your Worries The Debt Ceiling Is The Least Of Your Worries This does not mean that 10 Senate Republicans can easily be found to join 50 Democrats, thus reaching 60 votes in the Senate to raise the debt limit. The battle is likely to extend well into the fall, pushing up against Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen’s warning that the Treasury could run out of funds before Congress returns in mid-September. The battle will likely extend into October and create fears of a default.  Getting 10 Republicans is difficult. It will not occur as part of a compromise infrastructure package, even though this package already has 11 Republicans supporting it. First, the bipartisan infrastructure deal may fail anyway because Republicans know that Democratic leadership, whether they admit it or not, will tie the deal to the passage of their larger budget reconciliation bill later this fall. Since Republicans oppose the reconciliation bill they may not be able to save face if they vote for an infrastructure deal that enables it. And Democrats do not have any reason to compromise on a bipartisan deal if they think it will destroy their larger reconciliation ambitions. Second, if a bipartisan infrastructure deal comes together, Republicans will insist that the debt ceiling is kept separate. They will not want to link themselves and their infrastructure spending with the bulging national debt. Rather they will want to force the Democrats to link their massive social spending with the national debt. Democrats may accept this trade off since the Biden administration wants a bipartisan deal – as long as they are given guarantees from moderate Senate Democrats that the latter  will support the reconciliation bill. Public opinion is not generally distressed when it comes to federal budget deficits and the national debt. Only 3% of Americans cite these as the most important problem facing the country today – obviously people are more concerned with the general economic recovery and unemployment (Chart 5). However, voters clearly believe debt is one of the country’s problems, with 43% saying they are “very concerned” about debt growth, including 45% of independents. Republicans are under significant pressure on these issues, which is why only moderates would conceivably vote to raise the debt limit and even then would only raise it if forced to choose between doing so and triggering a national default (Chart 6). Brinkmanship is to be expected. Chart 5Voters Say Recovery More Important Than Debt The Debt Ceiling Is The Least Of Your Worries The Debt Ceiling Is The Least Of Your Worries Chart 6Yet Concern About Debt Is Not Negligible The Debt Ceiling Is The Least Of Your Worries The Debt Ceiling Is The Least Of Your Worries While public opinion generally favors infrastructure spending, support for infrastructure falls when it is explicitly linked to increases in national debt. Only 39% of voters, and 30% of independents, think it is acceptable to increase the debt to pay for infrastructure, according to a recent Ipsos/Reuters poll (Chart 7). About 60% of Democrats agree with this statement and 22% of Republicans. The implication – as we have long argued – is that investors should not bet on a bipartisan deal. They should bet on the partisan reconciliation process. Chart 7Democrats Support More Debt For Infrastructure … Others Do Not The Debt Ceiling Is The Least Of Your Worries The Debt Ceiling Is The Least Of Your Worries Support for extreme deficit spending is likely to wane as the economy recovers and the sense of crisis abates. Support for emergency COVID-19 fiscal relief was very high early this year (Chart 8). Yet even at the height of the lockdowns there was a non-negligible group of voters who claimed to care about deficits (Chart 9). Fortunately for the Biden administration, the window of opportunity has not yet closed. The rise in the Delta variant of COVID-19 is generating higher hospitalization rates and renewed concerns about the pandemic, which will help support additional stimulus measures (Table 1). There is still time to pass a major spending bill on infrastructure and/or social welfare before the end of the year. Chart 8Support For COVID Relief Was Very High The Debt Ceiling Is The Least Of Your Worries The Debt Ceiling Is The Least Of Your Worries Chart 9Yet Voters Showed Some Concern About Deficits Even At Height Of Crisis The Debt Ceiling Is The Least Of Your Worries The Debt Ceiling Is The Least Of Your Worries Table 12022 Swing States Struggling With COVID-19 The Debt Ceiling Is The Least Of Your Worries The Debt Ceiling Is The Least Of Your Worries Ultimately Democrats control both chambers of Congress and will be able to vote with party discipline on raising the debt ceiling. They can raise the debt ceiling with a simple majority vote if they include it in their upcoming budget reconciliation bill. This is the main reason why investors should look through any financial market jitters: there is a clear escape hatch if Republicans obstruct. The only reason we do not exclude the possibility of Republican cooperation entirely is that Republicans are in such desperate need of a lifeline following President Trump’s defeat and the post-election riot on Capitol Hill. Indeed, the last time Republicans saw anywhere near such low levels of partisan identification was in 2013, after House Republicans brought the US to the brink of defaulting on its debt (Chart 10). The Senate Republicans are divided, not unified in willingness to trigger a default, and we can count at least 10 Senate Republicans who will capitulate if necessary to prevent a default. Chart 10Republicans Need A Lifeline … Infrastructure May Be It The Debt Ceiling Is The Least Of Your Worries The Debt Ceiling Is The Least Of Your Worries Of course, Senate Republicans could refuse to raise the debt ceiling anyway. But the crucial difference is that Congress is not gridlocked. Democrats, as the ruling party, would suffer in the event of a default and they have the reconciliation process to prevent that from happening. (We have also maintained that they will eventually water down or abolish the Senate filibuster, which would open another way to lift the debt ceiling, although so far they have not succeeded in doing so.) Bottom Line: There are reasons for investors to be increasingly risk averse – tax hikes, eventual Fed rate hikes, the 2022 fiscal cliff, global growth sputters – but the debt ceiling is not one of them. Any major stock market jitters that emerge because of the debt ceiling should be ignored if they are not attended by more significant risks. Biden’s Political Capital Still Sufficient For One More Big Bill All year we have maintained that President Biden will get at least one signature bill passed in addition to the huge COVID-19 relief bill, the American Rescue Plan, passed at the beginning of the year. This view is based in our reading of his political support and capability, as evinced in our Political Capital Index, which we update weekly in the Appendix. This view is on track and we maintain high conviction. Nevertheless readers should be aware that Biden’s support will wobble over the coming months and US economic policy uncertainty will rebound from post-pandemic lows. This week’s update of the Political Capital Index shows some chinks in Biden’s armor that will likely get wider over the coming months, though we do not expect them to prevent the bill from passing. First, while political polarization has subsided from recent peaks in 2020, our polarization indicators are starting to rebound from post-election lows. Our polarization proxy (the gap in partisan approval of the president) will eventually find a floor considering the historically high structural polarization in the country. Meanwhile economic sentiment polarization and the Philly Fed Partisan Conflict Index climbed from their respective lows in the first half of the year, as Congress bickered over Biden’s next reconciliation bill (Chart 11). The upcoming partisan battles over infrastructure, the debt ceiling, budget appropriations, voting rights, guns, the Hyde amendment (abortion), a possible government shutdown, and the midterm elections will revive polarization even if it does not surpass 2020 peaks. Partisanship will ensure the passage of a reconciliation bill but then it will reduce Biden’s ability to pass legislation afterwards.    Chart 11Polarization Still Historically Elevated Polarization Still Historically Elevated Polarization Still Historically Elevated Second, Biden’s approval rating is rebounding a bit in July from its low point in June but the legislative process – as well as looming foreign policy challenges and other negative surprises – will weigh on his approval, at least until his infrastructure bill passes (Chart 12). Over the medium term, strong consumer sentiment and a recovering economy will prevent Biden’s approval rating from falling to President Trump’s levels, at least until a major mistake or negative shock occurs. Nevertheless presidents tend to have low approval ratings in the modern era due to partisanship and so far Biden is no exception. Chart 12ABiden Approval Will Suffer Till Infrastructure Passes The Debt Ceiling Is The Least Of Your Worries The Debt Ceiling Is The Least Of Your Worries Chart 12BBiden Approval Will Suffer Till Infrastructure Passes The Debt Ceiling Is The Least Of Your Worries The Debt Ceiling Is The Least Of Your Worries Third, while small business continues to be more concerned with wages and inflation than with Biden’s legislative agenda, concerns about higher taxes are gradually emerging. The business community may finally be internalizing Biden’s American Jobs Plan, which will include a corporate tax hike and possibly also individual tax hikes (Chart 13). The stock market is unlikely to ignore Biden’s corporate tax hikes forever, even if they only cause a one-off hit to earnings of 8%-10%. We expect negative tax surprises from the reconciliation process. The small business community’s opposition to Biden’s agenda is well known, and limited in impact, but it will increasingly detract from his political capital on the margin. Fourth, the economy is beginning to decelerate albeit from a very high rate of growth. The manufacturing PMI and its employment component have fallen from their highs in the first half of the year while the ratio of new orders to inventories was flat in June. The non-manufacturing sector showed the same trend with non-manufacturing business activity and new orders-to-inventories coming down from earlier heights. Non-manufacturing employment ticked down though it will likely rebound soon as enhanced federal unemployment benefits expire (Chart 14). Capex intentions softened a bit. Chart 13Small Biz Wakes Up To Inflation, Tax Hikes Small Biz Wakes Up To Inflation, Tax Hikes Small Biz Wakes Up To Inflation, Tax Hikes Chart 14Economy To Decelerate From Highs Economy To Decelerate From Highs Economy To Decelerate From Highs Still, the unemployment rate continued its decline in June and household and business balance sheets are strong as the economic recovery continues. Biden’s ability to pass his spending plans will ensure that the government contribution to growth remains robust in the coming years, after a soft patch in 2022 as the infrastructure plan is gradually rolled out. Most of these indicators show improvement relative to November, which gives Biden a store of political capital.  Bottom Line: Polarization and policy uncertainty are likely to rebound as the economy decelerates, albeit from rapid growth. Ultimately Biden is likely to pass a signature government spending plan by the end of the year, which will give his approval rating a boost. But given thin margins in Congress, and the looming 2022 midterm elections, Biden’s political capital will largely be exhausted after the second half of this year. Fiscal policy will likely be frozen in place for several years after that. Investment Takeaways The debt ceiling is not a major risk to the bull market, though congressional brinkmanship is inevitable. We are prepared for more volatility and near-term equity setbacks but jitters arising solely from the debt ceiling should be looked through.. Investors should stay focused on the high likelihood that Biden and the Democrats will pass a reconciliation bill that will add about $1.3-$2.5 trillion to the budget deficit over eight years. Disappointments in the bill (higher taxes, lower spending) pose a greater risk to the stock market than the debt ceiling. This bill will solidify the economic recovery but also exact a one-off toll on corporate earnings and hasten concerns over rising inflation expectations and Fed rate hikes. Furthermore a fiscal cliff looms in 2022 as budget deficits normalize from extreme levels. Until new stimulus is secured, this fiscal cliff poses a much greater risk than debt ceilings or a possible government shutdown. The Delta variant of the COVID-19 virus is threatening to clog hospitals and thus poses a risk of forcing authorities to tighten social restrictions, especially in Republican-leaning states where vaccination rates are lower (Chart 15). However, we expect vaccinations to rise – and meanwhile highly vaccinated areas will remain free to conduct business. As long as vaccines remain effective, any scare over variants of the virus will be limited. A selloff is possible but would trigger new bouts of monetary and fiscal stimulus. Chart 15Red States Will Have To Increase Vaccination The Debt Ceiling Is The Least Of Your Worries The Debt Ceiling Is The Least Of Your Worries We will maintain our cyclical orientation of favoring value stocks over growth stocks, although this trade faces an immediate and critical test that could trigger a revaluation (Chart 16). Tactically it should be clear from this report that rising policy uncertainty and other near-term risks are abounding. Chart 16A Test For Value Versus Growth A Test For Value Versus Growth A Test For Value Versus Growth   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri Associate Editor jesse.Kuri@bcaresearch.com Appendix Table A1USPS Trade Table The Debt Ceiling Is The Least Of Your Worries The Debt Ceiling Is The Least Of Your Worries Table A2Political Risk Matrix The Debt Ceiling Is The Least Of Your Worries The Debt Ceiling Is The Least Of Your Worries Chart A1Presidential Election Model The Debt Ceiling Is The Least Of Your Worries The Debt Ceiling Is The Least Of Your Worries Chart A2Senate Election Model The Debt Ceiling Is The Least Of Your Worries The Debt Ceiling Is The Least Of Your Worries Table A3Political Capital Index The Debt Ceiling Is The Least Of Your Worries The Debt Ceiling Is The Least Of Your Worries Table A4APolitical Capital: White House And Congress The Debt Ceiling Is The Least Of Your Worries The Debt Ceiling Is The Least Of Your Worries Table A4BPolitical Capital: Household And Business Sentiment The Debt Ceiling Is The Least Of Your Worries The Debt Ceiling Is The Least Of Your Worries Table A4CPolitical Capital: The Economy And Markets The Debt Ceiling Is The Least Of Your Worries The Debt Ceiling Is The Least Of Your Worries Footnotes  

Highlights Gold is – and always will be – exquisitely sensitive to Fed policy and forward guidance, as last month's "Dot Shock" showed (Chart of the Week). Its price will continue to twitch – sometimes violently – as the widening dispersion of views evident in the Fed dots keeps markets on edge and pushes forward rate expectations in different directions. Fed policy is important but will remain secondary to fundamentals in oil markets. Increasingly inelastic supply will force refiners to draw down inventories, which will keep forward curves backwardated. OPEC 2.0's production-management policy is the key driver here, followed closely by shale-oil's capital discipline. Between these market bookends are base metals, which will remain sensitive to Fed policy, but increasingly will be more responsive to tightening supply-demand fundamentals, as the pace of the global renewables and EV buildout challenges supply. The one thing these markets will share going forward is increasing volatility. Gold volatility will remain elevated as markets are forced to parse sometimes-cacophonous Fed forward guidance; oil volatility will increase with steeper backwardation; and base metals volatility will rise as fundamentals continue to tighten. We remain long commodity-index exposure (S&P GSCI and COMT ETF) and equity exposure (PICK ETF). Feature Gold markets still are processing last month's "Dot Shock" – occasioned by the mid-June move of three more Fed bankers' dots into the raise-rates-in-2022 camp at the Fed – and the sometimes-cacophonous forward guidance of post-FOMC meetings accompanying these projections. Following last month's meeting, seven of the 18 central bankers at the June meeting now favor an earlier rate hike. This dot dispersion fuels policy uncertainty. When policy uncertainty is stoked, demand for the USD typically rises, which generally – but not always – contributes to liquidation of dollar-sensitive positions in assets like commodities. This typically leads to higher price volatility.1 This is most apparent in gold, which is and always will be exquisitely sensitive to Fed guidance and the slightest hint of a change in course (or momentum building internally for such a change). This is what markets got immediately after the June meeting. When this guidance reflects a wide dispersion of views inside the Fed, it should come as no surprise that price volatility increases among assets that are most responsive to monetary policy. This dispersion of market expectations – as a matter of course – is intensified by discordant central-bank forward guidance.2 Fundamentals Reduce Oil's Sensitivity To Fed Policy Fed policy will always be important for the evolution of the USD through time, which makes it extremely important for commodities, since the most widely traded commodities are priced in USD. All else equal, an increase in the value of the USD raises the cost of commodities ex-US, and vice versa. Chart of the WeekGold Still Processing Dot Shock Gold Still Processing Dot Shock Gold Still Processing Dot Shock Chart 2Oil Market Remains Tight... Oil Market Remains Tight... Oil Market Remains Tight... The USD's impact is dampened when markets are fundamentally tight – e.g., when the level of demand exceeds supply, as is the case presently for oil (Chart 2).3 When this occurs, refiner inventories have to be drawn down to make up for supply deficits (Chart 3). This leads to a backwardation in the oil forward curves – i.e., prices of prompt-delivery oil are higher than deferred-delivery oil – reflecting the fact that the supply curve is becoming increasingly inelastic (Chart 4). This backwardation benefits OPEC 2.0 member states, as most of them have long-term supply contracts with customers indexed to spot prices, and investors who are long commodity-index exposure, as it is the source of the roll yield for these products.4 Chart 3Forcing Inventories To Draw... Forcing Inventories To Draw... Forcing Inventories To Draw... Chart 4...And Backwardating Forward Curves ...And Backwardating Forward Curves ...And Backwardating Forward Curves Copper's Sensitivity To Fed Policy Declining Supply-demand fundamentals in base metals – particularly in the bellwether copper market – are tightening, which, as the oil market illustrates, will make prices in these markets less sensitive to USD pressures going forward (Chart 5). We expect the copper forward curve to remain backwardated for an extended period (Chart 6), which will distance the evolution of copper prices from Fed policy variables (e.g., interest rates and the USD). Chart 5Copper USD Sensitivity Will Diminish As Balances Tighten Copper USD Sensitivity Will Diminish As Balances Tighten Copper USD Sensitivity Will Diminish As Balances Tighten Chart 6Expect Persistent Backwardation In Copper Expect Persistent Backwardation In Copper Expect Persistent Backwardation In Copper Indeed, our modeling suggests this already is occurring in the metals markets, as can be seen from the resilience of copper prices during 1H21, when China's fiscal and monetary stimulus was waning and, recently, during the USD's recent rally, which was an unexpected headwind generated by the Fed's June meeting. If, as appears likely, China re-engages in fiscal and monetary stimulus in 2H21, the global demand resurgence for metals, copper in particular, will receive an additional fillip. Like oil, copper inventories will have to be drawn down over the next two years to make up for physical deficits, which have been a persistent problem for years (Chart 7). Capex in copper markets has yet to be incentivized by higher prices, which means these physical deficits likely will widen as the world gears up for expanded renewables generation and the grids required to support them, not to mention higher electric vehicle (EV) demand. If, as we expect, copper miners do not invest in new greenfield mine projects – choosing instead to stay with their brownfield expansion strategies – the market will tighten significantly as the world ramps up its demand for renewable energy. This means copper's supply curve will, like oil's, become increasingly inelastic. At the limit – i.e., if new mining capex is not incentivized – price will be forced to allocate limited supply, and may even have to get to the point of destroying demand to accommodate the renewables buildout. Chart 7Supply-Demand Balance Tightening In Copper Supply-Demand Balance Tightening In Copper Supply-Demand Balance Tightening In Copper A Word On Spec Positioning We revisited our modeling of speculative influence on these markets over the past couple of weeks, in anticipation of the volatility we expect and the almost-certain outcry from public officials that will ensue. Our modeling continues to support our earlier work, which found fundamentals are determinant to the evolution of industrial commodity prices. Using Granger-Causality and econometric analysis, we find prices mostly explain spec positioning in oil and copper, and not the other way around.5 We do find spec positioning – via Working's T Index – to be important to the evolution of volatility in WTI crude oil options, along with other key variables (Chart 8).6 That said, other variables are equally important to this evolution, including the St. Louis Fed's Financial Stress Index, EM equity volatility, VIX volatility and USD volatility. These variables are not useful in modeling copper volatility, where it appears fundamental and financial variables are driving the evolution of prices and, by extension, price volatility. We will continue to research this issue, and will continue to subject our results to repeated trials in an attempt to disprove them, as any researcher would do. Chart 8Oil Volatility Drivers Oil Volatility Drivers Oil Volatility Drivers Investment Implications Gold will remain hostage to Fed policy, but oil and base metals increasingly will be charting a path that is independent of policy-related variables, chiefly the USD. There is no escaping the fact that gold volatility will increasingly be in the thrall of US monetary policy – particularly during the next two years as the Fed attempts to guide markets toward something resembling normalization of that policy.7 However, as the events of the most recent FOMC meeting illustrate, gold price volatility will remain elevated as markets are forced to parse oftentimes-cacophonous Fed forward guidance. This would argue in favor of using low-volatility episodes as buying opportunities in gold options – particularly calls, as we continue to expect gold prices to end the year at $2,000/oz. We also favor silver exposure via calls, expecting price to go to $30/oz this year. In oil and base metals, we continue to expect supply-demand fundamentals in these markets to tighten, which predisposes us to favor commodity index products. For this reason, we remain long commodity-index exposure – specifically the S&P GSCI index, which is up 6.8% since inception, and the COMT ETF, which is up 8.7% since inception. We expect the base metals markets to remain very well bid going forward, and remain long equity exposure in these markets via the PICK ETF, which we re-entered after a trailing stop was elected that left us with a 24% gain since inception at the end of last year.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish US crude oil stocks (ex SPR) fell 6.7mm barrels in the week ended 25 June 2021, according to the US EIA. Total crude and product stocks were down 4.6mm barrels. Domestic crude oil production was unchanged at 11.1mm b/d over the reporting week. Total refined-product demand surpassed the comparable 2019 reporting period, led by higher distillate consumption (4.2mm b/d vs 3.8mm b/d). Gasoline consumption remains a laggard (9.2mm b/d vs 9.5mm b/d), as does jet fuel (1.4mm b/d vs 1.9mm b/d). Propane and propylene demand surged over the period, likely on the back of petchem demand (993k b/d vs 863k b/d). Base Metals: Bullish Base metals prices are moving higher in anticipation of tariffs being imposed by Russia to discourage exports beyond the Eurasian Economic Union, according to argusmedia.com. In addition to export tariffs on copper, aluminum and nickel, steel exports also will face levies to discourage material from leaving the EAEU (Chart 9). The tariffs are expected to remain in place from August through December 2021. Separately, premiums paid for high-quality iron ore in China (65% Fe) reached record highs earlier this week, as steelmakers scramble for supply, according to reuters.com. The premium iron ore traded close to $36/MT over benchmark material (62% Fe) this week. Precious Metals: Bullish Gold prices continue to move lower following the FOMC meeting on June 16. The yellow metal was down 0.6% y-o-y at $1762.80/oz as of Tuesday’s close after being up a little more than 13% y-o-y before the FOMC meeting earlier this month (Chart 10). We believe the USD rally, which, based on earlier research we have done, could be benefitting from safe-haven demand arising from global concern over the so-called Delta variant of COVID-19, which has spread to at least 85 countries. Public-health officials are fearful this could cause a resurgence in COVID-19 cases and additional mutations in the virus if vaccine distribution in EM states is not increased. Ags/Softs: Neutral Widely disparate weather conditions in the US west and east crop regions – drought vs cooler and wetter weather – appear to be on track to produce average crop yields for corn and beans this year, according to agriculture.com's Successful Farming. In regions where hard red spring wheat is grown, states experiencing low rainfall likely will have poor crops this year. Chart 9 "Dot Shock" Continues To Roil Gold; Oil … Not So Much "Dot Shock" Continues To Roil Gold; Oil … Not So Much Chart 10 US Dollar To Keep Gold Prices Well Bid US Dollar To Keep Gold Prices Well Bid   Footnotes 1     We model gold prices as a function of financial variables sensitive to Fed policy – e.g., real rates and the broad trade-weighted USD – and uncertainty, which is conveyed via the Global Economic Policy Uncertainty (GEPU) index published by Baker, Bloom & Davis.  2     Please see Lustenberger, Thomas and Enzo Rossib (2017), "Does Central Bank Transparency and Communication Affect Financial and Macroeconomic Forecasts?" SNB Working Papers, 12/2017. The Swiss central bank researchers find "… the verdict about the frequency of central bank communication is unambiguous. More communication produces forecast errors and increases their dispersion. … Stated differently, a central bank that speaks with a cacophony of voices may, in effect, have no voice at all. Thus, speaking less may be beneficial for central banks that want to raise predictability and homogeneity among financial and macroeconomic forecasts. We provide some evidence that this may be particularly true for central banks whose transparency level is already high." (p. 26) 3    Please see OPEC 2.0 Vs. The Fed, published on February 8, 2018, for additional discussion. 4    Please see The Case For A Strategic Allocation To Commodities As An Asset Class, a Special Report we published on March 11, 2021 on commodity-index investing.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 5    The one outlier we found was Brent prices, for which non-commercial short positioning does Granger-Cause price.  Otherwise, price was found to Granger-Cause spec positioning on the long and short sides of the market. 6   Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Specs Back Up The Truck For Oil," published on April 26, 2018, in which we introduce Holbrook Working's "T Index," a measure of speculative concentration in futures and options markets. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Briefly, Working's T Index shows how much speculative positioning exceeds the net demand for hedging from commercial participants in the market. 7     Please see How To Re-Shape The Yield Curve Without Really Trying published by our US Bond Strategy group on June 22 for a deeper discussion of the outlook for Fed policy.   Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2021 Summary of Closed Trades Image

Dear Client, China Investment Strategy will take a summer break next week. We will resume our publication on July 14th. Best regards and we wish you a happy and healthy summer. Jing Sima, China Strategist   Highlights A USD rebound and higher domestic bond yields pose near-term challenges to Chinese risk assets. A sharp deceleration in credit growth in the past seven months will lead to weaker-than-expected data from China’s old-economy sectors in the second half of the year.  Robust global trade has propelled Chinese exports, allowing the country to pursue financial deleverage and structural reforms. However, next year policymakers will face increased pressure to support the domestic economy as the global economic recovery peaks and demand slows. Investors should maintain an underweight stance towards Chinese stocks in 2H21, but remain alert to any improvements in China’s policy tone.  An easing monetary policy may signal a potential upgrade catalyst in 1H22. Feature Most recent macro figures confirm that China’s impressive economic upcycle has peaked. We expect that the official manufacturing and non-manufacturing PMIs, which will be released as this report is published, will come in modestly down. We maintain the view that a major relapse in economic activity is unlikely, but the strong tailwinds that have propelled China's recovery since Q2 last year have since abated and will lead to softer growth. Meanwhile, the rate of economic and export expansions has given Chinese policymakers confidence to scale back leverage and continue with market reforms. In the second half of the year, investors' sentiment towards Chinese stocks will be tested based on three risks: A rebound in the US dollar index. A tighter liquidity environment and higher interest rates. A weakening in macro indicators beyond market expectations. As the global economic recovery peaks into 2022, pressures to support the domestic economy will become more urgent if policymakers want to maintain an average rate of 5% real GDP growth in 2020 - 2022. The current policy settings are not yet favorable to overweight Chinese risk assets. Major equity indexes remain richly valued and the market could easily correct if domestic rates move higher. However, signs of policy easing may emerge by yearend, which would prompt us to shift our view to overweight Chinese stocks in both absolute and relative terms. The Case For A Dollar Rebound On a tactical basis (next three months), a rebound in the US dollar index may curb investors’ enthusiasm for Chinese stocks. A stronger dollar will give the RMB’s appreciation some breathing room and will be reflationary for China’s economy. However, in the short term a stronger USD will also lead to weaker foreign inflows to China’s equity markets. Chinese stock prices have become more closely and negatively correlated with the dollar index since early 2020 (Chart 1). A weaker dollar is usually accompanied by a global economic upturn and a higher risk appetite from investors, propelling more foreign portfolio flows to emerging markets (which includes Chinese risk assets). Although foreign inflows account for a small portion of the Chinese A-share market cap, global institutional investors’ sentiment has become more influential and has led fluctuations in Chinese onshore stock prices (Chart 2). Chart 1Closer Correlations Between Chinese Stocks And The Dollar Index Closer Correlations Between Chinese Stocks And The Dollar Index Closer Correlations Between Chinese Stocks And The Dollar Index Chart 2Foreign Investors Matter To Chinese Onshore Stock Prices Foreign Investors Matter To Chinese Onshore Stock Prices Foreign Investors Matter To Chinese Onshore Stock Prices Chart 3Rising Market Expectations For The Fed's Rate Liftoff Rising Market Expectations For The Fed's Rate Liftoff Rising Market Expectations For The Fed's Rate Liftoff The US Federal Reserve delivered a slightly more hawkish surprise at its June FOMC meeting with the message that it will move the projected timing of its first fed fund rate liftoff from 2024 to 2023. Since then, market expectations have shifted from growth and inflation to focusing on the next monetary policy tightening phase, with the short end of the US yield curve rising sharply (Chart 3). Given that currency markets trade off the short end of the yield curve, higher US interest rate expectations will at least temporarily lift the US dollar. The timing and pace of the Fed’s tapering of asset purchases and rate hikes will be determined by how rapidly the US economy approaches the US central bank’s definition of “maximum employment.” BCA’s US Bond Investment strategist anticipates that sizeable and positive non-farm payroll surprises will start in late summer/early fall, which will catalyze a move higher in bond yields. As such, we expect additional upside risks in the dollar index in the coming months, which will discourage foreign investors’ appetite for Chinese equities. Bottom Line: A rebound in the dollar index will be a near-term downside risk to Chinese stocks. Risk Of Higher Chinese Interest Rates Another near-term risk to Chinese stock prices is a tightening in domestic liquidity conditions and a rebound in interest rates, particularly in Q3. Chart 4The PBoC Has Managed To Keep Domestic Rates Low While Pulling Back Overall Stimulus The PBoC Has Managed To Keep Domestic Rates Low While Pulling Back Overall Stimulus The PBoC Has Managed To Keep Domestic Rates Low While Pulling Back Overall Stimulus So far this year the PBoC has kept liquidity conditions accommodative to avoid massive debt defaults, while allowing a faster deceleration in the pace of credit expansion and a sharp contraction in shadow banking (Chart 4). In the coming months, however, the trend may reverse. Even though we do not think China’s current inflation and growth dynamics warrant meaningful and sustainable monetary policy tightening, there is still room for rates to normalize to their pre-pandemic levels in the next few months. Our view is based on the following:  First, there was a major delay in local government bond issuance in the first five months of the year. The supply of government bonds will pick up meaningfully in Q3 to meet the annual quota for 2021. An increase in government bond issuance will remove some liquidity from the banking system because the majority of these local government bonds are purchased by commercial banks. Adding to the liquidity gap is a large number of one-year, medium-term lending facility (MLF) loans that will be due in 2H21. Secondly, the PBoC may shift its policy tightening from reducing the volume of total credit creation (measured by total social financing) to raising the price of money. Credit growth (on year-over-year basis) in the first five months of 2021 dropped by three percentage points from its peak in Q4 last year, much faster than the 13-month peak-to-trough deceleration during the 2017/18 policy tightening cycle. As the rate of credit creation approaches the government’s target for the year, which we expect around 11%, the pressure to further compress credit expansion has eased into 2H21. China’s policy agenda is still focused on de-risking in the financial and real estate sectors, therefore, we expect policymakers to keep overall monetary conditions restrictive by raising the price of money. Furthermore, we do not rule out the possibility of a hike in mortgage rates. Chart 5Rising Risk For A Bear Flattening In Domestic Yield Curve In Q3 Rising Risk For A Bear Flattening In Domestic Yield Curve In Q3 Rising Risk For A Bear Flattening In Domestic Yield Curve In Q3 Lastly, as the Fed prepares market expectations for its rate liftoff and China’s domestic economy is still relatively solid, the PBoC may seize the opportunity to guide market-based interest rates towards their pre-pandemic levels. Thus, the market will likely price in tighter liquidity conditions while lowering expectations for the economy and inflation. The short end of the yield curve will rise faster than the longer end, resulting in a flattening of the curve (Chart 5). There is a nontrivial risk that the market will react negatively to tighter liquidity conditions and rising bonds yields, particularly when the economy is slowing. We mentioned in previous reports that rising policy rates and bond yields do not necessarily lead to lower stock prices, if rates are rising while credit keeps expanding and corporate profit growth accelerates. However, currently credit impulse has decelerated sharply, and corporate profit growth has most likely peaked in Q2. Therefore, even a small increase in bond yields or market expectations of higher rates will likely trigger risk asset selloffs. Bottom Line: Bond yields will move higher in Q3, risking market selloffs. Chinese Economy Standing On One Leg China’s economic fundamentals also pose downside risks to Chinese stock prices. Macro indicators on a year-over-year comparison will soften further in 2H21 when low base effects wane, although they will weaken from very high levels. This year’s sharp credit growth deceleration will start to drag down domestic demand, with the risk of corporate profits disappointing the market. A positive tailwind from global trade prevented China's old economy from decelerating more in the first half of the year. It is reflected in the nominal imports and manufacturing orders components in the BCA Activity Index (Chart 6). However, while rising commodity prices boosted the value of Chinese imports, the volume of imports has been moving sideways of late (Chart 7). Chart 6Our BCA Activity Index Is Still Rising... Our BCA Activity Index Is Still Rising... Our BCA Activity Index Is Still Rising... Chart 7...But The Volume Of The Import Component Has Rolled Over ...But The Volume Of The Import Component Has Rolled Over ...But The Volume Of The Import Component Has Rolled Over Chart 8Export Growth Is Moderating From Current Level Export Growth Is Moderating From Current Level Export Growth Is Moderating From Current Level Moreover, China’s export volume is peaking as the reopening in other countries shifts consumer demand from goods to services. Strong export growth would likely decelerate and converge to global industrial production growth in the coming 12 months, even though a regression-based approach suggests that export growth will stay above trend-growth if global economic activity remains robust (Chart 8). All three components of the official Li Keqiang Index, which measures China’s industrial sector activity and incorporates electricity consumption, railway transportation and bank lending, have rolled over (Chart 9). Among the three components in BCA’s Li Keqiang Leading Indicator, only the monetary conditions index improved on the back of lower real rates. Contributions from the money supply and credit expansion components to the overall indicator have been negative (Chart 10). Chart 9The Official Li Keqiang Index Is Weakening... The Official Li Keqiang Index Is Weakening... The Official Li Keqiang Index Is Weakening... Chart 10...So Is Our BCA Li Keqiang Leading Indicator ...So Is Our BCA Li Keqiang Leading Indicator ...So Is Our BCA Li Keqiang Leading Indicator Chart 11Household Consumption Recovery Remains A Laggard Household Consumption Recovery Remains A Laggard Household Consumption Recovery Remains A Laggard The recovery in household consumption remains well behind the industrial sector in the current cycle (Chart 11). We expect consumption and services to continue recovering very gradually. Apart from China’s long-standing structural issues, such as sliding household income growth and a high propensity to save, the cyclical recovery in consumption is dependent on China’s domestic COVID-19 situation. The country is on track to fully vaccinate 40% of its population by the end of June and 80% by year-end (Chart 12). However, hiccups in the service sector recovery are expected through 2H21, given China’s “zero tolerance” policy on confirmed COVID cases, which could trigger sporadic local lockdowns (Chart 13). Chart 12China Is Racing To Reach “Full Inoculation Rate” By Yearend China Outlook: A Mid-Year Recap China Outlook: A Mid-Year Recap Chart 13Expect Some Hiccups In Service Sector Recovery In 2H21 Expect Some Hiccups In Service Sector Recovery In 2H21 Expect Some Hiccups In Service Sector Recovery In 2H21 Bottom Line: Any moderation in exports in the rest of 2021 may add to the slowdown in China’s economic activity. Don’t Count On Fiscal Support Chart 14Fiscal Spending Has Been Disappointing In 1H21 Fiscal Spending Has Been Disappointing In 1H21 Fiscal Spending Has Been Disappointing In 1H21 During the first five months of the year, fiscal spending has downshifted (Chart 14). The amount of local government special-purpose bonds (SPBs) issued was far less than in the same period of the past two years, and below this year’s approved annual quota. Although we expect fiscal support to increase into 2H21, backloading SPBs would qualify, at best, as a remedial measure rather than a meaningful boost to economic activity. The RMB3 trillion SPBs to be issued in 2H21 represent only about 10% of this year’s total credit expansion. To substantially boost credit impulse and economic activity, the pickup in SPB issuance will need to be accompanied by looser monetary policy and an acceleration in bank loans (Chart 15). We do not expect that liquidity conditions will remain as lax as in 1H21. Additionally, given that the central government’s focus is to rein in the leverage of local governments and their affiliated financial vehicles (LGFV), provincial officers have little incentive to take on more bank loans against a restrictive policy backdrop. Historically, a stronger fiscal impulse linked to hefty increases in local government bond issuance has not necessarily led to meaningful improvements in infrastructure investment, which has been on a structural downshift since 2017 (Chart 16). Following a V-shaped recovery in 2H20, the growth in infrastructure investment will likely continue to slide in 2H21 due to sluggish government spending. Chart 15Bank Loans Still Hold The Key To Stimulus Impulse Bank Loans Still Hold The Key To Stimulus Impulse Bank Loans Still Hold The Key To Stimulus Impulse Chart 16Don't Count On SPBs To Meaningfully Boost Infrastructure Investment Don't Count On SPBs To Meaningfully Boost Infrastructure Investment Don't Count On SPBs To Meaningfully Boost Infrastructure Investment Bottom Line: There are no signs that the overall policy stance is easing to facilitate a higher fiscal multiplier from an upturn in local government bond issuance. As such, fiscal support for infrastructure spending and economic activity will disappoint in 2H21 despite more SPB issuance. Investment Conclusions Monetary conditions may tighten in Q3 although credit growth will decelerate at a slower pace. Pressures to support domestic demand will be more pronounced next year as tailwinds abate from the global recovery and domestic massive stimulus. Our view is that Chinese authorities will likely ease on the policy tightening brake towards the end of this year and perhaps even signal some reflationary measures in early 2022.  Therefore, while we maintain an underweight stance on Chinese stocks for the time being, investors should remain alert to any improvements in China's policy direction. In particular, any monetary policy easing by end this year/early 2022 may signal a potential catalyst to upgrade Chinese stocks to overweight in absolute terms. Although both Chinese onshore and investable equities are currently traded at a discount relative to global stocks, they are richly valuated compared with their 2017/18 highs (Chart 17). China's economy is slowing and the corporate sector has substantially increased its leverage in the past decade. We believe that the current discount in Chinese equities relative to global stocks is warranted. Chart 18 presents a forecast for A-share earnings growth in US dollars, based on earnings’ relationship with the official Li Keqiang index. The chart shows that while an earnings contraction is not probable, without more stimulus the growth rate may fall sharply in the next 12 months from its current elevated level. This aspect, combined with only a minor valuation discount relative to global stocks, paints an uninspiring outlook for Chinese onshore stocks. Chart 17Chinese Onshore Stocks Are Traded At A Slight Discount To Global Equities Chinese Onshore Stocks Are Traded At A Slight Discount To Global Equities Chinese Onshore Stocks Are Traded At A Slight Discount To Global Equities Chart 18An Uninspiring Domestic Equity Earnings Outlook An Uninspiring Domestic Equity Earnings Outlook An Uninspiring Domestic Equity Earnings Outlook Our baseline view is that Chinese authorities will be more willing to step up policy supports into 2022. Fiscal impulse will likely turn negative for most major economies next year and global economic recovery will have peaked. In this scenario, both China’s economy and stocks will have the potential to outperform their global peers next year.   Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights The US is withdrawing from the Middle East and South Asia and making a strategic pivot to Asia Pacific. The third quarter will see risks flare around Iran and the US rejoin the 2015 Iranian nuclear deal. The result is briefly negative for oil prices but the rise of Iran is a new geopolitical trend that will increase Middle Eastern risk over the long run. The geopolitical outlook is dollar bullish, while the macroeconomic outlook is getting less dollar-bearish due to China’s risk of over-tightening policy. Stay neutral USD and be wary of commodities and emerging markets in the third quarter. European political risk is bottoming. The German and French elections are at best minor risks. However, the continent is ripe for negative black swans, especially due to Russian aggression. Go tactically long global large caps and defensives. Feature Chart 1Three Key Views On Track (So Far) Three Key Views On Track (So Far) Three Key Views On Track (So Far) We chose “No Return To Normalcy” as the theme of our 2021 outlook. While the COVID-19 vaccine promised economic recovery, we argued that normalization would create complacency regarding fundamental changes that have taken place in the geopolitical environment. A contradiction between an improving macroeconomic backdrop and a foreboding geopolitical backdrop would develop in 2021 and beyond. The “reflation trade” has begun to lose steam as we go to press. However, global recovery will still be the dominant story in the second half of the year as vaccination spreads. The question for the third quarter and the rest of the year is whether reflation will continue. As a matter of forecasting, we think it will. But as a matter of investment strategy, we are taking a more defensive stance until China relaxes economic policy. In our annual outlook we highlighted three key geopolitical views: (1) China’s headwinds, both at home and abroad (2) US détente with Iran and pivot to Asia (3) Europe’s opportunity. All three trends are broadly on track and can be illustrated by looking at equity performance in the relevant regions for the year so far: Chinese stocks sold off, UAE stocks rallied, and European stocks rallied (Chart 1). However, these trends are not exclusively tied to absolute equity performance. The most important question is what happens to global growth and the US dollar as these three key views continue. Stay Neutral On The Dollar It paid off for us to maintain a neutral stance on the dollar. True, the global recovery and exorbitant US trade and budget deficits are bearish for the dollar and bullish for other currencies. But the greenback’s “counter-trend bounce” is proving more formidable than many investors expected. The fundamentals of the American economy and global position remain strong. Since the outbreak of COVID-19, the US has secured its recovery with fiscal policy, maintained rule of law amid a contested election, innovated and distributed vaccines, benefited from more flexible social restrictions, refurbished global alliances, and put pressure on its geopolitical rivals. In essence, the combined effect of President Trump’s and Biden’s policies has been to make America “great again” (Chart 2). From a geopolitical perspective, the dollar is appealing. Chart 2Trump-Biden Make America Great Again? Trump-Biden Make America Great Again? Trump-Biden Make America Great Again? In addition, the first two geopolitical views mentioned above – China’s headwinds and the US-Iran détente – imply a negative environment for China and the renminbi. The reason for the US to do a suboptimal deal with Iran, both in 2015 and 2021, is to reduce the risk of war and buy time to enable a strategic pivot to Asia Pacific. Three US presidents have been elected on the pledge to conclude the “forever wars” in the Middle East and South Asia. Biden is withdrawing US troops from Afghanistan in September. There can be little doubt Biden is committed to an Iran deal, which is supposed to free up the US’s hands (Chart 3). Meanwhile the US public and Congress are unified in their desire to better defend US interests against China’s economic and military rise. There has not yet been a stabilization of US-China policies. Biden is not likely to hold a summit with Chinese President Xi Jinping until late October at earliest – and that is a guess, not a confirmed summit. The Biden administration has completed its review of China policy and is maintaining the Trump administration’s hawkish posture, as predicted. The US and China may resume their strategic and economic dialogue at some point but it is impossible to go back to the status quo ante 2015. That was the year the US adopted a more confrontational stance toward China – a stance later supercharged by Trump’s election and trade tariffs. The hawkish consensus on China is one of the rare unifying factors in a deeply divided America. The Biden administration explicitly says the US-China relationship is now defined by “competition” instead of “engagement.”1 One exception to this neutral view on the dollar has been our decision to go long the Japanese yen and Swiss franc, which has not panned out so far. Our reasoning is that geopolitical risk will boost these currencies but otherwise the reduction of geopolitical risk will weigh on the dollar in the context of global growth recovery. So far geopolitical risk has remained subdued while the US dollar has outperformed. We are still sympathetic to these safe-haven currencies, however, as they are attractively valued as long as one expects geopolitical risks to materialize (Chart 4). Chart 3US Pivot To Asia Runs Through Iran US Pivot To Asia Runs Through Iran US Pivot To Asia Runs Through Iran Our third key view, that EU was the real winner of the US election last year, remains on track. This is marginally positive for the euro at the expense of the dollar. Given the above points, we favor an equal-weighted basket of the euro and the dollar relative to the renminbi (Chart 5). Chart 4Safe-Haven Currencies Attractive Safe-Haven Currencies Attractive Safe-Haven Currencies Attractive Chart 5Favor Euro And Dollar Over Renminbi Favor Euro And Dollar Over Renminbi Favor Euro And Dollar Over Renminbi The geopolitical outlook is dollar-bullish. The macroeconomic outlook is dollar-bearish, except that China’s economy looks to slow down. We expect China to ease policy in the second half of the year but it may come late. We remain neutral dollar in the third quarter. Wait For China To Relax Policy July 1 marks the centenary of the Communist Party of China. The main thing investors should know is that the Communist Party predates China’s capitalist phase by sixty years. The party adopted capitalism to improve the economy – it never sacrificed its political or foreign policy goals. This poses a major geopolitical problem today because the Communist Party’s consolidation of power across Greater China, symbolized by Beijing’s revocation of Hong Kong’s special status in 2019, has convinced the western democracies that China is no longer compatible with the liberal world order. China launched a 13.8% of GDP monetary-and-fiscal stimulus over 2018-20 due to the trade war and COVID-19 pandemic. So the economy is stable for the hundredth anniversary celebration. The centenary goals are largely accomplished: GDP is larger, poverty is nearly extinguished, although urban incomes are still lagging (Chart 6). General Secretary Xi Jinping will mark the occasion with a speech. The speech will contribute to his governing philosophy, Xi Jinping Thought, a synthesis of communist Mao Zedong Thought and the pro-capitalist “socialism with Chinese characteristics” pioneered by General Secretary Deng Xiaoping in the 1980s-90s. The effect is to reassert Communist Party and central government primacy after the long period of decentralization that enabled China’s rapid growth phase. It is also to endorse an inward economic turn after the four-decade export-manufacturing boom. The Xi administration’s re-centralization of policy has entailed mini-cycles of tightening and loosening control over the economy. The administration leans against the country’s tendency to gorge itself on debt and grow at any cost – until it must lean the other way for fear of triggering a destabilizing slowdown. For this reason Beijing tightened policy proactively last year, producing a sharp drop in money, credit, and fiscal expansion in 2021 that now threatens to undermine the global recovery. By our measures, any further tightening will result in undershooting the regime’s money and credit targets, i.e. overtightening, and hence threaten to drag on the global recovery (Chart 7). Chart 6China's Communist Party Centenary Goals China's Communist Party Centenary Goals China's Communist Party Centenary Goals Chart 7China Verges On Over-Tightening Policy China Verges On Over-Tightening Policy China Verges On Over-Tightening Policy Overtightening would be a policy mistake with potentially disastrous consequences. So the base case should be that the government will relax policy rather than undermine the post-COVID recovery. However, investors cannot be confident about the timing. The 2015 financial turmoil and renminbi devaluation occurred because policymakers reacted too slowly. One reason to believe policy will be eased is that after July 1 the government will turn its attention to the twentieth national party congress in 2022, the once-in-five-years rotation of the Central Committee and Politburo. The party congress begins at the local level at the beginning of next year and culminates in the fall of 2022 with the national rotation of top party leaders. Xi Jinping was originally slated to step down in 2022. So he needs to squash any last-minute push against him by opposing factions of the party. He may have himself named chairman of the Communist Party, like Mao before him. Most importantly he will put his stamp on the “seventh generation” of China’s leaders by promoting his followers into key positions. All of this suggests that the Xi administration cannot risk triggering a recession, even if its preferences remain hawkish on economic policy. Policy easing could come as early as the end of July. As a rule of thumb, we have noticed that the Politburo’s July meeting on economic policy is often an inflection point, as was the case in 2007, 2015, 2018, and 2020 (Table 1). Some observers claim the April Politburo meeting already signaled an easing in policy, although we do not see that. If July clearly signals relaxation, global investors will cheer and emerging market assets and commodities will rise. Table 1China’s Politburo Often Hits Inflection Point On Economic Policy In July Third Quarter Outlook 2021: The Pivot To Asia Runs Through Iran Third Quarter Outlook 2021: The Pivot To Asia Runs Through Iran Still we maintain a defensive posture going into the third quarter because we do not have a high level of confidence that policymakers will act preemptively. A market riot may precede and motivate the inflection point in policy. Also the negative impact of previous policy tightening will be felt in the third quarter. China plays and industrial metals are extremely vulnerable to further correction (Chart 8). Chart 8China Plays And Metals Vulnerable To Further Correction China Plays And Metals Vulnerable To Further Correction China Plays And Metals Vulnerable To Further Correction The earliest occasion for a Biden-Xi summit comes at the end of October, as mentioned. While US-China talks will occur at some level, relations will remain fundamentally unstable. While a Biden-Xi summit may improve the atmosphere and lead to a new round of strategic and economic dialogue, or Phase Two trade talks, the fact is that the US is seeking to contain China’s rise and China is seeking to break out of the strictures of the US-led world order. The global elite and mainstream media will put a lot of emphasis on the post-Trump return to diplomatic “normalcy” and summits. But this is to overemphasize style at the expense of substance. Note that the positive feelings of the Biden-Putin summit on June 16 fizzled in less than a week when Russia allegedly dropped bombs in the path of a British destroyer in the Black Sea. The US and UK were training Ukraine’s military. Britain denies any bombs were dropped but Russia says next time they will hit their target. (More on this below.) This episode is instructive for US-China relations: summitry is overrated. China is building a sphere of influence and the US no longer believes dialogue alone is the answer. Tit-for-tat punitive measures and proxy battles in China’s neighboring areas, from the Korean peninsula to the Taiwan Strait to the South and East China Seas, are the new normal. Bottom Line: Tactically, stay defensive on global risk assets, especially China plays. Strategically, maintain a constructive outlook on the cycle given the global recovery and China’s need eventually to relax monetary and fiscal policy. US-Iran Deal Likely – Then The Real Trouble Starts The US will likely rejoin the 2015 Iranian nuclear deal (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) by August and pull out of its longest-ever war in Afghanistan in September. The US is wrapping up its “forever wars” to meet the demands of a war-weary public. Ironically, the long-term consequence is to create power vacuums that invite new geopolitical conflicts in the context of the US’s great power struggle with China and Russia. But for now a deal with Iran – once it is settled – reduces geopolitical risk by reducing the odds of military escalation in the region. The Iran talks are more significant than the Afghanistan pullout. We are confident in a deal because Biden can rejoin the 2015 deal unilaterally – it was never approved by the US Senate as a formal treaty. The Iranians will not support any militant action so aggressive as to scupper a deal that offers them the chance of reviving their economy at a critical time in the regime’s history. Reviving the deal poses a downside risk for oil prices in the third quarter though not over the long run. It is negative in the short run because investors will have to price not only Iran’s current and future production (Chart 9) but also any resulting loss of OPEC 2.0 discipline. Brent crude is trading at $76 per barrel as we go to press, above the $65-$70 per barrel average that our Commodity & Energy Strategy service expects to see over the coming five years (Chart 10). Chart 9Iran's Oil Production Will Return Iran's Oil Production Will Return Iran's Oil Production Will Return Chart 10Brent Price Faces Short-Term Downside Risk From Iranian Crude Brent Price Faces Short-Term Downside Risk From Iranian Crude Brent Price Faces Short-Term Downside Risk From Iranian Crude The oil price ceiling is enforced by the cartel of oil producers who fear that too high of prices will incentivize US shale oil production as well as the global shift to renewable energy. The Russians have always dragged their feet over oil production cuts and are now pushing for production hikes. The government needs an oil price of around $50-55 per barrel for the budget to break even. The Saudis need higher prices to break even, at $70-75 per barrel. Moscow must coordinate various oil producers, led by the country’s powerful oligarchs and their factions, which is inherently more difficult than the Saudi position of coordinating one producer, Aramco. The Russians and Saudis have maintained cartel discipline so far in 2021, as expected, because the wounds of the market-share war last year are still raw. They retreated from that showdown in less than a month. However, a major escalation in Saudi Arabia’s strategic conflict with Iran could push the Saudis to seek greater market share at Iran’s expense, as occurred before the original Iran deal in 2014-15. Hence our view that the risk to oil prices will shift from the upside to the downside in the second half of the year if the US-Iran deal is reconstituted. Over the long run, the deal is not negative for oil prices. The deal is a tradeoff for lower geopolitical risk today but higher risk in the future. The reason is that Iran’s economic recovery will strengthen its strategic hand and generate a backlash in the region. The global oil supply and demand balance will fluctuate according to circumstances but regional conflict will inject a risk premium over time. Biden’s likely decision to rejoin the 2015 deal should be seen as a delaying tactic. It is impossible to go back to 2015, when the US had mustered a coalition of nations to pressure Iran and when Iran’s “reformist” faction stood to receive a historic boost from the opening of the country’s economy. Now the US lacks a coalition and the reformists are leaving office in disgrace, with the hardliners (“principlists”) taking full power for the foreseeable future. Iran is happy to go back to complying with a deal that consists of sanctions relief in exchange for temporary limits on its nuclear program. The 2015 deal’s restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program begin expiring in 2023 and continue to expire through 2040. Biden has no chance of negotiating a newer and more expansive deal that extends these sunset clauses while also restricting Iran’s ballistic missile program and regional militant activities. He will say that easing sanctions is premised on a broader “follow on” deal to achieve these US goals. But the broader deal is unlikely to materialize anytime soon. The Iranians will commit to future talks but they will have no intention of agreeing to a more expansive deal unless forced. The country’s leaders will never abandon their nuclear program after witnessing the invasions of non-nuclear Libya and Ukraine – in stark contrast with nuclear-armed North Korea. Moreover Biden cannot possibly reassemble the P5+1 coalition with Russia and China anytime soon. The US is directly confronting these states. They could conceivably work with the US when Iran is on the brink of obtaining nuclear weapons but not before then. They did not prevent North Korea. The Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, the soon-to-be-inaugurated President Ebrahim Raisi, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, the Ministry of Intelligence, and other pillars of the regime are focused exclusively on strengthening the regime in advance of Khamenei’s impending succession sometime in the coming decade. The succession could easily lead to domestic unrest and a political crisis, which makes the 2020s a critical period for the Islamic Republic. With Tehran focused on a delicate succession, it is not a foregone conclusion that Iran will go on the offensive to expand its sphere of influence immediately after the US deal. But sooner or later a major new geopolitical trend will emerge: the rise of Iran. With sanctions removed, trade and investment increasing, and Chinese and Russian support, Iran will be capable of pursuing its strategic aims in the region more effectively. It will extend its influence across the “Shia Crescent,” including Iraq. The fear that this will inspire in Israel and the Gulf Arab states has already generated a slow-boiling war in the region. This war will intensify as the US will be reluctant to intervene. The purpose of the deal is to enable the war-weary US to reduce its active involvement in the region. The US foreign policy and defense establishment do not entirely see it this way – they emphasize that the US will remain engaged. But US allies in the Middle East will not be convinced. The region already has a taste for the way this works after the US’s precipitous withdrawal from Iraq in 2011, which lead to the rise of the Islamic State terrorist group. Biden will try not to be so precipitous but the writing is on the wall: the US will reduce its focus and commitment. A scramble for power in the region will begin the moment the ink dries on Biden’s signature of the JCPA. Israel and the Arab states are forming a de facto alliance – based on last year’s Abraham Accords – to prepare for Iran’s push to dominate the region. Even if Iran is not overly aggressive (a big if), Israel and the Gulf Arabs will overreact as a result of their fear of abandonment. They will also seek to hedge their bets by improving ties with the Chinese and Russians, making the Middle East the scene of a major new proxy battle in the global great power struggle. As a risk to our view: if the Biden administration changes course this summer and refuses to lift sanctions or rejoin the Iran deal – low but not zero probability – then tensions with Iran will explode almost instantaneously. The Iranians will threaten to close the Strait of Hormuz and a crisis will erupt in the third or fourth quarter. Bottom Line: The US will most likely rejoin the Iranian nuclear deal by August to avoid an immediate crisis or war. The Biden administration will wager that it can lend enough support to regional allies to keep Iran contained. This might work, as the Iranians will focus on fortifying the regime ahead of its leadership succession. However, Iran’s hardline leadership will see an opportunity in America’s withdrawal from its “forever wars.” Iran will increasingly cooperate with Russia and China. Iran’s conflict with Israel and Saudi Arabia will be extremely difficult to manage and will escalate over time, quite possibly creating a revolution or war in Iraq. The Gulf Arabs are already under immense pressure from the green energy revolution. Thus while oil prices might temporarily fall on the return of Iranian exports, they will later see upward pressure from a new wave of Middle Eastern instability. European Political Risk Has (Probably) Bottomed By contrast with all the above we have viewed Europe as a negligible source of (geo)political risk in 2021. European policy uncertainty is falling in Europe relative to these other powers and the rest of the world (Chart 11). Chart 11Europe's Relative Policy Uncertainty Bottoming Europe's Relative Policy Uncertainty Bottoming Europe's Relative Policy Uncertainty Bottoming Chart 12EU Break-Up Risk Hits Floor (Again) EU Break-Up Risk Hits Floor (Again) EU Break-Up Risk Hits Floor (Again) The risk of a break-up of the European Union has wilted and remains at historic lows (Chart 12). There is no immediate threat of any European countries emulating the UK and attempting to exit. Even Italian support for the euro has surged. Immigration flows have plummeted. European solidarity is not on the ballot in the upcoming German and French elections. Germany is choosing between the status quo and a “green revolution” that would not really be a revolution due to the constraints of coalition politics. The Greens have lost some momentum relative to their polling earlier this year but underlying trends suggest they will surprise to the upside in the September 26 vote (Charts 13A and 13B). They embrace EU solidarity, robust government spending, weariness with the Merkel regime, and concerns about climate change, Russia, China, and social justice. Chart 13AGerman Greens Will Surprise To Upside Third Quarter Outlook 2021: The Pivot To Asia Runs Through Iran Third Quarter Outlook 2021: The Pivot To Asia Runs Through Iran Chart 13BGerman Greens Will Surprise To Upside Third Quarter Outlook 2021: The Pivot To Asia Runs Through Iran Third Quarter Outlook 2021: The Pivot To Asia Runs Through Iran We expect the Greens to surprise to the upside. But as they are forced into a coalition with the ruling Christian Democrats then they will be limited to raising spending rather raising taxes (Table 2). The market will cheer this result. Table 2German Greens’ Ambitious Tax Hike Proposals Third Quarter Outlook 2021: The Pivot To Asia Runs Through Iran Third Quarter Outlook 2021: The Pivot To Asia Runs Through Iran If the Greens disappoint then a right-leaning government and too early fiscal tightening could become a risk – but it is a minor risk because Merkel’s hand-picked successor, the CDU Chancellor Candidate Armin Laschet, will be pro-Europe and fiscally dovish, just like the mainstream of his party under Merkel. The only limitation on this dovishness is that it would take another global shock for there to be enough votes in the Bundestag to loosen the schuldenbremse or “debt brake.” In France, President Emmanuel Macron is likely to win re-election – the populist candidate Marine Le Pen remains an underdog who is unlikely to make it through France’s two-round electoral system. In Italy, Prime Minister Mario Draghi is overseeing a national unity coalition that will dole out EU recovery funds. An election cannot be held ahead of the presidential election in January, which will be secured by the establishment parties as a major check on any future populist ruling coalition. The risk in these countries, as in Spain and elsewhere, is that neoliberal structural reform and competitiveness are falling by the wayside. Fiscal largesse is positive for securing the recovery but long-term growth potential will remain depressed (Chart 14). Chart 14European And Global Fiscal Stimulus (Updated June 2021) Third Quarter Outlook 2021: The Pivot To Asia Runs Through Iran Third Quarter Outlook 2021: The Pivot To Asia Runs Through Iran Europe remains stuck in a liquidity trap over the long run. It depends on the rest of the world for growth. This is a problem given that China’s potential growth is slowing and there is no ready substitute that will prop up global growth. Europe is increasingly ripe for negative “black swan” events. The power vacuum in the Middle East described above will lead to instability and regime failures that will threaten European security. Russia will remain aggressive, a reflection of its crumbling structural foundations. The Putin administration has not changed its strategy of building a sphere of influence in the former Soviet Union and pushing back against the West, as signaled by the threat to bomb ships that sail in Crimean waters – a unilateral expansion of Russia’s territorial waters following the Crimean invasion. The Biden administration is not seeking anything comparable to the diplomatic “reset” with Russia from 2009-11, which ended in acrimony. In other words, European political risk may be bottoming as we speak. Investment Takeaways Chart 15Limited Equity Upside From Likely US Infrastructure Bill Limited Equity Upside From Likely US Infrastructure Bill Limited Equity Upside From Likely US Infrastructure Bill US Peak Fiscal Stimulus: The Biden administration is highly likely to pass an infrastructure package through Congress, either as a bipartisan deal with Republicans or as part of the American Jobs Plan. The result is another $1-$1.5 trillion fiscal stimulus, albeit over an eight-year period, with infrastructure funding taking until 2024-25 to ramp up. Biden’s other plans probably will not pass before the 2022 midterm election, which will likely bring gridlock. Investors are well aware of these proposals and the policy setting will probably be frozen after this year. Hence there is limited remaining upside for global materials sector and US infrastructure plays (Chart 15). The extravagant US fiscal thrust of 2020-21 will turn into a huge fiscal drag in 2022 (Chart 16). The Federal Reserve, however, will remain ultra-dovish as long as labor market slack persists – regardless of who is at the helm. Chart 16US Fiscal Drag Very Large In 2022 Third Quarter Outlook 2021: The Pivot To Asia Runs Through Iran Third Quarter Outlook 2021: The Pivot To Asia Runs Through Iran Chart 17Go Long Large Caps And Defensives Go Long Large Caps And Defensives Go Long Large Caps And Defensives China’s Headwinds Persist: China may or may not ease policy in time to prevent a market riot. China plays and industrial metals are highly exposed to a correction and we recommend steering clear. US-Iran Deal Weighs On Oil Price: Tactically we are neutral on oil and oil plays. An Iran deal could depress oil prices temporarily – and potentially in a major way if the Saudis agree with the Russians on increasing production. Fundamentals are positive but depend on the OPEC 2.0 cartel. The cartel faces the risk that higher prices will incentivize both alternative oil providers and the green revolution. Europe’s Opportunity: We continue to see the euro and European stocks offering value. Given the troubles with Russia we favor developed Europe plays over emerging Europe. The German election would be a bullish catalyst for European assets but headwinds from China will prevail, which is negative for cyclical European stocks. The Russian Duma election, also in September, creates high potential for Russia to clash with the West between now and then. Tactically, go long global large caps and defensives (Chart 17).   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Independent Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders recently felt it was necessary to warn against a second cold war. Sanders, a democratic socialist, is a reliable indicator of the left wing of the Democratic Party and a dissenter who puts pressure on the center-left Biden administration. His fears underscore the dominance of the new hawkish consensus. Appendix China China: GeoRisk Indicator China: GeoRisk Indicator Russia Russia: GeoRisk Indicator Russia: GeoRisk Indicator UK UK: GeoRisk Indicator UK: GeoRisk Indicator Germany Germany: GeoRisk Indicator Germany: GeoRisk Indicator France France: GeoRisk Indicator France: GeoRisk Indicator Italy Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Canada Canada: GeoRisk Indicator Canada: GeoRisk Indicator Spain Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Taiwan – Province Of China Taiwan Territory: GeoRisk Indicator Taiwan Territory: GeoRisk Indicator Korea Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Turkey Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Brazil Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator Australia Australia: GeoRisk Indicator Australia: GeoRisk Indicator

Highlights The ongoing transition to a post-pandemic state and fiscal policy are either positive or net-neutral for risky asset prices. Fiscal thrust will turn to fiscal drag over the coming year, but the negative impact this will have on goods spending will likely be offset by a significant improvement in services spending, and thus is not likely to cause a concerning slowdown in overall economic activity. A modestly hawkish shift in the outlook for monetary policy is likely over the coming year, potentially occurring over the late summer or early fall in response to outsized jobs growth. However, such a shift is not likely to become a negative driver for risky asset prices over the coming 6-12 months, barring a major rise in market expectations for the neutral rate of interest. This may very well occur once the Fed begins to raise interest rates, but not likely before. Investors should overweight risky assets within a multi-asset portfolio, and fixed-income investors should maintain a below-benchmark duration position. We continue to favor value over growth on a 6-12 month time horizon, although growth may outperform in the near term. A bias toward value over the coming year supports an overweight stance toward global ex-US equities, and an overall pro-risk stance favors bearish US dollar bets. Feature Three factors continue to drive our global macroeconomic outlook and our cyclical investment recommendations. The first factor is our assessment of the global progress that is being made on the path to a post-pandemic state, and the return to pre-COVID economic conditions; the second is the likely contribution to growth from fiscal policy over the coming year; and the third is the outlook for monetary policy and whether or not monetary conditions will remain stimulative for both economic activity and financial markets. If the world continues to progress meaningfully on the path to a post-pandemic state, and if the impact of fiscal and monetary policy remains in line with market expectations, then we see no reason to alter our recommended investment stance. Equity market returns will be modest over the coming 6 to 12 months in this scenario given how significantly stocks have rebounded from their low last year, but we would still expect stocks to outperform bonds and would generally be pro-cyclically positioned. We present below our assessment of these three factors and their potential to deviate from consensus expectations over the coming year, to determine their likely impact on economic activity and financial markets. The Ongoing Transition To A Post-Pandemic World Chart I-1Enormous Progress Has Been Made In The Fight Against COVID-19 Enormous Progress Has Been Made In The Fight Against COVID-19 Enormous Progress Has Been Made In The Fight Against COVID-19 Chart I-1 highlights that meaningful progress continues to be made in vaccinating the world's population against COVID-19. North America and Europe continue to lead the rest of the world based on the share of people who have received at least one dose, but South America continues to make significant gains, and recent data updates highlight that Asia and Oceania are also making meaningful progress. Africa is the clear laggard in the war against SARS-COV-2 and its variants, but progress there has been delayed, at least in part, by India’s export restrictions of the Oxford-AstraZeneca/COVISHIELD vaccine. This suggests that, while Africa will continue to lag, the share of Africans provided with a first dose of vaccine will begin to rise once India resumes its exports and deliveries to African countries under the COVAX program continue. If variants of the disease were not a source of concern, Chart I-1 would highlight that the full transition to a post-pandemic economy over the next several months would be near certain. However, as evidenced by the recent decision in the UK to postpone the lifting of COVID-19 restrictions by 4 weeks due to the spreading of the Delta variant, the global economy is not entirely out of the woods yet. Encouragingly, the delay in the UK genuinely appears to be temporary. Chart I-2 highlights that while the number of confirmed UK COVID-19 cases has been rising over the past month, the uptick in hospitalizations and fatalities has so far been quite muted. Importantly, the rise in hospitalizations appears to be occurring among those who have not yet been fully vaccinated, underscoring that variants of the disease are only truly concerning if they are vaccine-resistant. The evidence so far is that the Delta variant is more transmissible and may increase the risk of hospitalization, but that two doses of COVID-19 vaccine offer high protection. Of course, vaccines only offer protection if you get them, and evidence of vaccination hesitancy in the US is thus a somewhat worrying sign. Chart I-3 shows that the daily pace of vaccinations in the US has slowed significantly from mid-April levels, resulting in a slower rise in the share of the population that has received at least one dose (second panel). On this metric, the US has recently been outpaced by Canada, and the gap between the UK and the US is now widening. Germany and France are close behind the US and may surpass it soon. Chart I-2The UK Delay In Removing Restrictions Seems Genuinely Temporary The UK Delay In Removing Restrictions Seems Genuinely Temporary The UK Delay In Removing Restrictions Seems Genuinely Temporary Chart I-3Recent Vaccination Progress In The US Has Been Underwhelming Recent Vaccination Progress In The US Has Been Underwhelming Recent Vaccination Progress In The US Has Been Underwhelming   Sadly, Chart I-4 highlights that there is a political dimension to vaccine hesitancy in the US. The chart shows that state by state vaccination rates as a share of the population are strongly predicted by the share of the popular vote for Donald Trump in the 2020 US presidential election. Admittedly, part of this relationship may also be capturing an urban/rural divide, with residents in less-dense rural areas (which typically support Republican presidential candidates) perhaps feeling a lower sense of urgency to become vaccinated against the disease. Chart I-4The US Politicization Of Vaccines Raises The Risk From COVID-19 Variants July 2021 July 2021 But given the clear politicization that has already occurred over some pandemic control measures, such as the wearing of masks, Chart I-4 makes it difficult to avoid the conclusion that the same thing has occurred for vaccines. This is unfortunate, and seemingly raises the risk that the Delta variant may spread widely in red states over the coming several months, potentially delaying economic reopening, or risking the reintroduction of pandemic control measures. However, there are two counterarguments to this concern. First, non-vaccine immunity is probably higher in red than blue states, and CDC data suggest that this effect could be large. While this figure is still preliminary and subject to change (and likely will), the CDC estimates that only 1 out of 4.3 cases of COVID-19 were reported from February 2020 to March 2021. Taken at face value, this implies that there were approximately 115 million infections during that period, compared with under 30 million reported cases. That gap accounts for 25% of the US population, and given that red states were slower to implement pandemic control measures last year and their residents often more resistant to the measures, it stands to reason that a disproportionate share of unreported cases occurred in these states. Second, as noted above, the evidence thus far suggests that the Delta variant is not vaccine resistant, at least for those who are fully vaccinated. This is significant because if Delta were to spread widely in red states over the coming several months, the resulting increase in hospitalizations would likely convince many vaccine hesitant Americans to become vaccinated out of fear and self-interest – two powerfully motivating factors. Thus, the Delta variant may become a problem for the US in the fall, but if that occurs a solution is not far from sight. And, in other developed countries where vaccine hesitancy rates appear to be lower, it would seem that a new, vaccine-resistant variant of the disease would likely be required in order to cause a major disruption in the transition to a post-pandemic state. Such a variant could emerge, but we have seen no evidence thus far that one will before vaccination rates reach levels that would slash the odds of further widespread mutation. Fiscal Policy: Passing The Baton To Services Spending Chart I-5 highlights that US fiscal policy is set to detract from growth over the coming 6-12 months, reflecting the one-off nature of some of the fiscal response to the pandemic. This is true outside of the US as well, as Chart I-6 highlights that the IMF is forecasting a two percentage point increase in the Euro Area’s cyclically-adjusted primary budget balance, representing a significant amount of fiscal drag relative to the past two decades. Chart I-5Fiscal Thrust Will Eventually Turn To Fiscal Drag In The US… July 2021 July 2021 Should investors be concerned about the impact of fiscal drag on advanced economies over the coming year? In our view, the answer is no. The reason is that much of the fiscal response in the US and Europe has been aimed at supporting income that has been lost due to a drastic reduction in services spending, which will continue to recover over the coming months as the effect of the pandemic continues to ebb. Chart I-7 underscores this point by highlighting the “gap” in US consumer goods and services spending relative to its pre-pandemic trend. The chart highlights that US goods spending is running well above what would be expected, whereas there is a sizeable gap in services spending (which accounts for approximately 70% of US personal consumption expenditures). 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 sizeable amount of excess savings that US households have accumulated over the past year (Chart I-7, panel 2). Chart I-6... And In Europe ... And In Europe ... And In Europe Chart I-7But Reduced Transfers Will Only Impact Spending On Goods, Not Services But Reduced Transfers Will Only Impact Spending On Goods, Not Services But Reduced Transfers Will Only Impact Spending On Goods, Not Services While some of these savings have already been deployed to pay down debt and some may be permanently saved in anticipation of higher future taxes, the key point for investors is that the negative impact on goods spending from reduced fiscal thrust will be offset by a significant improvement in services spending, and thus is not likely to cause a concerning slowdown in overall economic activity. Monetary Policy: A Modestly Hawkish Shift Is Likely This leaves us with the question of whether or not monetary policy will become a negative driver for risky asset prices over the coming 6-12 months, which is especially relevant following last week’s FOMC meeting. The updated “dot plot” following the meeting shows that 7 of the 18 FOMC participants anticipate a rate hike in 2022, and the majority (13 members) expect at least one rate hike before the end of 2023, raising the median forecast for the Fed funds rate to 0.6% by the end of that year. Chart I-8 highlights that while 10-year Treasury yields remains mostly unchanged following the meeting, yields moved higher at the short-end and middle of the curve. Chart I-8The FOMC Meeting Resulted In Higher Short- And Mid-Term Yields The FOMC Meeting Resulted In Higher Short- And Mid-Term Yields The FOMC Meeting Resulted In Higher Short- And Mid-Term Yields Investor fears that the Fed may shift in a significantly hawkish direction at some point over the next year have been far too focused on inflation, and far too little focused on employment. It is not a coincidence that the Fed’s guidance was updated following the May jobs report, which saw a stronger pace of jobs growth relative to April. Table I-1 updates our US Bond Strategy service’s calculations showing the average monthly nonfarm payroll growth that will be required for the unemployment rate to reach 3.5-4.5% assuming a full recovery in the participation rate, which is the range of the Fed’s NAIRU estimates. May’s payroll growth number of 560k implies that the Fed’s maximum employment criterion will be met sometime between June and September next year, if monthly payroll growth continues at that pace. Table I-1Calculating The Distance To Maximum Employment July 2021 July 2021 Chart I-9Lighter Restrictions In Blue States Will Push Down The Unemployment Rate Lighter Restrictions In Blue States Will Push Down The Unemployment Rate Lighter Restrictions In Blue States Will Push Down The Unemployment Rate It is currently difficult to assess with great confidence what average payroll growth will prevail over the coming year, but we noted in last month’s report that there were compelling arguments in favor of outsized jobs growth this fall.1 In addition to those points, we note the following: Blue states have generally been slower to reopen their economies, and Chart I-9 highlights that these states have consequently been slower to return to their pre-pandemic unemployment rate. Among blue states, California and New York are the largest by population, and it is notable that both states only lifted most COVID-19 restrictions on June 15 – including the wearing of masks in most settings. This implies that services jobs are likely to grow significantly in these states over the coming few months. Both consensus private forecasts as well as the Fed’s expectation for real GDP growth imply that the output gap will be closed by Q4 of this year (Chart I-10). These expectations appear to be reasonable, given the substantial amount of excess savings that have been accumulated by US households and the fact that monetary policy remains extremely stimulative. When the output gap turned positive during the last economic cycle, the unemployment rate was approximately 4% – well within the Fed’s NAIRU range. Chart I-10 also shows that the Fed’s 7% real GDP growth forecast for this year would put the output gap above its pre-pandemic level, when the unemployment rate stood at 3.5%. In fact, it is possible that annualized Q2 real GDP growth will disappoint current consensus expectations of 10%, due to the scarcity of labor supply (scarcity that will be eased by labor day when supplemental unemployment insurance benefit programs end). Were Q2 GDP to disappoint due to supply-side limitations, it would strengthen the view that job gains will be very strong this fall ceteris paribus, as it would highlight that real output per worker cannot rise meaningfully further in the short-term and that stronger growth later in the year will necessitate very large job gains. Chart I-11 highlights that US air travel and New York City subway ridership have already returned close to 75% and 50% of their pre-pandemic levels, respectively. Based on the trend over the past three months, the chart implies that air travel will return to its pre-pandemic levels by mid-October of this year, and New York City subway ridership by June 2022. This underscores that travel-related services employment will recover significantly in the fall, and that jobs in downtown cores will rebound as office workers progressively return to work. Chart I-10Expectations For Growth This Year Suggest A Rapid Decline In The Unemployment Rate Expectations For Growth This Year Suggest A Rapid Decline In The Unemployment Rate Expectations For Growth This Year Suggest A Rapid Decline In The Unemployment Rate Chart I-11Services Employment Will Recover In The Fall Services Employment Will Recover In The Fall Services Employment Will Recover In The Fall   On the latter point, one major outstanding question affecting the outlook for monetary policy is the magnitude of the likely permanent impact of work from home policies on employment in central business districts. Fewer office workers commuting to downtown office locations suggests that some jobs in the leisure & hospitality, retail trade, professional & business services, and other services industries will never return or will be very slow to do so, arguing for a longer return to maximum employment (and the Fed’s liftoff date). We examine this question in depth in Section 2 of this month’s report, and find that the “stickiness” of work from home policies will likely cause permanent central business job losses on the order of 575k (or 0.35% of the February 2020 labor force). While this would be non-trivial, when compared with a pre-pandemic unemployment rate of 3.5%, WFH policies alone are not likely to cause a long-term deviation from the Fed’s maximum employment objective. Outsized jobs growth this fall, at a pace that quickly reduces the unemployment rate, argues for a first Fed rate hike that is even earlier than the market expects. Chart I-12 presents The Bank Credit Analyst service’s current assessment of the cumulative odds of the Fed’s liftoff date by quarter; we believe that it is likely that the Fed will have raised rates by Q3 of next year, and that a rate hike in the first half of 2022 is a possibility. These odds are slightly more aggressive than those presented by our fixed-income strategists in a recent Special Report,2 but are consistent with their view that the Fed will raise interest rates by the end of next year. Chart I-12The Bank Credit Analyst’s Assessment Of The Odds Of The First Rate Hike July 2021 July 2021 The odds presented in Chart I-12 are also more hawkish than the Fed funds rate path currently implied by the OIS curve, meaning that we expect investors to be somewhat surprised by a shifting monetary policy outlook at some point over the coming year, potentially over the next 3-6 months. Payroll growth during the late summer and early fall will be a major test for the employment outlook, and is the most likely point for a hawkish shift in the market’s view of monetary policy. Is this likely to become a negative driver for risky asset prices over the coming 6-12 months? In our view, the answer is “probably not.” While investors tend to focus heavily on the timing of the first rate hike as monetary policy begins to tighten, the reality is that it is the least relevant factor driving the fair value of 10-year Treasury yields. Investor expectations for the pace of tightening and especially for the terminal Fed funds rate are far more important, and, while it is quite possible that expectations for the neutral rate of interest will eventually rise, it seems unlikely that this will occur before the Fed actually begins to raise interest rates given that most investors accept the secular stagnation narrative and the view that “R-star” is well below trend rates of growth (we disagree).3 Chart I-13 highlights the fair value path of 10-year Treasury yields until the end of next year, assuming a 2.5% terminal Fed funds rate, no term premium, and a rate hike pace of 1% per year. The chart highlights that while government bond yields are set to move higher over the coming 6-12 months, they are likely to remain between 2-2.5%. This would drop the equity risk premium to a post-2008 low (Chart I-14), which would further reduce the attractiveness of stocks relative to bonds. But we doubt that this would be enough of a decline to cause a selloff, and it would still imply a stimulative level of interest rates for households and firms. Chart I-1310-Year Yields Will Rise Over The Coming Year, But Not Sharply 10-Year Yields Will Rise Over The Coming Year, But Not Sharply 10-Year Yields Will Rise Over The Coming Year, But Not Sharply Chart I-14Rising Yields Will Cause An Unwelcome But Contained Decline In The ERP Rising Yields Will Cause An Unwelcome But Contained Decline In The ERP Rising Yields Will Cause An Unwelcome But Contained Decline In The ERP   Investment Conclusions Among the three factors driving our global macroeconomic outlook and our cyclical investment recommendations, continued progress on the path toward a post-pandemic state and fiscal policy remain either positive or mostly neutral for risky assets. A potentially hawkish shift in the outlook for monetary policy this fall remains the chief risk, but we expect the rise in bond yields over the coming year to remain well-contained barring a sea change in investor expectations for the terminal Fed funds rate – which we believe is unlikely to occur before the Fed begins to raise interest rates. Consequently, we continue to recommend that investors should overweight risky assets within a multi-asset portfolio, and that fixed-income investors should maintain a below-benchmark duration position. We expect modest absolute returns from global equities, but even mid-single digit returns are likely to beat those from long-dated government bonds and cash positions. While value stocks may underperform growth stocks over the coming 3-4 months,4 rising bond yields over the coming year will ultimately favor value stocks and will likely weigh on elevated tech sector (and therefore growth stock) valuations (Chart I-15). Chart I-16 highlights that the attractiveness of US value versus growth is meaningfully less compelling for the S&P 500 Citigroup indexes, suggesting that investors should continue to favor MSCI-benchmarked value over growth positions over a 6-12 month time horizon.5 Chart I-15Value Is Extremely Cheap Value Is Extremely Cheap Value Is Extremely Cheap Chart I-16Value Vs. Growth: The Benchmark Matters Value Vs. Growth: The Benchmark Matters Value Vs. Growth: The Benchmark Matters   The likely outperformance of value versus growth also has implications for regional allocation within a global equity portfolio. The US is significantly overweight broadly-defined technology relative to global ex-US stocks, and financials – which are overrepresented in value indexes – have already meaningfully outperformed in the US this year compared with their global peers and are now rolling over (Chart I-17). This underscores that investors should favor ex-US stocks over the coming year, skewed in favor of DM ex-US given that China’s credit impulse continues to slow (Chart I-18). Chart I-17Favor Global Ex-US Stocks Over The Coming Year Favor Global Ex-US Stocks Over The Coming Year Favor Global Ex-US Stocks Over The Coming Year Chart I-18Concentrate Global Ex-US Exposure In Developed Markets Concentrate Global Ex-US Exposure In Developed Markets Concentrate Global Ex-US Exposure In Developed Markets   Finally, global ex-US stocks also tend to outperform when the US dollar is falling, and we would recommend that investors maintain a short dollar position on a 6-12 month time horizon despite the recent bounce in the greenback. Chart I-19 highlights that the dollar remains strongly negatively correlated with global equity returns, and that the dollar’s performance over the past year has been almost exactly in line with what one would have expected given this relationship. Thus, a bullish view toward global stocks implies both US dollar weakness and global ex-US outperformance over the coming year. Chart I-19A Bullish View Towards Global Stocks Implies A Dollar Bear Market A Bullish View Towards Global Stocks Implies A Dollar Bear Market A Bullish View Towards Global Stocks Implies A Dollar Bear Market Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst June 24, 2021 Next Report: July 29, 2021   II. Work From Home “Stickiness” And The Outlook For Monetary Policy Work from home policies, originally designed as emergency measures in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, are likely to be “sticky” in a post-pandemic world. This will negatively impact the labor market in central business districts, via reduced spending on services by office workers. The potential impact of working from home is often cited as an example of what is likely to be a lasting and negative effect on jobs growth, but we find that it is not likely to be a barrier to the labor market returning to the Fed’s assessment of “maximum employment.” The size of the impact depends importantly on whether employee preferences or employer plans for WFH prevail, but our sense is that the latter is more likely. A weaker pace of structures investment in response to elevated office vacancy rates will likely have an even smaller impact on growth than the effect of reduced central business district services employment. The contribution to growth from structures investment has been small over the past few decades, office building construction is a small portion of overall nonresidential structures, and there are compelling arguments that the net stock of office structures will stay flat, rather than decline. Our analysis suggests that job growth over the coming year could be even stronger than the Fed and investors expect, possibly resulting in a first rate hike by the middle of next year. This would be earlier than we currently anticipate, but it underscores that fixed-income investors should remain short duration on a 6-12 month time horizon, and that equity investors should favor value over growth positions beyond the coming 3-4 months. The outlook for US monetary policy over the next 12 to 18 months depends almost entirely on the outlook for employment. Many investors are focused on the potential for elevated inflation to force the Fed to raise interest rates earlier than it currently anticipates, but it is the progress in returning to “maximum employment” that will determine the timing of the first Fed rate hike – and potentially the speed at which interest rates rise once policy begins to tighten. In this report, we estimate the extent to which the “stickiness” of working from home (WFH) policies and practices could leave a lasting negative impact on the US labor market. We noted in last month's report that a large portion of the employment gap relative to pre-pandemic levels can be traced to the leisure & hospitality and professional and business services industries, both of which – along with retail employment – stand to be permanently impaired if the office worker footprint is much lower in a post-COVID world.6 Using employee surveys and a Monte Carlo approach, we present a range of estimates for the permanent impact of WFH policies on the unemployment rate, and separately examine the potential for lower construction of office properties to weigh on growth. We find that the impact of reduced office building construction is likely to be minimal, and that WFH policies may structurally raise the unemployment rate by 0.3 to 0.4%. While non-trivial, when compared with a pre-pandemic unemployment rate of 3.5%, WFH policies alone are not likely to cause a long-term deviation from the Fed’s maximum employment objective. Relative to the Fed’s expectations of a strong, lasting impact on the labor market from the pandemic, this suggests that job growth over the coming year could be even stronger than the Fed and investors expect, possibly resulting in a first rate hike by the middle of next year. This would be earlier than we currently anticipate, but it underscores that fixed-income investors should remain short duration on a 6-12 month time horizon, and that equity investors should favor value over growth positions beyond the coming 3-4 months (a period that may see outperformance of the latter). Quantifying The Labor Market Impact Of The New Normal For Work In a January paper, Barrero, Bloom, and Davis (“BBD”) presented evidence arguing why working from home will “stick.” The authors surveyed 22,500 working-age Americans across several survey “waves” between May and December 2020, and asked about both their preferences and their employer’s plans about working from home after the pandemic. Chart II-1 highlights that the desired amount of paid work from home days (among workers who can work from home) reported by the survey respondents is to approximately 55% of a work week, suggesting that a dramatic reduction in office presence would likely occur if post-pandemic WFH policies were set fully in accordance with worker preferences. Chart II-1Employee Preferences Imply A Dramatic Reduction In Post-COVID Office Presence July 2021 July 2021 However, Table II-1 highlights that employer plans for work from home policies are meaningfully different than those of employees. The table highlights that employers plan for employees to work from home for roughly 22% of paid days post-pandemic, which essentially translates to one day per week on average.7 BBD noted that CEOs and managers have cited the need to support innovation, employee motivation, and company culture as reasons for employees’ physical presence. Managers believe physical interactions are important for these reasons, but employees need only be on premises for about three to four days a week to achieve this. Table II-1 also shows that employers plan to allow higher-income employees more flexibility in terms of working from home, and less flexibility to employees whose earnings are between $20-50k per year. Table II-1Employer Plans, However, Imply Less Working From Home Than Employees Prefer July 2021 July 2021 Based on the survey results, BBD forecast that expenditure in major cities such as Manhattan and San Francisco will fall on the order of 5 to 10%. In order to understand the national labor market impact of work from home policies and what implications this may have on monetary policy, we scale up BBD’s calculations using a Monte Carlo approach that incorporates estimate ranges for several factors: The percent of paid days now working from home for office workers The amount of money spent per week by office workers in central business districts (“CBDs”) The number of total jobs in CBDs The percent of CBD jobs in industries likely to be negatively impacted by reduced office worker expenditure The average weekly earnings of affected CBD workers The average share of business revenue not attributable to strictly variable expenses The percent of affected jobs likely to be recovered outside of CBDs Our approach is as follows. First, we calculate the likely reduction in nationwide CBD spending from reduced office worker presence by multiplying the likely percent of paid days now permanently working from home by the number of total jobs in CBDs and the average weekly spending of office workers. This figure is then increased due to the estimated acceleration in net move outs from principal urban centers in 2020 (Chart II-2); we assume a 5% savings rate and an average annual salary of $50k for these resident workers, and assume that all of their spending occurred within CBDs. We also assume that roughly 50% of jobs connected to this spending are recovered. Chart II-2Fewer Residents Will Also Lower Spending In Central Business Districts July 2021 July 2021 Then, we calculate the gross number of jobs lost in leisure & hospitality, retail trade, and other services by multiplying this estimate of lost spending by an estimate of non-variable costs as a share of revenue for affected industries, and dividing the result by average weekly earnings of affected employees. For affected CBD employees in the administrative and waste services industry, we simply assume that the share of jobs lost matches the percent of paid days now permanently working from home. Finally, we adjust the number of jobs lost by multiplying by 1 minus an assumed “recovery” rate, given that some of the reduction in spending in CBDs will simply be shifted to areas near remote workers’ residences. We assume a slightly lower recovery rate for lost jobs in the administrative and waste services industry. Table II-2 highlights the range of outcomes for each variable used in our simulation, and Charts II-3 and II-4 present the results. The charts highlight that the distribution of outcomes based on employer WFH intensions suggest high odds that nationwide job losses in CBDs due to reduced office worker presence will not exceed 400k. Based on average employee preferences, that number rises to roughly 800-900k. Table II-2The Factors Affecting Permanent Central Business District Job Losses July 2021 July 2021 Chart II-3The Probability Distribution Of CBD Jobs Lost… July 2021 July 2021 Chart II-4…Based On Our Monte Carlo Approach July 2021 July 2021   This raises the question of whether employer plans or employee preferences for WFH arrangements will prevail. Our sense is that it will be closer to the former, given that we noted above that employer WFH plans are the least flexible for employees whose earnings are between $20-50k per year (who are presumably employees who have less ability to influence the policy of firms). Chart II-5 re-presents the projected job losses shown in Chart II-4 as a share of the February 2020 labor force, along with a probability-weighted path that assumes a 75% chance that employer WFH plans will prevail. The chart highlights that WFH arrangements would have the effect of raising the unemployment rate by approximately 0.35%. However, relative to a pre-pandemic starting point of 3.5%, this would raise the unemployment rate to a level that would still be within the Fed’s NAIRU estimates (Chart II-6). Therefore, the “stickiness” of WFH arrangements alone do not seem to be a barrier to the labor market returning to the Fed’s assessment of “maximum employment,” suggesting that the conditions for liftoff may be met earlier than currently anticipated by investors. Chart II-5CBD Job Losses Will Not Be Trivial, But They Will Not Be Enormous July 2021 July 2021 Chart II-6Sticky WFH Policies Will Not Prevent A Return To Maximum Employment Sticky WFH Policies Will Not Prevent A Return To Maximum Employment Sticky WFH Policies Will Not Prevent A Return To Maximum Employment The Impact Of Lower Office Building Construction A permanently reduced office footprint could also conceivably impact the US economy through reduced nonresidential structures investment, as builders of commercial real estate cease to construct new office towers in response to expectations of a long-lasting glut. However, several points highlight that the negative impact on growth from US office tower construction will be even smaller than the CBD employment impact of reduced office worker presence that we noted above. First, Chart II-7 highlights the overall muted impact that nonresidential building investment has had on real GDP growth by removing the contribution to growth from nonresidential structures and for overall nonresidential investment. The chart clearly highlights that the historically positive contribution to real US output from capital expenditures over the past four decades has come from investment in equipment and intellectual property products, not from structures. Chart II-8 echoes this point, by highlighting that US real investment in nonresidential structures has in fact been flat since the early-1980s, contributing positively and negatively to growth only on a cyclical basis (not on a structural basis). Chart II-7Structures Have Not Contributed Significantly To US Growth For Some Time Structures Have Not Contributed Significantly To US Growth For Some Time Structures Have Not Contributed Significantly To US Growth For Some Time Chart II-8Nonresidential Structures Investment Has Been Flat For Four Decades Nonresidential Structures Investment Has Been Flat For Four Decades Nonresidential Structures Investment Has Been Flat For Four Decades Second, Table II-3 highlights that office properties make up a small portion of investment in private nonresidential structures. In 2019, nominal investment in office structures amounted to $85 billion, compared with $630 billion in overall structures investment, meaning that office properties amounted to just 13% of structures investment. Table II-3Office Structures Investment Is A Small Share Of Total Structures Investment July 2021 July 2021 Table II-4Conceivably, Vacant Office Properties Could Be Converted To Luxury Residential Units July 2021 July 2021 Third, it is true that investment is a flow and not a stock variable, meaning that, if the net stock of office buildings were to fall as a result from WFH policies, then the US economy would see a potentially persistently negative rate of growth from nonresidential structures (which would constitute a drag on growth). But if the net stock were instead to remain flat, then gross office property investment should equal the depreciation of those structures. The second column of Table II-3 highlights that current-cost depreciation of office structures was $53 billion in 2019 (versus nominal gross investment of $85 billion). Had office property investment been ~$30 billion lower in 2019, it would have reduced nominal GDP by a mere 14 basis points (resulting in an annual growth rate of 3.84%, rather than 3.98%). Fourth, there is good reason to believe that the net stock of office properties will stay flat, as the economics of converting offices to luxury housing units (whose demand is not substantially affected by factors such as commuting) – either fully or partially into mixed-use buildings – appear to be plausible. Table II-4 highlights that the average annual asking rent for office space per square foot in Manhattan was $73.23 in Q1 2021, and that the recent median listing home price per square foot is roughly $1,400. In a frictionless world where office space could be instantly and effortlessly sold as residential property, existing prices would imply a healthy (gross) rental yield of 5.2%. Thoughts On The Future Of Office Properties Of course, reality is far from frictionless. There are several barriers that will slow office-to-residential conversion as well as construction costs, which will meaningfully lower the net value of existing office real estate in large central business districts such as Manhattan. In a recent article in the Washington Post, Roger K. Lewis, retired architect and Professor Emeritus of Architecture at the University of Maryland, College Park, detailed several of these technical barriers (which we summarize below).8 Office buildings are typically much wider than residential buildings, the latter usually being 60 to 65 feet in width in order to enable windows and natural light in living/dining rooms and bedrooms. This suggests that office-to-residential conversion might require modifying the basic structure of office buildings, including cutting open parts of roof and floor plates on upper building levels to bring natural light into habitable and interior rooms, and other costly structural modifications to address the additional plumbing and infrastructure that will be needed. Lewis noted that floor-to-floor dimensions are typically larger in office buildings, which is beneficial for office-to-residential conversion because increased room heights augments the sense of space and openness, while allowing natural light to penetrate farther into the apartment. It also allows for extra space to place needed additional building infrastructure, such as sprinkler pipes, electrical conduits, light fixtures, and air ducts. But unique apartment layouts are often needed to use available floor space effectively in an office-to-residential conversion, which will increase design costs and raise the risk that nonstandard layouts may result in unforeseen quality-of-living problems that will necessitate additional future construction to correct. Zoning regulations and building code constraints will likely add another layer of costs to office-to-housing conversions, as these rules are written for conventional buildings, meaning that special exceptions or even regulatory changes are likely to be required. So it is clear that the process of converting office space to residential property will be a costly endeavor for office tower owners, which will likely reduce the net present value of these properties relative to pre-pandemic levels. But; this process appears to be feasible and, when faced with the alternative of persistently high vacancy rates and lost revenue, our sense is that office tower owners will choose this route – thus significantly reducing the likelihood that the growth in national gross investment in office properties will fall below the rate of depreciation. In addition, the trend in suburban and CBD office property prices suggests that there are two other possible alternatives to widespread office-to-residential conversion that would also argue against a significant and long-lasting decline in office structures investment. Chart II-9 highlights that the average asking rent has already fallen significantly in most Manhattan submarkets, and Chart II-10 highlights that suburban office prices are accelerating and rising at the strongest pace relative to CBD office prices over the past two decades, possibly in response to increased demand for workspace that is closer to home for many workers who previously commuted to CBDs. Chart II-9Working From The Office Is Getting Cheaper July 2021 July 2021 Chart II-10Suburban Offices Are Getting More Expensive Suburban Offices Are Getting More Expensive Suburban Offices Are Getting More Expensive Thus, the first alternative outcome to CBD office-to-residential conversion is that an increase in suburban office construction offsets the negative impact of outright reductions in CBD office investment if residential conversions prove to be too costly or too technically challenging. The second alternative is that owners of CBD office properties “clear the market” by dramatically cutting rental rates even further, to alter the cost/benefit calculation for firms planning permissive WFH policies. We doubt that existing rents reflect the extent of vacancies in large cities such as Manhattan, so we would expect further CBD office price declines in this scenario. But if owners of centrally-located office properties face significant conversion costs and a decline in the net present value of these buildings is unavoidable and its magnitude uncertain, owners may choose to cut prices drastically as the simpler solution. Investment Conclusions Holding all else equal, the fact that owners of CBD office properties are likely to experience some permanent decline in the value of these real estate assets is not a positive development for economic activity. But these losses will be experienced by firms, investors, and ultra-high net worth individuals with strong marginal propensities to save, suggesting that the economic impact from this shock will be minimal. And as we highlighted above, a decline in the pace of gross office building investment to the depreciation rate will have a minimal impact on the overall economy. This leaves the likely impact on CBD employment as the main channel by which WFH policies are likely to affect monetary policy. As we noted above and as discussed in Section 1 of our report, the Fed is now focused entirely on the return of the labor market to maximum employment, which we interpret as an unemployment rate within the range of the Fed’s NAIRU estimates (3.5% - 4.5%) and a return to a pre-pandemic labor force participation rate. Chart II-11On A One-Year Time Horizon, Favor Value Over Growth On A One-Year Time Horizon, Favor Value Over Growth On A One-Year Time Horizon, Favor Value Over Growth Our analysis indicates that WFH policies may structurally raise the unemployment rate by 0.3 to 0.4%. While non-trivial, when compared with a pre-pandemic unemployment rate of 3.5%, this suggests that WFH policies alone are not likely to cause a long-term deviation from the Fed’s maximum employment objective. The implication is that job growth over the coming year could be even stronger than the Fed and investors expect, which could mean that the Fed may begin lifting rates by the middle of next year barring a major disruption in the ongoing transition to a post-pandemic world. This is earlier than we currently expect, but the fact that it would also be earlier than what is currently priced into the OIS curve underscores that fixed-income investors should remain short duration on a 6-12 month time horizon. In addition, as noted in Section 1 of our report, while value stocks may underperform growth stocks over the coming 3-4 months,9 rising bond yields over the coming year will ultimately favor value stocks and will likely weigh on elevated tech sector valuations. Chart II-11 highlights that the relative valuation of growth stocks remains above its pre-pandemic starting point (Chart II-11), suggesting that investors should continue to favor MSCI-benchmarked value over growth positions over a 6-12 month time horizon. Finally, as also noted in Section 1 of our report, we do not expect rising bond yields to prevent stock prices from grinding higher over the coming year, unless investor expectations for the terminal fed funds rate move sharply higher – an event that seems unlikely, although not impossible, before monetary policy actually begins to tighten. 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 more 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 already price in a complete earnings recovery, 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, there has been a modest tick down in global ex-US equity performance, driven by a rally in growth stocks (which may persist for a few months). EM stocks had previously dragged down global ex-US performance, and they continue to languish. A bias towards value stocks on a 1-year time horizon means that investors should still favor ex-US stocks over the coming year, skewed in favor of DM ex-US given that China’s credit impulse continues to slow. The US 10-Year Treasury yield has trended modestly lower since mid-March, after having risen to levels that were extremely technically stretched. Despite this pause, our valuation index highlights that bonds are still expensive, and we expect that yields will move higher over the cyclical investment horizon if employment growth in Q3/Q4 implies a faster return to maximum employment than currently projected by the Fed. We expect the rise to be more modest than our valuation index would imply, but we would still recommend a short duration stance within a fixed-income portfolio. The extreme rise in some commodity prices over the past several months is beginning to ease. Lumber prices have fallen close to 50% from their recent high, whereas industrial metals and agricultural prices are down roughly 5% and 17%, respectively. 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 as supply chains normalize, labor supply recovers, and Chinese demand for metals slows. US and global LEIs remain in a solid uptrend, and global manufacturing PMIs are strong. Our global LEI diffusion index has declined significantly, but this likely reflects the outsized impact of a few emerging market countries (whose vaccination progress is still lagging). 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 later this 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 The Bank Credit Analyst "June 2021," dated May 27, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see US Bond Strategy/Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report "A Central Bank Timeline For The Next Two Years," dated June 1, 2021, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report "R-star, And The Structural Risk To Stocks," dated March 31, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see US Equity Strategy "Rotate Into Growth Stocks, Be Granular In The Selection Of Cyclicals," dated June 14, 2021, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 5 For a discussion of the differences in value and growth benchmarks, please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report “Value? Growth? It Really Depends!” dated September 19, 2019, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "June 2021," dated May 27, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 7 Readers should note that the desired share of paid work from home days post-COVID among employees is shown to be lower in Table II-1 than what is implied by Chart II-1 on a weighted-average basis. This is due to the fact that Table II-1 excludes responses from the May 2020 survey wave, because the authors did not ask about employer intensions during that wave. This underscores that the average desired number of paid days working from home declined somewhat over time, and thus argues for the value shown in Table II-1 as the best estimate for employee preferences. 8 Roger K. Lewis, “Following pandemic, converting office buildings into housing may become new ‘normal,’ Washington Post, April 3, 2021. 9 Please see US Equity Strategy "Rotate Into Growth Stocks, Be Granular In The Selection Of Cyclicals," dated June 14, 2021, available at uses.bcaresearch.com