Global

Highlights Over the 2021-22 period, renewable capacity will account for 90% of global electricity-generation additions, per the IEA's latest forecast. This will follow the 45% surge (y/y) in renewable generation capacity added last year, which occurred despite the COVID-19 pandemic (Chart of the Week). Continued investment in renewables and EVs – along with a global economic rebound – are pushing forecasts at banks and trading companies to a $13k - $20k/MT range for copper, vs. ~ $10.6k/Mt (~ $4.80/lb) at present. Should these stronger metals forecasts prove out, investments that extend low-carbon use of fossil fuels via carbon-capture and circular-use technologies will become more attractive. Investment in these technologies has been limited because there is no explicit global reference price to assess investments against. A carbon market or tax would provide such a bogey and accelerate investment. It could be monitored via a Carbon Market Club, which would limit trade to states posting and collecting the tax.1 Feature At almost 280GW, renewable energy capacity additions last year increased 45% y/y, the most since 1999, according to the IEA's most recent update on renewable energy.2 For this year and next, renewables are expected to account for 90% of capacity additions, led by solar PV investment increasing ~ 50% to 162GW. Wind capacity grew 90% last year, increasing to 114GW, and is expected to increase ~ 50% to end-2022. As renewables generation – and EV investment – continues to grow, demand for bulks (steel and iron ore) and base metals, led by copper, will pull prices higher. This is occurring against a backdrop of flat supply growth and physical deficits over the four years ended 2020 (Chart 2). According to the IEA, a 40% increase in steel and copper prices over the September 2020 to March 2021 period played a role in higher solar PV module prices. Chart of the WeekRenewables Capacity Surges The supply side of the copper market will remain in deficit this year and next, in our assessment, and may continue on that trajectory if, as Wood Mackenzie expects, demand grows at a 2% p.a. rate over the next 20 years and miners remain reluctant to commit to the capex required to keep up with demand.3 Chart 2Physical Deficits Will Draw Copper Stocks... ESG risk for copper – and other metals required to build the generation and infrastructure required in the renewables buildout – will increase as prices rise, which also will add to cost.4 Cost increases coupled with increasing ESG risks in this buildout will increase the attractiveness of carbon-capture and circular-economy technology investment, in our view. This would extend the use of low-carbon fossil fuels if the technology can move the world closer to a net-zero carbon future. However, unless and until policy catalyzes this investment, – e.g., via a global carbon trading price or tax – investment in these technologies likely will continue to languish. Carbon-Capture Tech's Unfulfilled Promise The history of Carbon Capture, Utilization and Storage (CCUS) has been one of high hopes and unmet expectations. It is generally recognized as a route to mitigate climate change; however, its deployment has been slower than expected. Low-carbon technology requires more critical metals than its fossil-fuel counterpart (Chart 3). Apart from the issue of cost, the ESG risks of mining metals for the renewable energy transition will increase as more metals are demanded, which we discussed in previous research.5 According to Wood Mackenzie, mining companies will need to invest nearly $1.7 trillion in the next 15 years to help supply enough metals to transition to a low carbon world.6 Chart 3Low-Carbon Tech Is Metals Intensive Given these looming physical requirements for metals, fossil fuels most likely will need to be used for longer than markets currently anticipate, as a bridge to the low-carbon future, or as part of that future, depending on how successfully carbon is removed from the hydrocarbons used to power modern society. If so, using fossil fuels while mitigating their environmental impact will require highly focused technology to lower CO2 and other green-house gas (GHG) emissions during the transition to a low-carbon future. Enter CCUS technology: This technology traps CO2 from sources that use fossil fuels or biomass to make the energy required to run modern societies. In the current iterations of this technology, CO2 can either be compressed and transported, or stored in geological or oceanic reservoirs. This can then be used for Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) to extract harder-to-reach oil by injecting CO2 into the reservoirs holding the hydrocarbons.7 The Scope For CCUS Investment CCUS investment spending is increasing, as are the number of planned facilities using or demonstrating this technology. In the 2020 edition of its Energy Technology Perspectives, the IEA noted 30 new integrated CCUS facilities have been announced since 2017, mostly in advanced economies such as US and Europe, but also in some EM nations. As of 2020, projects at advanced stages of planning represented a total of $27  billion, more than double the investment planned in 2017 (Chart 4). Among its many goals, the Paris Agreement seeks a balance between emissions by man-made sources and removal by greenhouse gas (GHGs) sinks (absorption of the gases) in the second half of the 21st century. Practically, many countries – especially EM economies – will still need to use fossil fuels to develop during this period (Chart 5).8 Chart 4Carbon-Capture Projects To Date Chart 5EM Development Will Require Fossil-Fuel Energy CCUS In The Energy Sector As a fuel that emits fewer GHGs than coal – i.e., half the CO2 of coal – natural gas can be used effectively as a bridge to green-power generation (Chart 6). Chart 6Natural Gas Will Remain Attractive As A Bridge Fuel The CO2 in natgas needs to be removed before dry gas is sold as pipeline-quality gas or LNG. This CO2 is normally vented to the atmosphere; however, by using CCUS technology, it can be reinjected into geological formations and used for EOR. For this reason, LNG companies in the US, the world’s largest LNG exporter, have been looking into investing in CCUS technology in a bid to become greener.9 CCUS can also be used to produce low-cost hydrogen – so-called blue hydrogen – using natural gas and coal, as opposed to the more expensive electrolysis process, which uses renewables-based electricity to produce "green" hydrogen. The lower blue-hydrogen costs will make clean hydrogen more accessible to emerging nations, opening new avenues for the world to use the energy carrier in its decarbonization effort. The Value Of Ccus In Other Industries CCUS technology can be retrofitted to existing power and industrial plants, which, according to the IEA, could otherwise still emit 8 billion tons of CO2 in 2050, around one-quarter of annual energy-sector emissions in 2020. Of the fossil fuel generators, coal-fired power generation presents the biggest CO2 challenge, with most of the emissions coming from China and other EM Asia nations, where the average plant age is less than 20 years. Since the average age of a coal fired power plant is 40 years, according to the US National Association of Regulatory Commissioners, this implies that these plants have a long remaining life and could still be operating until 2050. CCUS is the only alternative to retiring or repurposing existing power and industrial plants. The IEA believes that CCUS is imperative to reach net-zero carbon emissions. In its Sustainable Development Scenario - in which global CO2 emissions from the energy sector decline to net-zero by 2070 – CCUS accounts for 15% of the cumulative reduction in emissions. If the world needs to reach net-zero by 2050 instead, it will need almost 50% more CCUS deployment.10 Properly implemented and scaled, CCUS can allow industries to continue using oil, gas and coal and to attain net-zero carbon emission targets, boosting demand for fossil fuels in the medium term. This is especially important to EM development. Why Aren’t We Further Along In CCUS? What Can Be Done? The main reason CCUS isn’t used more widely is because of its cost. Currently, the cost of capturing carbon varies, based on the amount of CO2 concentration, with Direct Air Capture being most expensive (Chart 7). Given the prohibitive costs, CCUS has not been commercially viable. However, the same argument could have been used against implementing renewable sources of energy. While at one point the Levelized Cost of Energy from renewable sources was high, as these sources have been scaled up – aided in no small part by government subsidies – costs have fallen, following something akin to a Moore’s Law cost-decay curve. A Levelized Cost of Energy for solar generation reported by Lazard Ltd., which allows for comparisons across technologies (e.g., fossil-fuel vs renewable), shows generation costs fell by 89% to $40/MWh from $359/MWh from 2009-2019 (Chart 8). This learning curve was able to take place because of government subsidies, which promoted the deployment of solar technology. Chart 7CCUS Can Be Expensive Chart 8Subsides Could Support CCUS, Just As Was Done For Solar The cost of CCUS technology is falling. For example, in 2019 the Global CCS Institute reported it cost $100/ton to capture carbon from the Canada-based Boundary Dam using a CCS unit built in 2014. The cost of carbon captured at the US-based Petra Nova plant – built three years later – using improved technology was $65/ton. Both are coal-powered electricity plants. The report also noted coal-fired power plants planning to commence operations in 2024-28 using the same CCS technology as those at Boundary Dam and Petra Nova expect carbon costs to be ~ $43/ton, due to steeper learning curves, research, lower capital costs due to economies of scale, and digitalization. One commonality amongst these sources of cost reductions is that companies need to invest more into CCUS and familiarize themselves with this technology. As was the case with renewables, government subsidies would reduce the prohibitive costs of operating CCUS technology, and draw more participation to refining this technology. Early, first-of-its-kind CCUS will be expensive, however subsidies in the form of capital support or tax credits will increase CCUS implementation and research. Boundary Dam and Petra Nova are examples of facilities that benefitted from government subsidies. The facilities received $170 million and $200 million respectively from Canadian and US Government agencies at the time of the CCS units’ construction. The US has also implemented a 45Q tax credit system which pays facilities $50/ton of CO2 stored and $35/ton of CO2 if it is used in applications like Enhanced Oil Recovery. According to the Global CCS Institute, in late-2019, of the eight new CCUS projects that were added in the US, four cited the presence of 45Q as the key driver. Putting Carbon Markets And Taxes To Work The EU’s Emissions Trading System (ETS) market, which was implemented in 2005, is an example of innovative policy which incentivizes companies to curb emissions, using market forces. The price of carbon measured in these markets puts a tangible value on a negative externality, which before this went unrecorded. The downside of this ETS is its reliance on the EU's environmental policy implementation, which is subject to policy changes that complicate supply-demand analysis for longer-term planning – e.g., the recent increase in its emissions target to a minimum of 55% net reduction in GHG emissions by 2030. An alternative to policy-driven trading of emissions rights is a per-ton tax on emissions, which governments would impose and collect. This would raise costs of technologies using fossil fuels – including those used in the mining industry to increase supply of critical bulks and base metals needed for the renewables transition. At the same time, such a tax would give firms supplying and using technologies that raise CO2 levels an incentive to lower CO2 output using CCUS technologies. ETS markets and governments imposing CO2 taxes could form Carbon Market Clubs – a technology developed by William Nordhaus, the 2018 Nobel Laureate in Economics – that restrict trading to states that can demonstrate their participation and support of actual carbon-reduction detailed in the Paris Agreement via trading or tax schemes.11 As the green energy transition gains traction and governments implement more net-zero emissions policies, the price of carbon will rise. As the price of carbon rises, the price tag associated with companies’ carbon emissions will increase with it. With market participants expecting the price of carbon to continue to rise after hitting record values, the incentive for companies operating in the EU to use CCUS technology will rise, as would the incentive for firms facing a carbon tax.12 Bottom Line: Given the meteoric price rise of green metals, underfunded capex, and the ESG risks associated with mining metals for the low carbon future, we expect fossil fuels to play a larger role in the transition to a low-carbon society than markets are currently expecting. For countries to be able to use fossil fuels while ensuring they achieve their climate goals, the use of CCUS technology is important. To increase CCUS uptake, governments will need to subsidize this technology until demand for it gains traction, just like in the case of renewables. Encouraging ETS and carbon-tax schemes also will be required to catalyze action.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com     Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish Brent prices were knocking against the $70/bbl door going to press, following the IEA's assessment of a robust demand recovery in 2H21 (Chart 9). The IEA took its 1H21 demand growth down 270k b/d, owing to COVID-19-induced demand destruction in India, OECD Americas and Europe, but left its 2H21 estimate intact, making overall demand growth for this year 5.4mm b/d. The EIA also expects 5.4mm b/d demand growth for this year, and growth of 3.7mm b/d next year. OPEC left its full-year 2021 demand growth estimate at 6mm b/d. OPEC 2.0 meets again on June 1 and will look to return more of its sidelined production to the market, in our estimation. We will be updating our supply-demand balances and price forecasts in next week's report. Base Metals: Bullish Spot copper prices traded on either side of $4.80/lb on the CME/COMEX market this week as we went to press. Threats of a tax increase in Chile, where a bill calling for such a measure is making its way through Congress; a potential strike by mine workers; and a shortage of sulfuric acid used in the extraction of ore brought about, according to Bloomberg, by reduced global sulfur supplies due to lower refinery runs during the pandemic all are keeping copper well bid. Our target for Dec21 COMEX copper remains $5/lb (~ $11k/ton on the LME). We remain long calendar 2022 COMEX copper vs short 2023 COMEX copper expecting physical supply deficits to continue to force storage draws, which will backwardate the metal's forward curve. Precious Metals: Bullish US CPI data on Wednesday showed that headline inflation rose by 4.2% for the month of April compared to the previous year. While this increase is the highest since 2008, this jump could also be fueled by a low base effect – Inflation levels were falling this time last year as the pandemic picked up. While rising prices increases demand for gold as an inflation hedge, if the Federal Reserve increases interest rates on the back of this data, the US dollar will rise, negatively affecting gold prices (Chart 10). However, we do not expect the Fed to abruptly change its guidance on this report, and therefore expect the central bank will treat this blip as transitory. As of yesterday’s close, COMEX gold was trading at $1,835.9/oz. Ags/Softs: Neutral Going to press, the Chicago soybean market was surging ahead of the scheduled World Agriculture Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE) report due out later Wednesday. Front-month beans were trading ~ $16.70/bu, up 2% on the day. This month's WASDE will contain the USDA's first estimate for demand in ag markets for the 2021/22 crop year. Markets are expecting supplies to tighten as demand strengthens. Chart 9 Chart 10   Footnotes 1     Please see Carbon Market Clubs and the New Paris Regime published by the World Bank in July 2016.  The intellectual and computational framework for such technology was developed by William Nordhaus, the 2018 Nobel Laureate in Economics. 2     Please see Renewable Energy Market Update, Outlook for 2021 and 2022.pdf, published by the IEA this week. 3    WoodMac notes, "without additional substantial investment, production will decline from 2024 onwards. Coupled with demand growth, this decline in output will lead to a theoretical shortfall of around 16 Mt by 2040."  The consultancy estimates an additional $325 - $500+ billion will be needed to meet copper demand over this period.  Please see Will a lack of supply growth come back to bite the copper industry? Published 23 March 2021 by woodmac.com. 4    Please see Renewables ESG Risks Grow With Demand, which we published 29 April 2021.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 5    Refer to footnote 4. 6    Please see Low carbon world needs $1.7 trillion in mining investment, published by Reuters. 7     This method is used to increase oil production. It changes the properties of the hydrocarbons, restores formation pressure and enhances oil displacement in the reservoir. Using EOR, oil companies can recover 30% to 60% of the original oil level in the reservoir.  Please see Enhanced Oil Recovery published by the US Department of Energy. 8    Please see the Reuter’s column CO2 emission limits and economic development. 9    Please see World Oil’s U.S. LNG players tout carbon capture in bid to boost green image. 10   Please see IEA’s Special Report on Carbon Capture Utilisation and Storage, published as a part of the Energy   Technology Perspective 2020.  11    See footnote 1 above. 12    Please see Cost of polluting in EU soars as carbon price hits record €50 by the Financial Times. Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2021 Summary of Closed Trades

Highlights The modern-day version of the Phillips curve posits that core inflation is determined by long-term inflation expectations and the amount of slack in the economy. In practice, using the Phillips curve to forecast inflation is complicated by uncertainty over: 1) the true size of the output gap; 2) the degree to which changes in the output gap affect inflation; and 3) the drivers of long-term inflation expectations. While economists should be humble in forecasting inflation trends, the bulk of the evidence suggests that core inflation will remain subdued for the next two-to-three years. However, when inflation eventually does begin to rise, it could happen faster and more forcefully than expected. For the time being, inertia in inflation expectations will allow the Fed and other central banks to maintain a highly accommodative monetary stance. This will keep a lid on bond yields, while fueling further gains in equity prices. Today’s goldilocks environment will give way to a period of stagflation in the second half of the decade, however.  The Phillips Curve: Flat… For Now It has become fashionable to criticize the Phillips curve. The reason is understandable: Wild swings in the unemployment rate over the past few decades have failed to translate into meaningful changes in inflation. As we argue in this report, however, it is too early to write off the Phillips curve. Perhaps not today, perhaps not tomorrow, but at some point, it will come roaring back. Investors need to be on guard for when it happens. Conceptually, the modern-day version of the Phillips curve posits that core inflation is a function of long-term inflation expectations and the amount of slack in the economy. Mathematically, it can be written as:   Where πt is core inflation at time t, πe is expected long-term inflation, y is GDP, ȳ is the potential (or “full employment”) level of GDP, and α is a parameter specifying how sensitive inflation is to changes in the output gap, yt – ȳt. A positive output gap implies that output is above potential while a negative gap implies output is below potential. The equation reveals three sources of uncertainty about inflation: 1) the true size of the output gap; 2) the degree to which changes in the output gap affect inflation; and 3) the drivers of long-term inflation expectations. Let’s examine all three sources of uncertainty in order to gauge where the balance of risks to inflation lie over the coming months and years.   1. What Is The Current Size Of The Output Gap? Chart 1Prime-Age Employment-To-Population Ratios Remain Below Pre-Pandemic Levels The short answer is that no one knows. The employment-to-population ratio in the OECD for workers between the ages of 25-to-54 was still more than two percentage points below pre-pandemic levels as of the end of last year (Chart 1). The labor market has tightened since then, especially in the US. However, even if US payrolls rise by 1 million in April as per Bloomberg consensus estimates, total employment would still be down 4.7% from January 2020. Admittedly, other data point to a much tighter labor market. US small businesses surveyed by the NFIB have been reporting grave difficulty in finding qualified workers (Chart 2). The job openings rate is at an all-time high, while the quits rate is near pre-pandemic levels (Chart 3). Chart 2US: Temporary Labor Shortage (I) Chart 3US: Temporary Labor Shortage (II)     How does one square widespread stories of labor shortages with the fact that total employment remains depressed? A pessimistic interpretation is that the pandemic pushed up structural unemployment. We are skeptical of this thesis. A similar narrative was invoked shortly after the Great Recession to justify tighter fiscal policy and an early start to rate hikes. In the end, not only did the unemployment rate return to pre-GFC levels, but it dropped to a 50-year low. A more plausible explanation is that many service sector workers are currently reluctant to re-enter the labor market due to lingering fears about the pandemic, and in some cases, the need to remain home to look after young children studying remotely. In addition, generous unemployment benefits – which for more than half of US workers exceed their take-home pay – have reduced the incentive to work. Expanded unemployment benefits will expire in September. As the pandemic winds down and schools fully reopen, more workers will rejoin the labor force. Bottom Line: Temporary dislocations are curbing labor supply. However, the level of employment will probably not return to its pre-pandemic trend for another 12 months in the US. It will take even longer to get back to full employment in the euro area and Japan. 2. How Do Changes In The Output Gap Affect Inflation? The Phillips curve was reasonably steep between the mid-1960s and mid-1980s. As such, a falling output gap generally corresponded to rising inflation and vice versa. The result was a series of “clockwise spirals” in inflation-unemployment space, as illustrated in Charts 4A & 4B. Chart 4AThe Phillips Curve Was Steep In The 1960s-1980s Chart 4BThe Phillips Curve Has Been Flat In Recent Decades Starting in the 1990s, the Phillips curve flattened out. By the time of the Great Recession, the slope of the curve was indistinguishable from zero. Will the Phillips curve remain flat? Over the next two years, the answer is probably yes. However, looking beyond then, it is likely to re-steepen again. Chart 5 shows that the “wage version” of the Phillips curve never became very flat. Even after the mid-1980s, there was still a consistently strong negative correlation between wage growth and the unemployment rate. Chart 5The Wage Version Of The Phillips Curve Is Alive And Well Chart 6Inflation Started Accelerating Quickly Only When Unemployment Reached Very Low Levels In The 1960s   Why, then, did stronger wage growth fail to translate into rising price inflation over the past three decades? To a large extent, the answer is that the Fed began to hike interest rates every time the labor market showed signs of overheating. Higher rates, in turn, led to asset busts. During the 1991 recession, it was the commercial real estate bust; in 2001, it was the dotcom bust; and in 2008, it was the housing bust. All three asset busts led to recessions and higher unemployment before wage growth could seep into inflation. What is different this time is that the Fed is a lot more patient. This means that the economy may eventually overheat to a degree not seen in recent history. How long will that take? Probably a few more years. Consider the case of the 1960s. The unemployment rate was at or below its full employment level for four straight years before inflation took off in 1966 (Chart 6). The shortage of workers spawned a major wage-price spiral. Workers demanded higher wages in response to rising prices, which forced firms to further lift prices in order to defend profit margins. Chart 7US Wage Barometers Disaggregated The US is nowhere near that point now. While some measures of wage growth have accelerated, this mainly reflects a “composition bias” in the way wage indices are constructed. The pandemic led to significant job losses in low-wage sectors such as retail and hospitality, which skewed the calculation of average hourly wages and median weekly earnings to the upside. Cleaner measures of wage growth, such as the Employment Cost Index or the Atlanta Fed Wage Tracker, have been fairly stable over the course of the pandemic1 (Chart 7). Bottom Line: There is good reason to think that the Phillips curve is “kinked”, meaning that inflation might not rise much until the labor market has severely overheated. For now, no major economy is near the kink.   3. Will Long-Term Inflation Expectations Stay Well Anchored? One of the distinguishing features of the clockwise spirals in Chart 4 is that they trace out a series of “higher highs” and “higher lows” for inflation during the period between the mid-1960 and early-1980s. In essence, what happened back then was that inflation would rise, prompting the Fed to step on the brakes ever so gingerly. Inflation would then decline modestly, but not by enough to bring it back to its original level. The “stickiness” of inflation during that era highlights the importance of inflation expectations. In the context of the Phillips curve, a change in long-term inflation expectations could, at least theoretically, affect realized inflation independent of what happens to the output gap. In practice, however, the size of the output gap is likely to influence inflation expectations and vice versa. A persistently positive output gap will cause inflation to consistently exceed its long-term expected value. As Milton Friedman and Edmund Phelps pointed out more than four decades ago, this will eventually prompt businesses and the public to revise up their expectations of inflation. Unless the central bank lifts interest rates by enough, a rise in inflation expectations could spur people to increase spending in advance of higher prices. This could cause the economy to further overheat, leading to even higher inflation expectations. In other words, a positive output gap could lead to higher inflation expectations, and higher inflation expectations, in turn, could push aggregate demand even further above potential. Suppose that people jettison the expectation of a stable long-term inflation rate and adopt an “adaptive” approach whereby they assume that inflation this year simply will be what it was last year. This is equivalent to replacing πe in the Phillips curve equation with πt-1, yielding:   This is the “accelerationist” version of the Phillips curve. It says that the output gap determines the change in inflation rather than the level of inflation. With an accelerationist Phillips curve, inflation can increase without bound if the central bank tries to keep output above its potential level. The transition to an accelerationist Phillips curve appears to have happened in the 1970s. As my colleague Jonathan Laberge has argued, and as recent empirical work has emphasized, changes in inflation expectations generally have a larger impact on realized inflation than changes in the output gap. In particular, it is difficult to explain the Volcker disinflation solely based on the movement in the unemployment rate. Inflation continued to fall even after the unemployment rate peaked in December 1982. The surprising decline in inflation following the recession even prompted two young economists working at the Council of Economic Advisors, Paul Krugman and Larry Summers, to pen a memo entitled “The Inflation Timebomb?” in which they predicted a “significant reacceleration of inflation in the near future”. Chart 8Long-Term Inflation Expectations Remain Well Anchored Today Why did inflation keep falling in the 1980s as the economy recovered? A plausible theory is that Paul Volcker’s appointment to Fed chair marked a “regime shift” in the conduct of monetary policy. No longer would the Fed stand idly by as inflation galloped higher. Even if it took double digit interest rates and a deep recession, the Fed would do what was needed to break the back of inflation. This allowed the accelerationist Phillips curve of the 1970s to transition to its modern-day version characterized by low and stable inflation expectations. What does all this mean for today? Both survey and market-based measures of long-term inflation expectations remain well anchored (Chart 8). Given that inflation expectations have been low and stable for the past few decades, it may take even more overheating than what occurred in the 1960s to unmoor them. Such an unmooring of inflation expectations is not impossible, however. The Fed seems eager to overheat the economy. Fiscal policy is likely to remain highly accommodative long after the pandemic restrictions ease. Meanwhile, as we discussed in an earlier report, many of the structural factors that have suppressed inflation could go into reverse. Bottom Line: Inflation expectations are likely to remain well anchored for the next two years. However, they could become unmoored later on if monetary and fiscal policy remain highly accommodative. Concluding Thoughts There is a lot of concern over inflation these days. We would fade these concerns, at least for the time being. The much-discussed spike in manufacturing input prices is nothing new. The exact same thing happened in 2008 and 2011 (Chart 9). Pundits who hyperventilated about soaring inflation were proven wrong back then and they are likely to be proven wrong again this year. Chart 9Wholesale Inflation Rose (Briefly) In 2008 And 2011 Too Chart 10The Most Refined Measures Of Core Inflation Paint A Benign Picture   The pandemic distorted prices in all sorts of unprecedented ways. This means that looking at standard measures of core inflation may be misleading. It is much better to consider more refined measures of core inflation that go beyond simply stripping out the effects of volatile food and energy prices. Chart 10 shows that trimmed-mean inflation, median price inflation, and sticky price inflation all suggest that underlying inflation remains well contained. Continued low inflation will allow the Fed to maintain a highly accommodative monetary policy. This will keep a lid on bond yields, while fueling further gains in equity prices. When will it be time to worry? When the labor market starts to overheat to the point that a wage-price spiral erupts. As discussed above, that is not a near-term risk. However, such a spiral could occur in two-to-three years, setting the stage for a period of stagflation in the second half of the decade.   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist pberezin@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Unlike the widely followed average hourly wage series published every month in the payrolls report, the quarterly Employment Cost Index (ECI) does control for shifts in the weights of different industries in total employment. Thus, an increase in the relative number of low-paid hospitality workers would depress average hourly wages, but would not affect the ECI. Nevertheless, the ECI does not control for the possibility that the composition of the workforce within industries may change over time. The Atlanta Fed's Wage Tracker does overcome this bias because it uses the same sample of workers from one period to the next.   Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores

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