Global

Dear Client, In addition to our regular report, this week we are sending a Special Report written by my colleague Lucas Laskey from BCA Research’s Equity Analyzer service titled “Is The Reopening Trade Closed?”. The report discusses the state of the reopening trade through the lens of Equity Analyzer's factor model. I hope you find the report insightful. Additionally, please join us next week on Friday, May 7, 2021 at 10am EDT as I moderate a debate between my colleagues Arthur Budaghyan, BCA Research’s Chief Emerging Market Strategist, and Robert Ryan, Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist. Titled “A Debate On Commodities,” Arthur and Bob will discuss the outlook for commodities, touching on the trajectory both DM and China/EM growth will follow, the path for the US dollar, and other cyclical and structural forces currently shaping commodity markets. During the webcast, Arthur and Bob will highlight the areas they disagree on and the reasons behind their differing views. Best regards, Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist Highlights Bitcoin is on a collision course with ESG. ESG interests will win out. Widespread adoption of cryptocurrencies, if it were to happen, would erode the purchasing power of traditional money, while robbing governments of billions of dollars in seigniorage revenue. Governments have already begun to take steps to thwart such an outcome. Restrictions on the use of cryptocurrencies will only increase over the coming years. The rollout of Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) represents an existential threat not only to cryptos, but potentially to credit card companies and online payment processors such as PayPal, Square, Venmo, WeChat Pay, and Alipay. Shorting cryptocurrencies, meme stocks, or any other high-flying asset is risky business. Fortunately, there is a way to flip the usual risk-reward from going short on its head. Rather than facing unlimited losses and a maximum gain of only 100% of the initial position, we outline a shorting strategy that caps the loss at 100% but allows for unlimited gains. Bitcoin’s Questionable ESG Record Crypto critics have often blamed cryptocurrencies for facilitating illicit transactions and enlarging the world’s carbon footprint. There is some truth to both claims. Motivated to avoid detection, online scammers, smugglers, and terrorists have been drawn to cryptocurrencies. Cryptos have also been used to evade capital controls and conceal wealth from the tax authorities. On the environmental side, Bitcoin mining now consumes more energy than entire countries such as Sweden, Argentina, and Pakistan (Chart 1). Moreover, about 70% of Bitcoin mining currently takes place in China, mainly using electricity generated by burning coal. A lot of the remaining mining occurs in countries such as Russia and Iran with questionable governance records. Chart 1How Dare You, Bitcoin Cryptos And Inequality One criticism of Bitcoin that is less frequently mentioned is its role in exacerbating wealth inequality. We are not just talking about the small number of “whales” who amassed huge fortunes by buying or mining Bitcoin shortly after it was created. If these whales sell their coins at today’s prices and the price of  Bitcoin eventually crashes, those early investors will have ended up profiting at the expense of smaller investors who bought at the top. While such a transfer of income may be unsavory, it is not much different from what happens when someone sells a high-flying stock to the proverbial bagholder just as the stock is peaking. The more interesting question is what happens if Bitcoin prices do not crash. It might be tempting to think that in such a scenario, no one would be worse off. But that is incorrect. There would still be losers, and importantly, these losers would consist of people who never bought or sold Bitcoin in their lives. To see why, ask yourself who suffers from counterfeit currency. One possibility is shopkeepers who inadvertently accept counterfeit cash and find themselves stuck with worthless money. But even if the counterfeit money is never detected, there would still be losers: Fake money dilutes the value of genuine money, making everyone who holds the genuine money worse off. Crypto evangelists like to argue that cryptocurrencies offer protection against the “debasement of fiat money.” Ironically, the widespread adoption of cryptocurrencies could produce a self-fulfilling cycle that leads to just such an inflationary outcome. If enough people decide to swap fiat currencies for cryptos, the dollar and other fiat monies could become “hot potatoes.” The price of cryptos would rise in relation to dollars. Feeling more wealthy, crypto holders would spend some of their wealth on goods and services. As long as the economy is operating below potential, this would not be such a bad thing since increased spending would generate more output and employment. However, once the output gap disappears, more spending would result in higher inflation. The purchasing power of fiat currencies would decline. The Empire Strikes Back Will governments allow such a massive transfer of wealth from holders of fiat currencies to holders of crypto currencies to occur? It seems highly unlikely. In order to entice people to hold on to their fiat currency bank deposits, central banks would have to raise interest rates. Debt-strapped governments would not like that. Governments also generate significant revenue from their ability to print currency and then exchange it for goods and services. For the US, this “seigniorage revenue” is around $100 billion per year (Chart 2). No government will want to part with this revenue. A financial system where loans and deposits are denominated in cryptocurrencies would be highly unstable. Even if the supply of each individual cryptocurrency were capped, the rise and fall of competing cryptocurrencies could still result in large shifts in the aggregate cryptocurrency money supply. Moreover, wild swings in cryptocurrency prices, both versus fiat currencies and one another, could destroy any semblance of price stability. The value of bank loans made in Bitcoin or other cryptos would experience great fluctuations. Powerless to issue cryptocurrencies themselves, central banks would not be able to provide unlimited liquidity support to commercial banks as they do now. The situation would resemble the US in the late 19th century when myriad currencies competed with one another and the financial system veered from one crisis to another (Chart 3). Chart 2Governments Will Not Part With Seigniorage Revenue Chart 3An Inelastic Money Supply Historically Led To More Banking Crises   What Is It Good For? One might argue that the ultimate aim of cryptocurrencies is not to displace fiat money. Okay, but if Bitcoin can never truly function as a medium of exchange or a unit of account, what exactly underpins its utility as a store of value? At least with gold, you get an extremely rare metal, forged in the collision of neutron stars billions of years ago, that has great aesthetic value. With cryptos, you get fairy dust. In past reports, we referred to Bitcoin as a “solution in search of a problem.” In retrospect, that characterization was much too charitable. Bitcoin is a problem in search of a problem. Whereas the Visa network can process over 20,000 transactions per second, the Bitcoin network can barely process five (Chart 4). Bitcoin transactions take 10 minutes-to-an hour to complete compared to just a few seconds for most debit or credit card transactions. The average fee for a Bitcoin transaction is around $30. This fee has been rising, not falling, over the past few years (Chart 5). Chart 4Bitcoin: The Speed Of Transactions, Or Lack Of It Chart 5Bitcoin: The Cost Per Transaction Is Rising     Look Out Below Table 1A Growing List Of Cryptocurrency Bans Cryptos are heading for a world of pain. ESG concerns will force companies to step back from their newfound infatuation with these magic beans. Meanwhile, governments will tighten the screws on cryptocurrencies while rolling out their own digital monies. As my colleague Chester Ntonifor pointed out last week, a growing list of countries have already moved to ban Bitcoin transactions (Table 1). In addition, most G10 central banks have outlined their own digital currency plans (Map 1). Not only will Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) squeeze out decentralised cryptocurrencies, they will also pose an existential risk to credit card companies and online payment processors such as PayPal, Square, Venmo, WeChat Pay, and Alipay. Map 1Many Central Banks Are Planning A Digital Currency The Risk Of Shorting Bitcoin These days, there is no shortage of ways to short Bitcoin. Many cryptocurrency platforms permit short selling. In addition, one can bet against Bitcoin through the futures market. To the extent that the fortunes of companies such as Coinbase are tied to the crypto market, one can also express a short view on cryptos through listed equities. Yet, shorting cryptos is a risky strategy. Cryptocurrencies do not have any intrinsic value. What you think a Bitcoin is worth depends on what others think it is worth and vice versa. At present, the value of all Bitcoins that have ever been issued is about $1 trillion. Eighteen cryptocurrencies have valuations exceeding $10 billion (Table 2). The market capitalization of all cryptocurrencies in circulation stands at $2 trillion. In contrast, the value of all the gold that has ever been mined is around $10 trillion (Chart 6). It is certainly possible that euphoric investors will push up the value of cryptocurrencies to the point that they are collectively worth more than all the gold in the world. Table 2Close To 20 Cryptos Have A Market Cap In Excess Of US$10bn Chart 6Gold Versus Cryptocurrencies     To guard against this risk, one needs a prudent strategy for shorting not just high-flying cryptocurrencies, but any security whose price can rise significantly. Luckily, such a strategy exists. How To Short Without Losing Your Shorts Clients sometimes ask me what I invest my money in. The answer is that most of my liquid wealth is held in publicly traded US small cap stocks. I have been investing in this space for over two decades (prior to joining Goldman, I even wrote a blog about it). I used my knowledge of stock picking to develop an early version of BCA’s Equity Analyzer. David Boucher and his team have since transformed it into a powerful, state-of-the-art stock selection service. Table 3Don’t Be Like Melvin Shorting small cap stocks is risky business. To limit the risk, I have employed a strategy that flips the usual risk-reward from shorting on its head. Normally, when you short a stock, your gain is capped at 100% of the initial position whereas your potential loss is unlimited. With my shorting technique, your potential loss is capped at 100% while your potential gain is unlimited. To illustrate how the strategy works, let us consider shorting one particular overpriced “meme” stock that has been in the news a lot this year. I won’t single out the name of the company, other than to note that it begins with “G” and ends with “stop.” At the time of writing, this mystery stock was trading at $180 per share. Suppose you shorted 1,000 shares at that price. The basic idea is to then short 2% more shares if the price falls by 1% and cover 2% of your shares if the price rises by 1%. So, in this case, you would increase your short position to 1020 shares if the price were to fall to around $178 but cover 20 shares (leaving you with 980 shares short) if the price were to rise to $182. Table 3 shows the number of shares you would need to be short for any given price between $5 and $360. If the price of the shares were to fall to $10 (double what it was last August), the strategy would generate roughly $3,060,000 in profits.1 In contrast, if the price were to rise to $360 per share, the strategy would incur a loss of $90,000. Even if the price went to infinity, the most you would lose is $180,000. There are a number of challenges to implementing this strategy: 1) It requires frequent trading; 2) gap downs and gap ups in the price could meaningfully hurt the results; 3) it is not always possible to short a stock and even when it is, the borrowing costs could be high, etc. Nevertheless, as a “rule of thumb,” I have found this strategy to be extremely effective in mitigating risk.   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist pberezin@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1    Notice that the profit of $3,060,000 from going short 1,000 shares in the case where the price of the stock falls from $180 to $10 is equal to 17 times the initial short position of $180,000 (i.e., $3,060,000 divided by 180,000 is 17). This is exactly the same return that one would earn if one went long the stock and the price rose from $10 to $180. In this case, the profit would also be equal to 17 times the initial investment (i.e., $1,800,000-$100,000 divided by $100,000 is 17). Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores

Highlights Rising CO2 emissions on the back of stronger global energy growth this year will keep energy markets focused on expanding ESG risks in the buildout of renewable generation via metals mining (Chart of the Week).   EM energy demand is expected to grow 3.4% this year vs. 2019 levels and will account for ~ 70% of global energy demand growth.  Demand in DM economies will fall 3% this year vs 2019 levels.  Overall, global demand is expected to recover all the ground lost to the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the IEA.  Rising energy demand will be met by higher fossil-fuel use, with coal demand increasing by more than total renewables generation this year and accounting for more than half of global energy demand growth. Demand for renewable power will increase by 8,300 TWh (8%) this year, the largest y/y increase recorded by the IEA.  As renewables generation is built out, demand for bulks (iron ore and steel) and base metals will increase.1  Building that new energy supply will contribute to rising CO2, particularly in the renewables' supply chains. Feature Energy demand will recover much of the ground lost to the COVID-19 pandemic last year, according to the IEA.2 Most of this is down to successful rollouts of vaccination programs in systemically important economies – e.g., China, the US and the UK – and the massive fiscal and monetary stimulus deployed to carry the global economy through the pandemic. The risk of further lockdowns and uncontrolled spread of variants of the virus remains high, but, at present, progress continues to be made and wider vaccine distribution can be expected. The IEA expects a global recovery in energy demand of 4.6% this year, which will put total demand at ~ 0.5% above 2019 levels. The global rebound will be led by EM economies, where demand is expected to grow 3.4% this year vs. 2019 levels and will account for ~ 70% of global energy demand growth. Energy demand in DM economies will fall 3% this year vs 2019 levels. Overall, global demand is expected to recover all the ground lost to the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the IEA. Chart of the WeekGlobal CO2 Emissions Will Rebound Post-COVID-19 Coal demand will lead the rebound in fossil-fuel use, which is expected to account for more than total renewables demand globally this year, covering more than half of global energy demand growth. This will push CO2 emissions up by 5% this year. Asia coal demand – led by China's and India's world-leading coal-plant buildout over the past 20 years – will account for 80% of world demand (Chart 2). Chart 2China, India Lead Coal-Fired Generation Buildout Demand for renewable power will post its biggest year-on-year gain on record, increasing by 8,300 TWh (8%) this year. This increase comes at the back of roughly a decade of an increasing share of electricity from renewables globally (Chart 3). As renewables generation is built out, demand for bulks (iron ore and steel) and base metals will increase.3 Building that new energy supply will contribute to rising CO2, particularly in the renewables' supply chains. Chart 3Share of Electricity From Renewables Has Been Increasing ESG Risks Increase With Renewables Buildout Governments have pledged to invest vast sums of money into the green energy transition, to reduce fossil fuels consumption and deforestation, thus curbing temperature increases. In addition, banks have pledged trillions will be made available to support the buildout of renewable technologies over the coming years. The World Bank, under the most ambitious scenarios considered (IEA ETP B2DS and IRENA REmap), projects that renewables, will make up approximately 90% of the installed electricity generation capacity up to 2050. This analysis excludes oil, biomass and tidal energy. (Chart 4). Building these renewable energy sources will be extremely mineral intensive (Chart 5). Chart 4Renewables Potential Is Huge … While we have highlighted issues such as a lack of mining capex and decreasing ore grades in past research – both of which can be addressed by higher metals and minerals prices – the environmental, social and governance (ESG) risks posed by mining are equally important factors for investors, policymakers and mining companies to consider.4 The mining industry generally uses three principal sources of energy for its operations – diesel fuel (mostly in moving mined ore down the supply chain for processing), grid electricity and explosives. Of these three, diesel and electricity consumption contributes substantially to mining’s GHG emissions. In the mining stage, land clearing, drilling, blasting, crushing and hauling require a considerable amount of energy, and hence emit the highest amounts of greenhouse gases (GHGs). Chart 5… As Are Its Mineral Requirements The Environmental Impact Of Mining Under the scenarios depicted in Chart 5, copper suppliers could be called on to produce approximately 21mm MT of the red metal annually between now and 2050, which is equivalent to a 7% annual increase of supplies vs. the 2017 reference year shown in the chart. Mining sufficient amounts of copper, a metal which is critical to the renewable energy buildout, both in terms of quantity and versatility, will test miners' and governments' ability to extract sufficient amounts of ore for further processing without massively damaging the environment or indigenous populations' habitats (Chart 6). Chart 6Copper Spans All Renewables Technologies A recent risk analysis of 308 undeveloped copper orebodies found that for 180 of the orebodies – roughly equivalent to 570mm MT of copper – ore-grade risk was characterized as moderate-to-high risk.5 High risk implies a lower concentration of metal in the ore deposits. Mining in ore bodies with lower copper grades will be more energy intensive, and thus will emit more greenhouse gases. Table 1 is a risk matrix of the 40 mines that have the most amount of copper tonnage in this analysis: 27 of these mines displayed in the matrix have a medium-to-high grade risk. Table 1Mining Risk Matrix Another analysis established a negative relationship between the ore-grade quality and energy consumption across mines for different metals and minerals.6 This paper found that, as ore grade depletes, the energy needed to extract it and send it along the supply chain for further processing is exponentially higher (Chart 7). Lastly, a recent examination found that in 2018, primary metals and mining accounted for approximately 10% of the total greenhouse gases. Using a case study of Chile, the world’s largest producer of the red metal, the researchers found that fuel consumption increased by 130% and electricity consumption per unit of mined copper increased by 32% from 2001 to 2017. This increase was primarily due to decreasing ore grades.7 As ore grades continue to fall, these exponential relationships likely will persist or become more significant. Chart 7Energy Use Rises As Ore Quality Falls Bottom Line: While technology can improve extraction, it cannot reduce the minimum energy required for the mining process. This increased energy use will contribute to the total amount of CO2 and other GHGs emitted in the process of extracting the ores required to realize a low-carbon future. Trade-Off Between CO2 Emissions And Economic Development A recent Reuters analysis highlights the gap between EM and DM from the perspective of their renewable energy transition priorities.8 Of the 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), “Taking action to combat climate change” takes precedence over the rest for DM economies. This is largely because they have already dealt with other energy and income intensive SDGs such as improvements in healthcare and poverty reduction. The large scale of unmet energy demand in developing countries poses a huge challenge to controlling CO2 emissions. The populations of these countries are growing fast and are projected to continue increasing over the next three decades. Rising populations, make the issue of a "green-energy transition" extremely dynamic – i.e., not only do EM economies need to replace existing fossil fuels, but they also need to add enough extra zero-emission fuel sources to meet the growth in energy demand. Bottom Line: Coupled with the increased amount of energy required to mine the same amount of metal (due to lower ore grades), rising energy demand resulting from a burgeoning population in EM economies - which use fossil fuels to meet their primary needs - will require more metals to be mined for the renewable energy transition. This will further increase the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions from mine activity, and increase the risk to indigenous populations living close-by to the sources of this new metals supply. ESG risks will increase as a result, presenting greater challenges to attracting funding to these efforts.   Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com   Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish OPEC 2.0 was expected to stick with its decision to return ~ 2mm b/d of supply to the market at its ministerial meeting Wednesday. Markets remain wary of demand slowing as COVID-19-induced lockdowns persist and case counts increase globally. The production being returned to market includes 1mm b/d of voluntary cuts by Saudi Arabia, which could, if needs be, keep barrels off the market if demand weakens. Base Metals: Bullish Front-month COMEX copper is holding above $4.50/lb, after breaching its 11-year high earlier this week. The proximate cause of the initial lift above that level was news of a strike by Chilean port workers on Monday protesting restrictions on early pension-fund drawdowns, according to mining.com. After a slight breather, prices returned to trading north of $4.50/lb by mid-week. Last week, we raised our Dec21 COMEX copper price forecast to $5.00/lb from $4.50/lb. Separately, high-grade iron ore (65% Fe) hit record highs, while the benchmark grade (62% Fe) traded above $190/MT earlier in the week on the back of lower-than-expected production by major suppliers and USD weakness. Steel futures on the Shanghai Futures Exchange hit another record as well, as strong demand and threats of mandated reductions in Chinese steel output to reduce pollution loom (Chart 8). Precious Metals: Bullish Rising COVID cases, especially in India, Brazil and Japan are increasing gold’s safe-haven appeal (Chart 9). The US CFTC, in its Commitment of Traders (COT) report for the week ending April 20, stated that speculators raised their COMEX gold bullish positions. At the end of the two-day FOMC meeting, the Fed decided against lifting interest rates and withdrawing support for the US economy. However, officials sounded more optimistic about the economy than they did in March. The decision did not give any sign interest rates would be lifted, or asset purchases would be tapered against the backdrop of a steadily improving economy.  Net, this could increase demand for gold, as inflationary pressures rise. As of Tuesday’s close, COMEX gold was trading at $1778/oz. Ags/Softs: Neutral Corn and bean futures settled down by mid-week after a sharp rally earlier. After rising to a new eight-year high just below $7/bushel due to cold weather in the US, and fears a lower harvest in Brazil will reduce global grain supplies, corn settled down to ~ $6.85/bu at mid-week trading. Beans traded above $15.50/bu earlier in the week, their highest since June 2014, and settled down to ~ $15.36/bu by mid-week. Attention remains focused on global supplies. The uptrend in grains and beans remains intact. Chart 8 Chart 9   Footnotes 1     Please see Renewables, China's FYP Underpin Metals Demand, published 26 November 2020, for further discussion.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2     Please see Global Energy Review 2021, the IEA's Flagship report for April 2021. 3    Please see Renewables, China's FYP Underpin Metals Demand, published 26 November 2020, for further discussion.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4    We discussed these capex issues in last week's research, Copper Headed Higher On Surge In Steel Prices, which is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 5    Please see Valenta et al.’s ‘Re-thinking complex orebodies: Consequences for the future world supply of copper’ published in 2019 for this analysis. 6    Please see Calvo et. al.’s ‘Decreasing Ore Grades in Global Metallic Mining: A Theoretical Issue or a Global Reality?’ published in 2016 for this analysis. 7     Please see Azadi et. al.’s ‘Transparency on greenhouse gas emissions from mining to enable climate change mitigation’ published in 2020 for this analysis. 8    Please see John Kemp's Column: CO2 emission limits and economic development published 19 April 2021 by reuters.com.   Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2021 Summary of Closed Trades

Highlights Developed economies continue to transition towards a post-pandemic state. Europe has further to go, but it is lagging the US at a constant rate and is thus merely delayed – not on a different path. This ongoing transition is also reflected in the global macro data, which continues to surprise to the upside. Widespread optimism about the outlook for economic activity and earnings over the coming year has led some investors to ask whether an imminent peak in the rate of growth could be a potentially negative inflection point for richly valued risky asset prices. Using our global leading economic indicator as a guide, we find that a peak in growth momentum in and of itself is not likely to be enough of a catalyst for meaningful risky asset underperformance versus government bonds. A sizeable shock to sentiment would likely be required, causing either a very serious growth slowdown, outright fears of recession, or some other event that negatively impacts earnings growth or raises the equity risk premium (“ERP”). We can identify several candidates for such a shock, including the emergence of new, vaccine-resistant variants of COVID-19, the impact of higher taxes on earnings, overtightening in China, and a potentially hawkish shift in monetary policy in the developed world. But none of these risks individually appears to be likely enough to warrant reducing cyclical portfolio exposure. We continue to expect positive absolute single-digit returns from stocks over the coming 6-12 months, and would recommend that investors remain overweight stocks versus bonds in a multi-asset portfolio. We remain overweight global ex-US equities vs. the US, but expect that euro area stocks will have to do the heavy lifting, driven either by the underperformance of global technology stocks or the outperformance of euro area financials. Within a fixed-income portfolio, we recommend a modestly short duration stance, but do so primarily on a risk-adjusted basis. Feature Chart I-1Europe Is Behind The US, But On The Same Path Over the past month, developed economies have continued to transition towards a post-pandemic state. While the number of new confirmed COVID-19 cases remains relatively high on a per capita basis in the US and Europe, there continues to be significant progress on the vaccination front in all Western advanced economies. Europe continues to lag the US and the UK in terms of the share of the population that has received at least one dose of vaccine, but Chart I-1 highlights that the gap has remained constant at approximately six weeks (to the US). Panel 2 of Chart I-1 highlights that the US and UK both experienced either falling or a stable number of new cases once the number of first doses reached current European levels; Israel required significant further gains in the breadth of vaccinations before it altered COVID-19’s transmission dynamics in that country, but this appears to have occurred because of a much higher pace of spread earlier this year. The negative impact on advanced economies from reduced services activity is strongly linked to pandemic control measures (such as stay-at-home orders, curfews, forced business closures, etc). We have argued that, outside of the US, the implementation and removal of these measures is being driven by the impact of the pandemic on the medical system, rather than the sheer number of new cases and deaths. Chart I-2 highlights that, based on this framework, Europe still has further to go – current per capita hospitalizations remain much higher in France and Italy than in the US, UK, or Canada. But the nature of the disease means that hospitalizations begin to fall even if case counts remain relatively stable, and fall rapidly once new cases trend lower. Given the steady gains that European countries are making in providing first vaccine doses to their populations, it seems likely that hospitalizations there will peak sometime in the coming four to six weeks. This underscores that Europe is not on a different path than that of the US, it is simply further behind in the process (and will ultimately catch up). The transition towards a post-pandemic state is also reflected in the global macro data, which continues to positively surprise in all three major economies (Chart I-3). In Europe, the April services PMI rose back above the 50 mark, April consumer confidence surprised to the upside, and February retail sales came in better than expected (Table I-1). In the US, the March services PMI was also very strong, the labor market continued to meaningfully improve, and several measures of inflation surprised to the upside. Chart I-2Euro Area Hospitalizations Remain High, But Will Soon Decline Chart I-3The Macro Data Continues To Positively Surprise   Table I-1Services PMIs And The Labor Market Continue To Meaningfully Improve Chart I-4China's Current Contribution To Global Demand Is Strong In China, the recent tick higher in the surprise index likely reflects the recognition of some data series whose release was delayed due to the Chinese New Year, as well as significant base effects (compared with Q1 2020) in many data series recorded in year-over-year terms. On a quarter-over-quarter basis, Chinese economic activity decelerated last quarter to 0.6% from the upwardly revised 3.2% in Q4 2020 – which was below the anticipated 1.4% q/q. Still, Chinese RMB-denominated import growth closely matches (lagging) data on global exports to China (in US$ terms), with the former suggesting that China’s current contribution to global external demand remains strong (Chart I-4). This is also consistent with rising producer prices, which had fallen back into deflationary territory last year (panel 2). Peaking Growth Momentum: Should Investors Be Worried? The continued increase in the number of vaccine doses administered, positive data surprises, and bullish global growth forecasts for this year have understandably led to extremely optimistic investor sentiment. It has also naturally raised the question of “what could go wrong?”, with some investors pointing to an imminent peak in the rate of growth as a potentially negative inflection point for richly valued risky asset prices. Chart I-5 addresses this question by examining 12 episodes of waning growth momentum since 1990, defined as an identifiable peak in our global leading economic indicator. Panel 2 shows the 12-month rate of change in the relative performance of global equities versus a US$-hedged 7-10 year global Treasury index. Chart I-5Is Peaking Growth Momentum A Risk For Stocks? At first blush, the chart does support the notion that a peak in growth momentum is generally negative for risky asset prices. The subsequent 12-month relative return from stocks versus bonds following a peak in the LEI has been negative in 8 out of the 12 episodes, suggesting that the risks of an equity correction are currently quite elevated. However, there is more to the story than this simple calculation implies (Table I-2). First, two of the twelve episodes saw the global LEI peak in the context of an eventual US recession, so it is not surprising that stocks underperformed bonds in those episodes. Second, out of the six non-recessionary episodes, only two of them involved significant underperformance, in 2002 and in 2015. Table I-2Peak Growth Momentum Is An Insufficient Catalyst For Equity Underperformance US equities underperformed in the former case because of the persistently damaging impact of corporate excesses that built up during the dot-com bubble, and predominantly global ex-US equities underperformed bonds in the latter case because of a combination of the significant impact on global CAPEX from the 2014 dollar and oil price shock, as well as a major decline in global bond yields. In the four other non-recessionary examples of equity underperformance, stocks only modestly underperformed bonds, and often this occurred in the context of significant events: surprising Fed hawkishness in 1994, the Asian financial crisis in 1997, a major slowdown in China in 2013, and the combination of a domestically-driven Chinese economic slowdown coupled with the Sino/US trade war in 2017/2018. The key point for investors is that a peak in growth momentum is in and of itself not enough of a catalyst for meaningful risky asset underperformance versus government bonds. A sizeable shock to sentiment would likely be required, causing either a very serious growth slowdown, outright fears of recession, or some other event that negatively impacts earnings growth or raises the equity risk premium (“ERP”). What Else Could Go Wrong? There are four other plausible risks that we can identify to a bullish stance towards risky assets over the coming 6-12 months. We discuss each of these risks below. New COVID-19 Variants Chart I-6 highlights that bottom up analysts expect global earnings per share to be 12% higher than their pre-pandemic level in 12-months’ time. This expectation is driven by extraordinarily easy fiscal and monetary policy, but also the view that vaccination against COVID-19 will allow social distancing policies to end and services activity to fully recover. However, as India is clearly – and tragically – demonstrating at present, the emerging world is lagging in terms of vaccinating its population. India’s per capita case count has soared (Chart I-7), which is surprising given that the country’s COVID-19 infection rate has been significantly below that of more advanced economies over the past year. It is therefore likely that India’s case count explosion is due to new variants of the disease, and periodic outbreaks in less developed countries – as well as vaccine hesitancy in more developed economies – risks the emergence of even newer variants that may be partially or substantially vaccine-resistant. Chart I-6Earnings Expectations Already Price In A Normalization In Services Activity Chart I-7India's COVID-19 Situation Is Tragic, And Concerning   New variants of COVID-19 may prove to be less deadly, but the economic impact of the pandemic has come mainly from its potential to collapse the medical system via high rates of serious illness requiring hospitalization, not strictly from its lethality. As such, potentially new vaccine-resistant variants of the disease resulting in similar or higher rates of hospitalization pose a risk to a bullish economic outlook. Taxation Both corporate and individual tax rates are set to rise in the US over the coming 12-18 months which, at first blush, could certainly qualify as a non-recessionary event that negatively impacts earnings or raises the ERP. Corporate taxes are set to rise first as part of the American Jobs Plan, which our political strategists have argued will probably take the Biden administration most of this year to pass. The plan involves a proposed increase in the domestic corporate income tax rate to 28% from 21%, a higher minimum tax on foreign profits, and a 15% minimum tax on “book income”. In addition, as part of the American Families Plan, Biden is proposing to increase the top marginal income tax rate for households earning $400,000 or more to 39.6% (from 37%), and to substantially increase the capital gains tax rate for those earning $1 million or more from a base rate of 20% to 39.6%. The 3.8% tax on investment income that funds Obamacare would be kept in place, which would bring the total capital gain tax rate to 43.4% for that income group. Peter Berezin, BCA’s Chief Global Strategist, made two points about higher corporate taxes in a recent report.1 First, he noted that the changes would likely result in an 8% decline in forward earnings if passed as currently proposed, but that various tax credits as well as opposition to a 28% corporate tax rate from Democratic Senator Joe Manchin would likely cap the impact at 5%. Second, he argued that the behavior of 12-month forward earnings and the performance of stocks that benefitted the most from President Trump’s corporate tax cuts suggest that very little impact from these changes has been priced in. Peter argued in his report that the effect of strong economic growth will likely offset the negative impact of higher taxes on earnings, and we are inclined to agree. Chart I-8 highlights that a 5% reduction in 12-month forward earnings would reduce the equity risk premium by roughly 20-25 basis points, which would not be disastrous on its own. Still, the fact that these changes have not been priced in means that corporate tax hikes could be a more meaningful driver of lower stock prices if the impact is ultimately larger than we currently expect or if the growth outlook suddenly shifts in a negative direction. In terms of changes to individual taxes, our sense is that the proposed increase in the capital gains tax rate is more significant than the modest proposed change to the top marginal income tax rate for higher-income households. For individuals earning $1 million or more, Chart I-9 highlights that the proposed change to the capital gains rate would bring it to the highest level seen since the late 1970s. Given the rich valuation of equities, it seems inconceivable that such a change would not trigger some short-term selling of equities to lock in long-term gains at lower tax rates. Chart I-8Higher Corporate Taxes Will Only Modestly Reduce the Equity Risk Premium Chart I-9Biden's Capital Gains Tax Proposal Would Lead To Some Selling Of Stocks...   But like upcoming changes to corporate taxes, we see the potential for higher taxes on wealthy individuals as a risk to the equity market and not as a likely driver of stock prices over a cyclical time horizon. First, our political strategists see 50/50 odds that the American Families Plan will be passed this year, meaning that short-term tax avoidance selling may be postponed until 2022. In addition, Chart I-10 highlights that over the longer term, the relationship between the maximum capital gains tax rate and the ERP is weak or nonexistent. The chart highlights that the perception of a positive relationship rests entirely on the second half of the 1970s, when the maximum capital gains tax rate was between 30-40%. However, it seems clear from the chart that the stagflationary environment of that period was responsible for a high ERP, as the capital gains rate fell from 1977 to 1982 without any significant decline in risk premia. It took until the end of the 1982 recession and the beginning of the structural disinflationary period for the equity risk premium to decline, suggesting that there is effectively no relationship between the two (and therefore no reason to believe that higher capital gains taxes will lead to sustained declines in stock market multiples). Chart I-10…But The Effect Would Not Likely Last Overtightening In China Chart I-11Leading Indicators Of China's Economy Are Pointing Down, Not Up Even though Chart I-4 highlighted that Chinese import demand is currently strong, we expect China’s growth impulse to weaken in the second half of the year. Chart I-11 highlights that our leading indicator for China’s Li Keqiang index has done a good job of predicting Chinese import growth, and the indicator is now in a clear downtrend. Panel 2 presents the components of the indicator, and shows that all three are trending lower. Monetary conditions are potentially rebounding from extremely weak levels (due to past deflation and a rise in the RMB versus the US dollar and other Asian currencies), but money supply and credit measures are deteriorating. Leading indicators for China’s economy are deteriorating because Chinese policymakers have already tightened liquidity conditions in response to the country’s rebound from the pandemic and following a surge in the credit impulse. The 3-month repo rate returned to pre-pandemic levels in the second half of last year (Chart I-12), and consequently the private sector credit impulse (particularly that of corporate bond issuance) fell despite robust medium-to-long term loan growth. Chart I-12Chinese Interest Rates Have Already Returned To Pre-COVID Levels We noted in our January report that China’s credit impulse has consistently followed a 3½-year cycle since 2010, and this year has been no different. This cycle is not exogenous or mystical; it has been caused by the repeated “oversteering” of activity by Chinese policymakers who frequently oscillate between the need to fight deflation and the strong desire to curb additional private sector leveraging. Our base case view is that policymakers will not accidentally overtighten the economy, and that the credit impulse will settle somewhere between late 2019 levels and the peak rate reached in the latter half of last year. But the risk of significant oversteering cannot be ruled out, and will likely remain a downcycle risk for investors for several years to come. A Hawkish Shift In Monetary Policy In Developed Markets Last week the Bank of Canada announced that it would taper its pace of government debt purchases from 4 billion to 3 billion CAD per week. The announcement was noteworthy for many investors, as it suggested that asset purchase reductions could also be announced by the Fed and other major central banks by the end of the second or third quarter. Many investors are sensitive to the tapering question because of what transpired during the “Taper Tantrum” episode of 2013. During an appearance before Congress in late May of that year, then Chair Ben Bernanke stated that the Fed could “step down” the pace of its asset purchases in the next few FOMC meetings if economic conditions continued to improve. The result was that 10-year Treasurys fell roughly 10% in total return terms over the subsequent three-month period. While stocks rallied in response to the growth-positive implications of the move, this occurred from a much higher ERP starting point than exists today. The risk, in the minds of some investors, is that tapering today could thus lead to a correction in stock prices. There are two counterpoints to this view. First, bonds have already sold off meaningfully over the past several months in response to a significant improvement in the economic outlook, and investors already expect the Fed to raise interest rates earlier than it is publicly forecasting. It is thus difficult to see how an announcement of tapering from the Fed would significantly alter the outlook for monetary policy over the coming 6-18 months. Chart I-13Another Taper Tantrum-Like Selloff Would Necessitate Higher Expectations For R-star Second, it is notable that the “Taper Tantrum” began at yield levels at the front end of the curve that are roughly similar to what prevails today. 5-year/5-year forward bond yields stood at roughly 3% at the beginning of the “Tantrum”, compared with 2.3% today. Chart I-13 highlights how high forward bond yields would need to rise in order to generate another selloff of similar magnitude from 10-year Treasury yields (roughly 3.65%). In our view, a rise to this level over the coming year is essentially impossible without a major shift in investor expectations about the natural rate of interest. We highlighted the risk of such a shift in last month’s report,2 but for now it would likely necessitate hard evidence of little-to-no permanent damage to the labor market from the pandemic. This is not our base case view, but it will be an important possibility to monitor as the decisive end to social distancing and other pandemic control measures draws nearer. Investment Conclusions As noted above, there are several identifiable risks to a bullish outlook for risky assets, but none of these risks individually appear to be likely. Given this, we continue to expect positive absolute single-digit returns from stocks over the coming 6-12 months, and would recommend that investors remain overweight stocks versus bonds in a multi-asset portfolio. We favor value versus growth stocks, cyclical versus defensive sectors, and small versus large cap stocks, although there is more return potential over the coming year in value versus growth than the latter two positions. We also remain short the US dollar over a cyclical time horizon. Within a global equity portfolio, we remain overweight global ex-US equities vs the US, but this position has moved against us over the past two months. Chart I-14 highlights that global ex-US equities have given back all of their October – January gains versus US equities, most of which has occurred since late-February. The chart also highlights that all of this underperformance has been driven by emerging market stocks, as euro area equity performance has been mostly stable year-to-date. Chart I-15 highlights that EM underperformance has occurred both in the broadly-defined tech sector as well as when measured in ex-tech terms. To us, this suggests that EM stocks are responding to the deterioration in leading indicators for the Chinese economy that we noted above, which implies that they are not likely to lead global ex-US equity performance higher over the course of the year barring an imminent shift in Chinese policy. We continue to expect that euro area stocks will have to do the heavy lifting, driven either by the underperformance of global technology stocks or the outperformance of euro area financials – which are extremely cheap relative to US banks and have much further scope for earnings to normalize as the pandemic draws to a close. Chart I-14Emerging Markets Have Caused Global Ex-US Stocks To Underperform Chart I-15EM's Underperformance Has Been Broad-Based   As a final point, investors should note that we are recommending a modestly short duration stance within a fixed-income portfolio, but that we make this recommendation primarily on a risk-adjusted basis. Chart I-16 highlights that Treasury market excess returns (relative to cash) have historically been driven by whether the Fed funds rate increases by more or less than what is currently priced into the market. Over the past 12 months, the Treasury index has very substantially underperformed cash without a hawkish surprise, and the rate path that is currently implied by the OIS curve is already more hawkish than the Fed is (for now) projecting. On this basis, a neutral duration stance could be justified, but we would still prefer a modestly short duration stance due to the risk of a potential increase in investor expectations for the neutral rate of interest late this year or in early 2022. Chart I-16Policy Rate Surprises Tend To Drive The Duration Call Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst April 29, 2021 Next Report: May 27, 2021   II. In COVID’s Wake: Government Debt And The Path Of Interest Rates The US fiscal outlook has deteriorated substantially over the past two decades, as a consequence of the fiscal response to both the global financial crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic. US government debt-to-GDP is now nearly as high as it was at the end of the Second World War, and is projected by the US Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to explode higher over the coming 30 years. Some investors argue that extreme levels of government debt now virtually guarantee that interest rates will remain structurally low, and we test this claim alongside a scenario that limits the projected rise in the primary deficit. We find that US fiscal reform, when it eventually occurs, will likely be negative for health care stocks. We also note that even in a scenario where the US limits the size of its future primary budget deficit, net interest outlays will likely rise to elevated levels compared to history. A comparison with the Canadian experience in the 1990s suggests a structurally negative outlook for the US dollar, from an overvalued starting point. Finally, we note that the US fiscal outlook does not necessarily prevent an increase in interest rates over the coming few years in a scenario where investors raise their expectations for the neutral rate of interest, a possibility that we discussed in last month’s report. This scenario is not our base case view, but it is plausible and should actively be monitored by investors over the coming one to two years. For now, we do not expect that rising interest rates pose a risk to stocks over the coming 6-12 months. Investors should remain cyclically overweight equities within a multi-asset portfolio, and should maintain a below-benchmark level of duration on a risk-adjusted basis. In 2001, US government debt held by the public as a share of GDP stood at 31.5%, after having fallen roughly 16 percentage points from early 1993 levels. Today, as a result of both the global financial crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic, the debt to GDP ratio has risen to a whopping 100%, and is projected to rise meaningfully higher over the coming decades. In this report we review the long-term US fiscal outlook in the wake of the pandemic, with a focus on the implications for interest rates. Some investors argue that extreme levels of government debt now virtually guarantee that interest rates will remain structurally low, and we test this claim alongside a scenario that limits the projected rise in the primary deficit. We find that US fiscal reform, when it eventually occurs, will likely be negative for health care stocks, whose fundamental performance has outstripped that of the broad equity market since the mid-1990s (reflecting pricing power that stands to be curtailed through regulation). We also note that even in a scenario where the US limits the size of its future primary budget deficit, net interest outlays will likely rise to elevated levels compared to history. A comparison with the Canadian experience in the 1990s suggests a structurally negative outlook for the US dollar, from an overvalued starting point. Finally, we note that the US fiscal outlook does not necessarily prevent an increase in interest rates over the coming few years in the hypothetical scenario that we described in last month’s report,3 i.e., an environment where the narrative of secular stagnation is challenged and investor expectations for the neutral rate rise closer to trend rates of economic growth. This scenario is not our base case view, but it is plausible and should actively be monitored by investors over the coming one to two years. For now, investors should remain cyclically overweight equities within a multi-asset portfolio, and should maintain a below-benchmark level of duration on a risk-adjusted basis. Debt Sustainability, And The CBO’s Baseline Projection When analyzing the US fiscal outlook, the Congressional Budget Office’s Long-Term Budget Outlook report is typically the reference point for investors. The report provides annual projections for the budget deficit and the debt-to-GDP ratio for the next three decades, as well as a breakdown of the projected deficit into its primary (i.e., non-interest) and net interest components. Charts II-1 and II-2 present the most recent baseline projections from the CBO, which clearly present a dire long-term outlook. The deficit and debt-to-GDP ratio are projected to be relatively stable over the next decade, but explode higher over the subsequent 20 years. In 2051, the CBO’s baseline projects that the budget deficit will be roughly 13% of GDP, with net interest costs accounting for approximately two-thirds of the deficit. Chart II-1The CBO’s Fiscal Outlook Is Extremely Negative Chart II-2In 2051, The CBO Projects A 13% Annual Budget Deficit In order to understand what is driving the CBO’s dire long-term budget and debt forecast, it is important to review the government debt sustainability equation shown below. The equation highlights that the change in a government’s debt-to-GDP ratio is approximately equal to 1) the primary deficit plus 2) net interest costs as a share of GDP, the latter being defined as the product of last year’s debt-to-GDP ratio and the difference between the average interest rate on the debt and the rate of GDP growth. Δ Debt-To-GDP Ratio ≈ Primary Deficit As A % Of GDP4 + (r-g)*(Prior Period Debt-To-GDP Ratio) Where: r = Average interest rate on government debt and g = Nominal GDP growth The equation highlights that expectations of a persistently rising debt-to-GDP ratio must occur either because of expectations of a persistent primary deficit, or expectations that interest rates will persistently exceed the rate of economic growth (or some combination of the two). This underscores why debt sustainability analysis often focuses on the primary budget balance, as a country’s debt-to-GDP ratio will be stable if no primary deficit exists and interest costs are at or below the prevailing rate of economic growth. Chart II-3 illustrates the source of the CBO’s projected rise in debt-to-GDP beyond 2031, by presenting the two components of the debt sustainability equation alongside the projected annual change in the debt-to-GDP ratio. The chart makes it clear that while the CBO is forecasting a sizeable primary deficit to continue, it is projected to grow at a slower pace than the debt-to-GDP ratio itself. The increasing rate at which the debt-to-GDP ratio is projected to grow in the latter years of the CBO’s forecast period is clearly driven by the interest rate component, meaning that “r” is projected to be greater than “g”. Chart II-4 presents this point directly, by highlighting that the CBO is forecasting the average interest rate on government debt to exceed that of nominal GDP growth in 2038, and to continue to exceed growth (by an increasing amount) thereafter. Chart II-3Decomposing The CBO's Projected Change In The Debt-To-GDP Ratio Chart II-4The CBO's Projections Rest, In Part, On Rates Eventually Exceeding Growth   Three Adjustments To The CBO’s Baseline We make three adjustments to the CBO’s baseline in order to assess how the US fiscal outlook shifts under an interest rate path that is different than that projected by the CBO. First, we adjust the CBO’s projected budget deficit over the coming few years based on deficit forecasts from our US Political Strategy service following the passage of the American Recovery Plan act.5 Chart II-5We Test The Effect Of An Initially Higher, But More Sustainable, Rate Path Next, we adjust the interest component of the total budget deficit based on a new path for short- and long-term interest rates that models a scenario in which the neutral rate of interest rises to, but not above, GDP growth (Chart II-5). In last month’s report we outlined a scenario in which this could feasibly occur,3 and the hypothetical path for interest rates shown in Chart II-5 thus incorporates both the negative budgetary impact of an earlier rise in interest rates and the positive budgetary impact of “r” never rising above “g”. We explicitly exclude any crowding out effect on long-term interest rates, based on the view that term premia are likely to remain muted in a world of low potential economic growth, unless a fiscal crisis appears to be imminent (see Box II-1). Box II-1 Arguing Against The CBO’s Crowding Out Assumption The CBO’s projection that interest rates will ultimately rise above the rate of economic growth rests on the view that increased government spending will absorb savings that would otherwise finance private investment (a “crowding out” effect). We agree that crowding out can occur over the course of the business cycle, especially in a scenario where increased government spending pushes output above its potential (creating a cyclical acceleration in inflation and eventually an increase in interest rates). But the CBO is assuming that high government debt-to-GDP ratios will crowd out private investment on a structural basis, and on this basis we disagree. First, Chart Box II-1 highlights that there is essentially no empirical relationship across countries between a country’s debt-to-GDP ratio and its long-term government bond yield. Japan is a clear outlier in the chart, but including Japan implies that the relationship is negative, not positive. Chart Box II-1There Is No Empirical Relationship Between Debt-To-GDP And Interest Rates In addition, given that central banks directly control interest rates at the short-end of the curve, a structural crowding out effect can only manifest itself in the form of an elevated term premium embedded in longer-term government bond yields. Our bet is that term premia are likely to stay low in a world of low falling nominal growth, as evidenced by the experience of the past decade.6 Finally, we model the impact of two changes, beginning in 2031, that would work towards reducing the primary deficit: an increase in average government revenue to 20% of GDP (its peak level reached in 2000), and a slower pace of increase on major health care program spending. Despite the fact that population aging will increase mandatory spending on social security and health care over the coming three decades, the CBO has highlighted that the majority of the increase in spending towards these programs is projected to occur due to rising health care costs per person (Chart II-6). We thus model the impact of medical care cost control by limiting the rise in net mandatory outlays on health care programs between 2021 and 2051 to roughly half of what the CBO baseline projects. This adjustment does not prevent mandatory spending on health care programs from rising, given the strong political challenges involved in limiting spending increases that are caused by an aging population. Chart II-6The US Structural Primary Balance Is Heavily Impacted By Medical Costs Charts II-7 and II-8 illustrate how these three adjustments impact the long-term US fiscal outlook. Relative to the CBO’s baseline projections, the American Recovery Plan (ARP) budget deficit forecasts from our US Political Strategy service imply that the debt-to-GDP ratio will be approximately three to four percentage points higher over the very near term, and roughly ten points higher over the long term. Chart II-7Even With Higher Rates, The Fiscal Outlook Is Meaningfully Less Bad… Relative to this new baseline, an increase in interest rates to, but not above, the projected rate of nominal economic growth increases the debt-to-GDP ratio by an additional ten percentage points (20 points higher versus the CBO’s baseline) in the middle of the forecast period, but it lowers the debt-to-GDP ratio over the longer run by eliminating the effect of outsized interest rates magnifying a persistent primary deficit. Still, the debt-to-GDP ratio is projected to rise to a whopping 207% of GDP by 2051 in this scenario, with a budget deficit in excess of 10% of GDP. The third adjustment shown in Charts II-7 and II-8 underscores the impact on the US fiscal outlook of actions aimed at reducing the primary deficit. Increases in government revenue and the prevention of rising health care costs per person results in the debt-to-GDP ratio that is 64 percentage points lower in 2051 than in our normalized interest rate scenario. The budget deficit in this scenario still increases to approximately 6% of GDP thirty years from today, but in this case most of the deficit is due to the net interest component rather than the primary deficit, meaning that the debt-to-GDP ratio would be increasing at a much slower rate if interest rates were no higher than the rate of economic growth. Chart II-8 highlights that net interest spending in this scenario would rise to 4.5% of GDP, which would be meaningfully higher than the prior high of roughly 3% in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Chart II-8...With Higher Taxes And Medical Cost Control Chart II-9A Meaningful, But Not Unprecedented, Rise In Net Interest Outlays But that is far from unprecedented or necessarily consistent with a fiscal crisis. Chart II-9 also shows that Canada’s public debt charges rose to 6.5% of GDP in the early 1990s without triggering a public debt crisis. It is true that Canada subsequently embarked on a painful fiscal consolidation program in order to reduce its public debt burden, but this, in part, occurred because of a cyclically-adjusted primary deficit of approximately 3% - twice as large as that projected for the US in 2051 in our adjusted scenario shown in Charts II-7 and II-8. Revenue And Health Care Cost Reform Our third adjustment to the CBO’s long-term budget outlook involved changes to revenue and health care cost control to reduce the US’ projected primary deficit. Are these adjustments achievable? In our view, the answer is yes: As noted above, our scenario modeled these changes taking place a decade from today, which allows for policymakers and stakeholders to have a substantial amount of time to act and adjust to these changes. On the revenue front, we noted above that US government revenue has reached 20% of GDP in the past, in the year 2000. Chart II-10 highlights that while raising taxes will likely reduce US competitiveness, the US maintains a sizeable tax advantage relative to other advanced economies, and that this was true prior to the tax cuts that took place under the Trump administration. On the health care cost front, Chart II-11 highlights that US healthcare expenditure is much larger as a share of GDP than other countries, which was not the case prior to the 1980s. Chart II-12 highlights that this cost difference is entirely due to inpatient (i.e., hospital) and outpatient (i.e., drug) costs. While it is not clear what form it will take, it seems likely that future reforms by policymakers to eliminate rising health care costs per person will occur and can be achieved. Chart II-10The US Government Can Afford To Raise Revenue Chart II-11The US Spends Much More On Health Care Than Other Countries   Chart II-12The US Significantly Outspends The World On Hospital And Drug Costs The key point for investors is not whether these changes should or should not occur, but whether there are any feasible scenarios in which spiraling government debt and interest payments are avoided without the Fed purposely maintaining monetary policy at levels persistently below the rate of economic growth – and thus risking major inflationary pressure. Our analysis above highlights that there are; the question is when policymakers will choose to act and in what form. A potential tipping point may be when US government spending on net interest as a % of GDP exceeds its prior high, which occurs in 2026 in the scenario modeled in Chart II-8. In a scenario where reforms fail to materialize or where financial markets force policymakers to act, a fiscal risk premium could certainly emerge in longer-term government bond yields, which could lead the Fed to maintain lower short-term interest rates than it otherwise would. But this scenario is only likely to emerge after interest rates converge towards rates of economic growth, as US government debt will remain highly serviceable for some time if "r" remains meaningfully lower than "g". Investment Conclusions There are three potential investment implications of our research. First, the fact that rising medical costs have such a significant impact on the CBO’s projections of the primary deficit implies that fiscal reform, when it eventually occurs, will be negative for US health care stocks. Chart II-13 highlights that US health care sector earnings have outperformed broad market earnings since the mid-1990s, and that the sector has consistently delivered an above-average return on equity. This historical performance likely reflects the sector’s pricing power, which stand to be curtailed through regulatory efforts in a world where rising health care costs per person collide with fiscal belt-tightening. Interestingly, Chart II-12 highlighted that US per capita spending on medical goods is not significantly higher than in other developed markets, suggesting that the health care equipment & supplies industry may fare better over a very long term time horizon than overall health care. Second, Charts II-7 and II-8 highlighted that even if the US does raise revenue as a share of GDP and limits excessive growth in medical costs, a primary deficit will still exist and net interest outlays will still rise to elevated levels compared to what has historically been the case. We noted that Canada experienced a higher public debt burden in the 1990s and did not suffer from a fiscal crisis, but Chart II-14 highlights that the fiscal situation did weigh on the Canadian dollar, which progressively traded 10-20% below its PPP-implied fair value level over the course of the 1990s. Thus, the implication is that eventual fiscal reform in the US may be structurally negative for the US dollar, from an overvalued starting point (panels 3 and 4 of Chart II-14). Chart II-13Eventual Fiscal Reform Will Likely Be Negative For Health Care Stocks Chart II-14The US Fiscal Outlook, Even With Some Reforms, Is Dollar-Negative   Finally, our scenario analysis highlights that very elevated levels of government debt do not guarantee that interest rates will remain structurally low, especially over the next decade when the US primary deficit is projected to remain relatively stable. For investors focused on forecasting the direction of 10-year Treasury yields from the perspective of valuation, it should be noted that the next decade is the relevant projection period for the Fed funds rate, not what occurs to net interest outlays in the two decades that follow. Over the very long run, it is true that there may ultimately be very strong political pressure on the Fed to keep interest rates below the prevailing rate of economic growth, as policymakers in 2030 will be able to avoid a structural adjustment to the primary deficit of roughly 1.1-1.3% of GDP for every percentage point that average interest rates on government debt are below nominal GDP growth. However, we noted above that this pressure is unlikely to build before the second half of this decade even in a scenario where interest rates rise significantly over the coming few years, and it remains an open questions whether the Fed will acquiesce to this pressure given its strong potential to fuel excess private sector leveraging. Over the coming one to two years, the key conclusion is that the US fiscal outlook is not likely to prevent an increase in interest rates over the coming few years in the hypothetical scenario that we described in last month’s report, i.e., an environment where the narrative of secular stagnation is challenged and investor expectations for the neutral rate rise closer to trend rates of economic growth. This remains a risk to our overweight stance towards risky assets and is not our base case view. But it does highlight the importance of monitoring long-dated rate expectations over the coming year, and argues, on a risk-adjusted basis, for a below-neutral duration stance within a fixed-income portfolio. 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. The indicator 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 positive, and positive earnings surprises have risen to their strongest levels on record. Within a global equity portfolio, EM stocks have dragged down global ex-US performance, likely in response to deteriorating leading indicators for the Chinese economy. This implies that they are not likely to lead global ex-US equity performance higher over the course of the year barring an imminent shift in Chinese policy. We continue to expect that euro area stocks will have to do the heavy lifting, driven either by the underperformance of global technology stocks or the outperformance of euro area financials – which are extremely cheap relative to US banks and have much further scope for earnings to normalize as the pandemic draws to a close. The US 10-Year Treasury yield has edged lower over the past month, after having risen to levels that were extremely technically stretched. Despite this pause, our valuation index highlights that bonds are still expensive, and that yields could move higher over the cyclical investment horizon. We expect the rise to be more modest than our valuation index would imply, but we would still recommend a modestly short duration stance within a fixed-income portfolio. Commodity prices, particularly copper, lumber, and agricultural commodities, are screaming higher. This reflects bullish cyclical conditions, but also pandemic-induced supply shortages that are likely to wane later this year. Commodity prices are technically extended and sentiment is extremely bullish for most commodities, suggesting that a breather in commodity prices is likely at some point over the coming several months. 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 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 Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3US Equity Sentiment Indicators   Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5US Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6US Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance   FIXED INCOME:   Chart III-9US Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected US Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets   CURRENCIES: Chart III-16US Dollar And PPP Chart III-17US Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18US Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals   COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning   ECONOMY: Chart III-28US And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29US Macro Snapshot Chart III-30US Growth Outlook Chart III-31US Cyclical Spending Chart III-32US Labor Market Chart III-33US Consumption Chart III-34US Housing Chart III-35US Debt And Deleveraging   Chart III-36US Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China   Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Footnotes 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy "Taxing Woke Capital," dated April 16, 2021, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 2 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 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 Presented in this fashion, a budget deficit (surplus) is recorded with a positive (negative) sign. 5 For more information, please see US Political Strategy report “Biden’s Pittsburgh Speech And Legislative Agenda,” dated April 1, 2021, available at usp.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see “Term premia: models and some stylised facts”, by Cohen, Hördahl, and Xia, BIS Quarterly Review, September 2008.

Highlights After staging a tentative rebound in the first three months of the year, the US dollar has resumed its weakening trend. We expect the greenback to drift lower over the next 12 months, as global growth momentum rotates from the US to the rest of the world, the Fed maintains its ultra-accommodative monetary stance, and the US struggles to finance its burgeoning trade deficit. China will provide adequate fiscal and monetary support for its economy, which will buoy commodity prices, the yuan, and other EM currencies. The Canadian dollar should strengthen as the Bank of Canada continues to shrink its balance sheet with the goal of lifting rates by the end of 2022. EUR/USD is on track to rise to 1.25 by year-end. The pound will strengthen against the euro. While the yen’s defensive nature will limit any gains in the currency, a cheap valuation and relatively high Japanese real rates will keep downside risks in check. Global Growth Momentum To Rotate From The US To The Rest Of The World Sizable upward revisions to US growth projections gave the US dollar a modest boost in the first quarter of 2021 (Chart 1). According to Bloomberg consensus estimates, US real GDP grew by 5.4% in the first quarter, spurred on by massive fiscal stimulus and a speedy vaccination rollout. In contrast, real GDP in the euro area, the UK, and Japan contracted (Table 1). Chart 1A Dovish Fed Kept The Dollar From Strengthening Much This Year Despite Strong US Growth Vis-À-Vis The Rest Of The World Table 1Growth In Major Advanced Countries Is Expected To Start Catching Up To The US Later This Year While economic momentum still favors the US in the second quarter, the gap with other countries will narrow dramatically. The US economy is on track to expand by 8.1% in the current quarter. Bloomberg consensus expects the euro area to grow by 7.4%, the UK by 17.4%, and Japan by 4.7%. Looking out to the third quarter, both the euro area and the UK are poised to grow faster than the US. Continental Europe, in particular, should see much stronger growth in the second half of 2021 following a sluggish start to the vaccine rollout. Enough Vaccines For All? The vaccination campaign has gotten off to a slow start in most emerging markets. The spread of more contagious Covid-19 variants has led to a surge in infections in some regions. Notably, India is reporting over 300,000 new cases a day. Matters should improve on the pandemic front for many developing economies later this year. Assuming that vaccine makers are able to achieve their production targets, the Duke University Global Health Innovation Center estimates that 12 billion vaccine doses will be produced in 2021. This would be enough to vaccinate 75% of the world’s population, close to most measures of “herd immunity.” China Will Maintain Ample Policy Support Chart 2Real Rate Differentials Moved In Favor Of The Dollar At The Long End Of The Curve In Q1, But Not At The Short End Investor concerns that the Chinese authorities are about to reverse stimulus measures are overblown. Jing Sima, BCA’s chief China strategist, expects the general government budget deficit to average 8% of GDP in 2021, largely unchanged from 2020 levels. She sees credit growth falling from 15% in 2020 to 12% this year (in line with her estimate of nominal GDP growth). Given that China’s debt-to-GDP ratio stands at 270%, credit growth of 12% would leave the outstanding stock of credit roughly 33 trillion yuan (32% of GDP) higher at the end of 2021 compared to end-2020. That is a lot of new credit formation, all of which should buoy commodity prices, the yuan, and other EM currencies. Rate Differentials Remain Dollar Bearish Despite strong US growth, US 2-year real rates have continued to decline in relation to rates abroad. Long-term yield differentials did rise in favor of the US in the first three months of the year, giving the dollar a lift. However, long-term differentials have since reversed course, which helps account for the dollar’s renewed weakness (Chart 2). The Fed’s dovish stance explains why stronger growth has given so little support to the dollar. The 10-year Treasury yield generally tracks the expected Fed funds rate two-to-three years out (Chart 3). At present, the markets are as hawkish relative to the median Fed dot as they have ever been (Chart 4). Chart 3Bond Yields Are Unlikely To Rise Much Unless The Market Lifts Its Estimate Of Where The Fed Funds Rate Will Be 2-To-3 Years Out Chart 4The Market Is Very Hawkish Relative To The Fed Dots This doesn’t mean that market expectations cannot get more hawkish from here. However, for this to happen, the Fed would need to start aggressively talking up the prospect of tapering asset purchases and accelerating the timeline to hiking rates. This does not seem probable to us. Chart 5Prime-Age Employment Remains Well Below Pre-Pandemic Levels The prime-age employment-to-population ratio is still 3.7 percentage points below pre-pandemic levels (Chart 5). Overall US employment is about 5% below where it was in January 2020. Among workers earning less than $20 per hour, employment is down more than 10% (Chart 6). While some firms have complained about a shortage of workers, this likely reflects the combination of generous unemployment benefits (which expire in September) and lingering fears about catching the virus from work (which will abate as more people are vaccinated). Just as was the case following the Great Recession – when market commentary was rife with talk about a permanent increase in “structural unemployment” – concerns that the pandemic has led to lasting labor market damage will prove to be largely unfounded.   Chart 6US Employment Still Down About 5% From Its Pre-Pandemic Levels   The Dollar Faces Balance Of Payments Pressures The dollar is not a cheap currency. It is 13% overvalued based on Purchasing Power Parity exchange rates (Chart 7). One of the consequences of the dollar’s overvaluation has been a persistent trade deficit. As Chart 8 shows, the US trade deficit in goods and services has widened sharply since early 2020. Chart 7The Dollar Is Expensive Based On Its PPP Fair Value Chart 8The Widening US Trade Deficit Excessively large budget deficits drain national savings, leading to a larger current account deficit. Hence, the dollar has usually weakened whenever the government has eased fiscal policy beyond what was necessary to close the output gap (Chart 9). Foreigners have been net sellers of Treasurys this year. To a large extent, equity inflows have supported the dollar (Chart 10). However, if growth rotates from the US to the rest of the world, non-US stock markets are likely to outperform. This could cause foreign equity inflows into the US to turn into outflows. The dollar would then need to weaken to make US stocks more attractive in foreign-currency terms. Chart 9The Dollar Usually Weakens Whenever The Government Eases Fiscal Policy Beyond What Is Necessary To Close The Output Gap Chart 10Equity Inflows Supported The Dollar This Year   Technicals Point To A Weaker Dollar For many investment decisions, being a contrarian is a smart strategy. This does not apply to trading the US dollar, however. The dollar is a high momentum currency (Chart 11). When it comes to the dollar, you want to be a trend follower. Chart 11The Dollar Is A High Momentum Currency   Chart 12 shows that a simple trading rule that bought the dollar index when it was trading above its moving average would have made money, whereas a rule that bought the index when it was below its moving average would have lost money. While trading rules using short-term moving averages work best, even long-term moving average rules yield profitable results. Chart 12ATrading The Dollar: Follow Momentum (I) Chart 12BTrading The Dollar: Follow Momentum (II)   Today, the dollar is trading below all of its various moving averages, which points to further downside for the currency. The dollar’s momentum status extends to sentiment. In general, the dollar is more likely to strengthen when sentiment is already bullish. On the flipside, the dollar is more likely to weaken when sentiment is bearish. At present, dollar sentiment is bearish, which increases the odds of further dollar weakness (Chart 13). Chart 13ABeing A Contrarian Doesn’t Pay When It Comes To Trading The Dollar (I) Chart 13BBeing A Contrarian Doesn't Pay When It Comes To Trading The Dollar (II)   Chart 14Seasonality In The FX, Bond, And Equity Markets Finally, the dollar has tended to exhibit seasonal fluctuations. In general, the greenback has strengthened in the first half of the year and weakened in the second half (Chart 14). It is not entirely clear what explains this phenomenon, but it is worth noting that since 1985, almost all of the cumulative decline in Treasury yields has occurred in the back half of the year. Cyclical Currencies Are Most Likely To Strengthen Against The US Dollar Cyclical (i.e., high-beta) currencies will fare best against the US dollar over the next 12 months. In the EM space, strong global growth will benefit the Mexican peso, Chilean peso, Brazilian real, South African rand, Korean won, and the Indonesian rupiah. In the developed economy sphere, the Swedish krona, Norwegian krone, and Australian and Canadian dollars are poised to appreciate the most. We are particularly bullish on the loonie. The Bank of Canada announced on Wednesday that it will reduce the weekly pace of government bond purchases from C$4 billion to C$3 billion. Even before this announcement, the BoC’s balance sheet was shrinking following the decision to scale back repo operations and discontinue several other asset purchase programs. The BoC also indicated that it expects the Canadian economy to return to full employment in the second half of 2022, which should set the stage for the first rate hike by the end of next year. We expect EUR/USD to reach 1.25 by year-end. The British pound will strengthen to 1.50 against the dollar and 1.20 against the euro. Chart 15 shows that GBP/USD has closely tracked the rise and fall of global equities. Notably, the pound is 15% undervalued against the euro based on real 2-year interest rate differentials (Chart 16). Chart 15GBP/USD Has Closely Tracked Global Equities Chart 16The Pound Is Undervalued Against The Euro Based On Real Short-Term Interest Rate Differentials   The Japanese yen is a highly defensive currency. Hence, stronger global growth will pose a headwind to the yen. Nevertheless, the yen is quite cheap, trading at a 20% discount to its Purchasing Power Parity exchange rate (Chart 17). Moreover, real yields are higher in Japan than they are in the other major economies, reflecting ongoing deflationary pressures (Chart 18). On balance, we expect the yen to move sideways against the US dollar over the next 12 months. Chart 17The Yen Is Quite Cheap Chart 18Real Yields Are Higher In Japan Than In The Other Major Economies   Equity Implications Of A Weaker Dollar Cyclical stocks tend to outperform defensives when the dollar is weakening. To the extent that cyclicals are overrepresented in stock market indices outside the US, a weaker dollar favors non-US equities (Chart 19). Chart 19Cyclical Stocks Tend To Outperform Defensives When The Dollar Is Weakening Chart 20Value Stocks Generally Do Best In A Weak Dollar Environment Value stocks also tend to do best in a weak dollar environment (Chart 20). As such, we recommend that investors overweight cyclicals, non-US, and value stocks over the next 12 months.   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist pberezin@bcaresearch.com Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores

Special Report

Highlights Cryptocurrencies have a long march ahead to be able to displace fiat currencies. While cryptocurrencies are improving tremendously as a medium of exchange, they lag fiat as a store of value and a unit of account. Contrary to popular belief, fiat money has outperformed anti-fiat assets over time as a store of value. Many central banks will replicate the advantages and success of bitcoin through the issuance of central bank digital currencies (CBDCs). Cryptocurrencies are unlikely to disappear anytime soon and can be wonderful speculative investments. However, conservative investors should stick with gold and silver. Feature Chart I-1Spectacular Returns From Cryptocurrencies The rise in the prices of various cryptocurrencies1 has taken many investors by surprise. $1000 invested in bitcoin at the start of 2012 is worth around $10 million today. If you were lucky enough to get in on the first day of trading, when it was worth a fraction of a cent, your initial $1000 investment will be worth around $60 billion today. Meanwhile, many other cryptocurrencies are also sporting legendary returns, not even replicable in the most obscure corners of the options market (Chart I-1). There is some merit to cryptocurrencies, or more specifically, blockchain technology that is the bedrock of their invention. In this decentralized, peer-to-peer system, the need for an intermediary to validate transactions and arbitrate disputes is eliminated. This can greatly reduce transaction costs, especially when compared to banking/legal fees. The autonomy and anonymity that comes with their use is also a desirable feature. For example, anti-fiat enthusiasts welcome the fact that the creation, distribution, and use of cryptocurrencies is outside the purview of central banks. As this asset class continues to garner popularity and capture the imagination of investors, the implications run the gamut from potential future returns (or losses) to the impact on other asset classes. For currency investors, the key question is whether any of these seemingly attractive features have a sizeable impact on the value and use of other developed market currencies. In short, will cryptocurrencies displace fiat? To answer this question, we have to start from the very basic definition of what money is.  Is Bitcoin Money? The three basic functions of money are a store of value, unit of account and a medium of exchange. On at least two of these three basic functions, bitcoin fails. Bitcoin has been improving as a medium of exchange. The ability to swap fiat currency into bitcoins and back is fairly easy. More importantly, more and more merchants are accepting bitcoin as a form of payment. Globally, the turnover of cryptocurrencies is about $200 billion or roughly 3% of overall foreign exchange turnover. This is higher than daily trading in the Mexican peso, the New Zealand dollar, and the Swedish krona, an impressive feat (Chart I-2). This is also evidenced by the rise in the market capitalization of cryptocurrencies, to around $2 trillion today (Chart I-3). Chart I-2An Improving Medium Of Exchange Chart I-3Gold Versus Cryptocurrencies However, as Peter Berezin, our Chief Global Strategist has pointed out, this does not necessarily trump the use of fiat money.2  The Visa network, for example, handles over 5,000 times more transactions a second than the bitcoin mempool (the pool of unconfirmed transactions). Meanwhile, if one were to take a vacation in exotic places like Manila or Mumbai, what medium of exchange will one hold? Cryptocurrency, gold or the US dollar? Experience tells us you will be much better off holding greenbacks or even gold. Bitcoin is certainly not a store of value. The drawdown in cryptocurrency prices has been around 80% a year or 40%-50% over three months. This is much more volatile than currencies such as the Turkish lira or Argentinian peso, from countries fraught with political instability and economic fragility (Chart I-4). It appears that the lack of central bank oversight is a vice and not a virtue. Stability in a currency allows for confidence in savings, future purchases, and investment decisions. A monetary system based on cryptocurrencies deprives citizens of this basic tenet.   Chart I-4Bitcoin Is A Poor Store Of Value Bitcoin’s inherent volatility also makes it unsuitable as a unit of account. Prices quoted in bitcoin units will need to be revised daily. Although not a parallel comparison, this is reminiscent of hyperinflationary Zimbabwe, where retail store prices were adjusted several times a day to reflect the rapid depreciation in the currency. This is hardly a monetary regime suitable for the developed world, or any other economy for that matter. In a nutshell, cryptocurrencies do not yet satisfy the basic functions of money. Yes, they are portable, divisible, fungible and in limited supply. However, they have yet to gain wider acceptance, and are not a store of value nor a unit of account. As such, they remain speculative investments rather than money. The Demise Of Fiat Is Exaggerated Even if bitcoin is not money, the question remains whether it should be held in currency portfolios as insurance against fiat money debasement. After all, central bank quantitative easing since the global financial crisis has benefited other monetary assets such as gold and silver. Should investors also accumulate cryptocurrencies? The answer will depend on the type of investor. Dedicated currency investors need not worry about bitcoin. As a starting point, the US dollar very much remains the reserve currency today. About 60% of global reserve allocation is in USD. This position has often been challenged over the last few decades but has never been threatened (Chart I-5). This puts cryptocurrencies a long way from the starting line. Chart I-5The US Dollar Remains King It is worth noting that over time, fiat assets have done much better than anti-fiat alternatives. Using Bank of England data from the 19th century, we can see that over time, government bonds did much better than gold, or even stocks and real estate (Chart I-6). The reason is that most currencies provide a yield, while cryptocurrencies and gold do not. Chart I-6Fiat Versus Anti-Fiat Assets Chart I-7The DXY Has Faced Strong Resistance At 100 If one is worried about the path of the US dollar (like us), there are many other established fiat currencies to choose from. Since 2015, global allocation of FX Reserves to US dollars has fallen from almost 66% to around 60% today. The rotation has favored other currencies such as the Japanese yen, Chinese yuan and even gold (Chart I-7). From a longer-term perspective, this will place a durable floor under developed market currencies. Cryptocurrencies Versus Gold The degree to which cryptocurrencies can benefit from a shift away from dollars will depend on whether private investors or central banks drive the outflows. Central banks have a natural imperative to defend fiat currencies, since these are the very tools they use to implement monetary policy. As such, when diversifying out of dollars, their choice is other fiat currencies or gold, the latter having been a monetary standard for centuries. Private investors, some wanting to cut the cord to a centralized monetary system, may chose cryptocurrencies. Since the peak in the DXY index in 2020, both gold and US Treasuries are down significantly, while bitcoin has catapulted to new highs (Chart I-8). This has occurred because of a change in leadership, where the biggest sellers of US Treasuries have not been official concerns, but private investors (Chart I-9). Foreign central banks still dominate the holding of US Treasuries, to the tune of 60% versus 40% for private investors (bottom panel). But the bulk of outflows has been coming from private investors. Chart I-8Bitcoin Thrives When Mainstream Havens Are Rolling Over Chart I-9A Treasury Liquidation From ##br##Private Investors Central banks (the biggest holders of US Treasuries) tend to have stronger hands. This is because central banks are ideological while private investors can be swayed by momentum. For example, China and Russia have a geopolitical imperative to diversify out of dollars. As a result, Russia now has almost 25% of its foreign exchange reserves in gold and China almost 4%. A conservative investor looking to diversify out of fiat currency should naturally choose gold, which is backed by strong buyers. For more speculative investors, a simple rule of thumb could work: Buy cryptocurrencies when they drop 50% and sell when they overtake their previous highs. As we showed in Chart I-3, cryptocurrencies drop at least 40%-50% every year or so, providing ample opportunity to accumulate long positions. It is worth noting that my colleagues have a different approach. Dhaval Joshi, who heads our Counterpoint product, suggests holding cryptocurrencies in inverse proportion to their relative volatility to gold. In other words, given that bitcoin is three times more volatile than gold, your anti-fiat portfolio should have a 25% allocation to cryptocurrencies.3 Peter Berezin, our Chief Global Strategist, will not touch bitcoin. We tend to agree that cryptocurrencies could be a playable mania but would not recommend this asset class for the longer term. Central Bank Digital Currencies   One argument for why cryptocurrencies may not survive over the longer term is that there is a natural limit to how much widespread acceptance they will achieve before central banks start clamping down on them. The first reason will be due to the loss in seigniorage revenue for central banks. Between 2009 and 2019, the US and China generated about $140bn a year in seigniorage revenue (Chart I-10). These are non-negligible sums, which the rapid proliferation of cryptocurrencies threaten. Moreover, as the turnover in cryptocurrencies overtakes global trading in various domestic currencies, many countries are moving to ban bitcoin transactions (Table I-1). Chart I-10Seigniorage Revenue Is Significant Table 1A Rising List Of Cryptocurrency Bans Second, the use of cryptocurrencies can encourage the proliferation of illegal activities. This is a well-known flaw, and something governments will push back against. Meanwhile, many central banks are moving to establish their own digital currencies. Some of these could be based off the same blockchain technology that underpins bitcoin. This will provide many of the advantages of using a cryptocurrency without some of the known pitfalls. Map I-1 highlights that most G10 central banks have a digital currency plan. Map I-1Many Central Banks Are Planning A Digital Currency Some advocates for bitcoin point to its limited supply (21 million coins) as evidence for monetary prudence. Even the gold standard had more flexibility, since gold mining expanded about 2% a year. Yet that still proved to be extremely deflationary. A monetary standard that includes both paper currency and CBDCs provides the flexibility that central bankers need to smooth out economic cycles. A bitcoin-based standard will take us back to the middle ages. Once CDBCs become mainstream, the need for alternative cryptocurrencies will not disappear but fall greatly. This will also happen as the number of cryptocurrencies being created will likely balloon, given the very impressive price rallies in recent years. The IPO of Coinbase, an exchange for trading cryptocurrencies, may have heralded the peak in sentiment. Investment Conclusions The dollar faces many headwinds over the next 12 months. A rebound in global growth that begins to favor non-US economies will benefit pro-cyclical currencies. The Federal Reserve’s liquidity injections have assuaged the dollar shortage that held markets hostage last year. Interest rates are now moving against the dollar. Meanwhile, the greenback is expensive (Chart I-11), with a negative balance of payments backdrop. Chart I-11The US Dollar Is Expensive Chart I-12Hold Precious Metals Our favorite vehicles to play against coming weakness in the dollar have been the Scandinavian currencies, precious metals and commodity currencies. Within the precious metals sphere, we like both gold and silver but are short the gold/silver ratio as a hedged trade with little downside and much upside (Chart I-12). In particular, precious metals benefit from reserve diversification out of US dollars. In this light, cryptocurrencies could have intermittent rallies. However, given the regulatory and structural issues they face, we will not be holders for the long term.   Chester Ntonifor Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 We use bitcoin and cryptocurrencies interchangeably in this text. We do acknowledge that there are various other cryptocurrencies and these are shown in Chart 1. 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Bitcoin: A Solution In Search Of A Problem," dated February 26, 2021. 3 Please see Counterpoint Strategy Special Report, "Why Cryptocurrencies Are Here To Stay And Bitcoin Is Worth $120,000," dated April 8, 2021. Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 March housing starts came in at 1.7 million, versus expectations of 1.6 million. This was a 19.4% month-on-month rise. Building permits were equally strong at 1.8 million for the month of March. The University of Michigan sentiment indicator rose to 86.5 in April from 84.9. The jump in the current conditions component from 93 to 97.2 was noteworthy. Initial jobless claims continue to decline, coming in at 547K for the week of April 17. Existing home sales remained strong at 6 million, even though they fell 3.7% month-on-month. The DXY Index fell by 0.3% this week. Speculators pared back a bit of their bullish positioning on the dollar. The overhang of a risk-off event continues to anchor dollar bulls, but interest rate differentials are now moving against the greenback. Report Links: Arbitrating Between Dollar Bulls And Bears - March 19, 2021 The Dollar Bull Case Will Soon Fade - March 5, 2021 Are Rising Bond Yields Bullish For The Dollar? - February 19, 2021 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 Recent euro area data have been mixed. The trade balance came in at €18.4 billion in February, versus €24.2 billion the previous month. This supported a current account balance of €25.9 billion. Construction output fell 5.8% year-on-year in February. Consumer confidence came in at -8.1 in April, versus -10.8 in March. The euro rose by 0.3% this week. The ECB kept monetary policy on hold this week, leaving the deposit facility rate at -0.5% and the marginal lending facility at 0.25%. This garnered little market reaction. With a few euro area countries under lockdown, this was the correct stance. Covid-19 will continue to dictate the near-term path of policy and the euro, but we remain bullish longer term. Report Links: Relative Growth, The Euro, And The Loonie - April 16, 2021 Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 On Japanese Inflation And The Yen - January 29, 2021 Japanese Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Recent data from Japan have been robust. Exports surged 16.1% year-on-year in March. Imports were also robust at +5.7% year-on-year. This boosted the trade balance to ¥298 billion. Tokyo condominiums for sale are rising 45% year-on-year. Supermarket sales rose 1.3% year-on-year in March. This is a tentative but positive sign of a consumption recovery. The Japanese yen rose 0.6% this week. The yen has been the best performing currency this week, a sign that sentiment was overly bearish and the currency was much oversold. Our intermediate-term indicator remains at bombed-out levels and speculators are still short the yen. This provides further upside for this defensive currency. As a portfolio hedge, we are short EUR/JPY. Report Links: The Dollar Bull Case Will Soon Fade - March 5, 2021 On Japanese Inflation And The Yen - January 29, 2021 The Dollar Conundrum And Protection - November 6, 2020 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 There was an avalanche of positive data from the UK this week. Rightmove house prices came in at 5.1% year on year in April. The labor report was mixed. While the UK lost 73 thousand jobs in February, this was below expectations of a 145 thousand loss. Core CPI came in at 1.1% in March. The RPI index came in at 1.5% year-on-year, in line with expectations. The CBI business optimism survey came in at 38 in April, versus -22 the previous month. Cable rose by 0.4% this week. The UK economy continues to benefit from its strong vaccination campaign. With the prospect of the rest of the world catching up, this trade is now long in the tooth. In short, we are neutral the pound in the short term, but remain bullish longer-term. Report Links: Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 The Dollar Conundrum And Protection - November 6, 2020 Revisiting Our High-Conviction Trades - September 11, 2020 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 There was scant data out of Australia this week. The NAB business confidence index came in at 17 in Q1 versus 14 the prior quarter. The Australian dollar fell by 0.6% against the US dollar this week. The Aussie came out of the Covid-19 crisis as one of the best performing currencies, so some measure of consolidation is to be expected. Our intermediate-term indicator continues to blast downward, while sentiment towards the Aussie remains quite elevated. However, we believe that this will be a healthy consolidation in what could prove to be a multi-year bull market in the Australian dollar. Report Links: The Dollar Bull Case Will Soon Fade - March 5, 2021 Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 Australia: Regime Change For Bond Yields & The Currency? - January 20, 2021 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 There was scant data out of New Zealand this week. CPI came in at 1.5% in Q1, in line with expectations. The Kiwi fell by 0.2% against the US dollar this week. Like Australia, New Zealand has managed the Covid-19 crisis quite well and the new travel bubble between the two countries will help lift economic activity. From a technical perspective however, room for further consolidation in the Kiwi remains. Our intermediate-term indicator continues to drift lower, while speculators are slightly long the cross. In our models, the Kiwi also appears overvalued. We were long AUD/NZD but were stopped out this week for modest profits. We will look to reestablish the trade. Report Links: Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 Currencies And The Value-Versus-Growth Debate - July 10, 2020 Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 The recent data out of Canada has been quite strong. Foreigners continue to flock into Canadian capital markets, to the tune of C$8.5bn in February. Housing starts came in at 335 thousand in March, the highest since the 70s. The Teranet house price index rose 10.8% year-on-year in March. The CPI release for March was better than expected. Headline was at 2.2%, the core median was at 2.1% and the trimmed mean came in at 2.2%. The Canadian dollar rose by 0.3% this week. The Bank of Canada kept rates on hold, but trimmed asset purchases. This follows a very generous budget from the Liberal party earlier this week. The loonie loved the news and Canadian government bonds sold off. We remain bullish CAD/USD on valuation grounds, spillovers from US fiscal stimulus and a constructive oil backdrop.  Report Links: Relative Growth, The Euro, And The Loonie - April 16, 2021 Will The Canadian Recovery Lead Or Lag The Global Cycle? - February 12, 2021 Currencies And The Value-Versus-Growth Debate - July 10, 2020 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 The recent data out of Switzerland has been quite strong. Producer and import prices fell by 0.2% year-on-year in March. This is a tremendous improvement from the previous 1.1% drop. M3 money supply continues to expand at a robust 5.6% clip. Exports rose 4.5% month-on-month in March. Watch exports surged 37% year-on-year. The Swiss franc rose 0.5% this week. The Swiss franc is the second best performing currency this week after the yen. With US interest rates stabilizing, the rationale for CHF carry trades is slowly fading. Our intermediate-term indicator shows the franc at bombed-out levels, and speculators are still short. This provides some margin for further upside. We are long EUR/CHF, but with very tight stops. Report Links: Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 The Dollar Conundrum And Protection - November 6, 2020 On The DXY Breakout, Euro, And Swiss Franc - February 21, 2020 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 There was scant data out of Norway this week. Industrial confidence came in at 8.2 in Q1, versus a prior reading of 3.1. The Norwegian krone was flat against the US dollar this week. Norway is setting the tone in terms of what monetary policy and sovereign wealth management could look like for many countries in the coming years. First, the Norges Bank announced they would be testing digital currency solutions over the coming two years. This is the way forward for central banks. Second, the sovereign wealth fund, the biggest in the world, is using its influence to effect policy changes towards the environment. Should the returns from its investments pay off in the years ahead, this could generate powerful repatriation flows for Norway. We are strategically bullish the NOK. Report Links: Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 Revisiting Our High-Conviction Trades - September 11, 2020 A New Paradigm For Petrocurrencies - April 10, 2020 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 There was no data out of Sweden this week. The Swedish krona rose by 0.2% this week. Swedish 2-year real rates recently punched above US levels, suggesting downward pressure on the krona should soon be abating. Our intermediate-term indicator suggests weakness in the krona is mostly done, while the currency appears cheap in most of our models. The handicap for Sweden is successfully dealing with the pandemic, after having a model that stood apart from what other countries were following. Over the longer-term, we are bullish SEK, just like the NOK, against both the euro and the dollar. Report Links: Revisiting Our High-Conviction Trades - September 11, 2020 Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Where To Next For The US Dollar? - June 7, 2019 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Limit Orders Closed Trades

Highlights Higher copper prices will follow in the wake of China's surge in steel demand, which lifted Shanghai steel futures to an all-time high just under 5,200 RMB/MT earlier this month, as building and infrastructure projects are completed this year (Chart of the Week). Copper will register physical deficits this year and next, which will pull inventories even lower and will push demand for copper scrap up in China and globally. High and rising copper prices could prompt government officials to release some of China's massive state holdings of copper – believed to total some 2mm MT – if the current round of market jawboning fails to restrain demand and price increases. Strong steel margins and another round of environmental restraints on mills are boosting demand for high-grade iron ore (65% Fe), which hit a record high of just under $223/MT earlier this week. Benchmark iron ore prices (62% Fe) traded at 10-year highs this week, just a touch below $190/MT. We are lifting our copper price forecast for December 2021 to $5.00/lb from $4.50/lb. In addition, we are getting long 2022 CME/COMEX copper vs short 2023 CME/COMEX copper at tonight's close, expecting steeper backwardation. Feature Government-mandated reductions of up to 30% in steel mill operations for the rest of the year in China's Tangshan steel hub to reduce pollution will tighten an already-tight market responding to a construction and infrastructure boom (Chart 2). This boom triggered a surge in steel prices, and, perforce, in iron ore prices (Chart 3). As it has in the past, this sets the stage for the next leg of copper's bull run. Chart of the WeekSurging Steel Presages Stronger Copper Prices In our modeling, we have found a strong relationship between steel prices, particularly for reinforcing bar (rebar), and copper prices, as can be seen in the Chart of the Week. Steel goes into building and infrastructure projects at the front end (in the concrete that is reinforced by steel and in rolled coil products), and then copper goes into the completed project (in the form of wires or pipes). Chart 2Copper Bull Market Will Continue In addition to the building and construction boom, continued gains in manufacturing will provide a tailwind for copper prices, which will be augmented by the global recovery in activity 2H21. Chart 4 shows the relationship between nominal GDP levels and copper prices. What's important here is economic growth in Asia (including China) and ex-Asia is, unsurprisingly, cointegrated with copper prices – i.e., economic growth and industrial commodities share a long-term equilibrium, which explains their co-movement. Chart 3Steel Boom Lifts Iron Ore Prices Media reports tend to focus on the effects of Chinese government spending as a share of GDP – e.g., total social financing relative to GDP – to the exclusion of the economic, particularly when trying to explain commodity price movements. To the extent the Chinese government is successful in further expanding the private sector – on the goods and services sides – organic economic growth will become even more important in explaining Chinese commodity demand. Chart 4Global Economic Grwoth Will Boost Copper Prices In our copper modeling, we find copper prices to be cointegrated with nominal Chinese GDP, EM Asian GDP and EM ex-Asian GDP, along with steel and iron ore prices, which, from a pure economics point of view, is what would be expected. On the other hand, there is no cointegration – i.e., no economic co-movement or a shared trend – between these industrial commodity prices and total social financing as a percent of nominal China GDP. These models allow us to avoid spurious relationships, which offer no help in explaining or forecasting these copper prices. Chart 5Iron Ore, Copper Demand Will Lift With The "Green Energy" Buildout Chart 6Renewables Dominate Incremental New Generation Longer term, as we have written in past research reports, the transition to a low-carbon energy mix favoring distributed renewable electricity generation, more resilient grids and electric vehicles (EVs) will be a major source of demand growth for bulks like iron ore and steel, and base metals, particularly copper (Chart 5).1 Already, renewable generation represents the highest-growth segment of incremental power generation being added to the global grid (Chart 6). Copper Supply Growth Requires Higher Prices Copper supply will have a difficult time accommodating demand in the short term (to end-2022) when, for the most part, the buildout in renewables and EVs will only be getting started. This means that over the medium (to end-2025) and the long terms (2050) significant new supply will have to be developed to meet demand. In the short term, the supply side of refined copper – particularly the semi-refined form of the metal smelters purify into a useable input for manufactured products (condensates) – is running extremely low, as can be seen in the longer-term collapse of Treatment Charges and Refining Charges (TC/RC) at Chinese smelters (Chart 7). At ~ $22/MT last week, these charges were the lowest since the benchmark TC/RC index tracking these charges in China was launched in 2013, according to reuters.com.2 Chart 7Copper TCRCs Fall As Supplies Fall, Pushing Prices Higher The copper supply story also can be seen in Chart 8, which converts annual supply and demand into balances, which will be mediated by the storage market. The International Copper Study Group (ICSG) estimates mine output again registered flat year-on-year growth last year, while refined copper supplies were up a scant 1.5% y/y. Chart 8Physical Deficits Will Draw Copper Stocks... Consumption was up 2.2%, according to the ICSG's estimates, which expects a physical deficit this year of 456k MT, after adjusting for Chinese bonded warehouse stocks. This will mark the fourth year in a row the copper market has been in a physical deficit, which, since 2017, has averaged 414k MT. The net result of this means inventories will once again be relied on to fill in supply gaps, and global stockpiles, which are down ~25% y/y, and will continue to fall (Chart 9). With mining capex weak and copper ore quality falling, higher prices will be required to incentivize significant new investment in production (Chart 10). However, the lead time on these projects is five years in the best of circumstances, which means miners have to get projects sanctioned with final investment decisions made in the near future (Chart 11). Chart 9...Which After Four Years Of Physical Deficits Are Low Chart 10Higher Copper Prices Required To Reverse Weak Capex, Falling Ore Quality Chart 11Falling Lead Times To Bring New Mines Online, But Time Is Short Investment Implications Our focus on copper is driven by the simple fact that it spans all renewable technologies and will be critical for EVs as well, particularly if there is widespread adoption of this technology (Chart 12). We continue to expect copper supply challenges across the short-, medium- and long-term investment horizons. To cover the short term, we recommended going long December 2021 copper on 10 September 2020, and this position is up 39.2%. To cover the longer term, we are long the S&P Global GSCI commodity index and the iShares GSCI Commodity Dynamic Roll Strategy ETF (COMT), recommended 7 December 2017 and 12 March 2021 , respectively, which are down 2.3% and 0.8%. Chart 12Widespread EV Uptake Will Create All New Copper Demand At tonight's close, we will cover the medium-term opportunity of the copper supply-demand story developed above by getting long the 2022 CME/COMEX copper futures strip and short 2023 CME/COMEX copper futures strip, given our expectation the continued tightening of the market will force inventories to draw, leading to a steeper backwardation in the copper forward curve. The principal risks to our short-, medium- and long-term positions above are a global failure to contain the COVID-19 pandemic, which, we believe is a short-term risk. Second among the risks to these positions is a large release of strategic copper concentrate reserves held by China's State Reserve Bureau (aka, the State Bureau of Minerial Reserves). In the case of the latter risk, the actual holdings of the Bureau are unknown, but are believed to be in the neighborhood of 2mm MT.3 Bottom Line: We remain bullish industrial commodities, particularly copper. Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com   Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish Texas is expected to add 10 GW of utility-scale solar power by the end of 2022, according to the US EIA. Texas entered the solar market in a big way in 2020, installing 2.5 GW of capacity. The EIA expects The Great State to add ~ 5GW per year in the next two years, which would take total solar capacity to just under 15 GW. Roughly 30% of this new capacity is expected to be built in the Permian Basin, home to the most prolific oil field in the US. By comparison, the leading producer of solar power in the US, California, will add 3.2 GW of new solar capacity, according to the EIA (Chart 13). To end-2022, roughly one-third of total new solar generation in the will be added in Texas, which already is the leading wind-powered generator in the country. Wind availability is highest during the nighttime hours, while solar is most abundant during the mid-day period. Precious Metals: Bullish Palladium prices, trading ~ $2,876/oz on Wednesday, surpassed their previous record of $2,875.50/oz set in February 2020 and are closing in on $3,000/oz, as supply expectations continue to be lowered by Russian metals producer Nornickel, the largest palladium producer in the world (Chart 14). Earlier this week, the company updated earlier guidance and now expects mine output to be down as much as 20% this year in its copper, nickel and palladium operations, due to flooding in its mines. Palladium is used as a catalyst in gasoline-powered automobiles, sales of which are expected to rebound as the world emerges from COVID-19-induced demand destruction and a computer-chip shortage that has limited new automobile supply. In addition, production of platinum-group metals (PGMs) is being hampered by unreliable power supply in South Africa, which has forced the national utility suppling most of the state's power (> 90%) to revert to load-shedding schemes to conserve power. We remain long palladium, after recommending a long position in the metal 23 April 2020; the position is up 35.6%. Chart 13 Chart 14     Footnotes 1     Please see, e.g., Renewables, China's FYP Underpin Metals Demand, which we published 26 November 2020.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com.   2     Please see RPT-COLUMN-Copper smelter terms at rock bottom as mine squeeze hits: Andy Home published by reuters.com 14 April 2021.  The report notes direct transactions between miners and smelters were reported as low as $10/MT, in a sign of just how tight the physical supply side of the copper market is at present. 3    Please see Column: Supercycle or China cycle? Funds wait for Dr Copper's call, published by reuters.com 20 April 2021.    Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2021 Summary of Closed Trades

Highlights If fully implemented, President Biden’s Made in America Tax Plan would reduce S&P 500 earnings by about 8%. We expect some of the proposed tax measures to be watered down, resulting in a 5% decline in earnings. Investors are likely to shrug off the near-term impact of higher taxes, given strong economic growth and continued support from accommodative monetary policy. Looking further out, however, we see four reasons why US tax rates are likely to keep rising, eventually reaching levels that hurt stock prices: First, the effective US corporate tax rate is still very low; second, the failure of President Trump’s tax cuts to boost investment spending will make it easier eventually to fully reverse them; third, rising bond yields will make it more expedient to fund spending with higher taxes rather than increased borrowing; and fourth, and most importantly, the political winds are shifting in favor of higher taxes on corporations and the wealthy. The Democrats have been moving leftward on economic matters for some time. For their part, conservative Republicans are starting to ask themselves why they should support tax cuts for a growing list of “woke” companies that seemingly hate them. The US corporate sector is at risk of being left without a party to defend its interests. Thus, while the near-term outlook for stocks is still bright, the long-term outlook is growing increasingly dim. The Biden Tax Plan On March 31st, President Biden unveiled the American Jobs Plan. The plan proposes $2.25 trillion in new federal spending, spread out over eight years, on public infrastructure and other areas. As outlined in the Made In America Tax Plan, the Biden Administration will seek to raise $2 trillion in tax revenue over the next 15 years in order to fund the new spending package. The three most important provisions in the tax plan are: Raising the domestic corporate income tax rate from 21% to 28%. This would bring the tax rate halfway back to where it was prior to the Trump tax cuts (35%). Taking into account the global distribution of corporate profits and other factors, such a tax hike would reduce S&P 500 earnings by about 4%. Increasing the minimum tax on the foreign profits of US companies. The Biden administration proposes doubling the minimum tax rate on Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income (GILTI) from 10.5% to 21%. It also plans to eliminate the Foreign-Derived Intangible Income deduction (FDII). These two measures would reduce S&P 500 earnings by about another 3.5%. A 15% minimum tax on “book income” (i.e., the earnings that companies report to shareholders). The tax applies to corporations with annual profits in excess of $2 billion. The Treasury department estimates that 45 companies will be liable for this tax. It would cut S&P 500 earnings by a further 0.5%. Taken together, these provisions would reduce S&P 500 earnings by about 8%. In practice, we think the impact will be closer to 5%. The Biden plan includes a variety of tax credits, focusing on areas such as clean energy and R&D, which should offset some of the tax increases. The ultimate corporate tax rate is also likely to fall short of 28%. West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin, the critical swing voter, has already said he would prefer to cap it at 25%. What Has Been Priced In? Chart 1Companies That Stand To Lose The Most From Higher Taxes Have Fared Well Our reading of the data suggests that very little of the impact from higher taxes has been baked into either analyst earnings estimates or market expectations. Chart 1 displays the performance of Goldman‘s “Formerly High Tax” and “Formerly Low Tax” equity baskets. The formerly high-taxed companies gained the most from Trump’s tax cuts and presumably would lose the most if the tax cuts were rolled back. Yet, they have outperformed their low-taxed peers since the Georgia runoff election, which handed the Senate to the Democrats. Likewise, earnings estimates have not reacted to the prospect of higher taxes. This is not surprising. Chart 2 shows that analysts did not adjust their earnings estimates until shortly after President Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act into law on December 22, 2017. Similar to what happened back then, analysts appear to be waiting for the details of the ultimate tax package before changing their estimates. Chart 2Analysts Have Not Adjusted Their Earnings Estimates To Reflect The Likelihood Of Higher Taxes For Now, Business Cycle Dynamics Are More Important Than Taxes While the failure of the investment community to price in higher taxes represents a headwind to stocks, we would characterize it as a modest headwind. IBES estimates still point to earnings growth of 15% for S&P 500 companies in 2022. It would take an unrealistically large tax hit to keep corporate profits from rising next year. The IMF’s latest economic projections, released a few weeks ago, foresee US real GDP growing by 3.5% in 2022, one full percentage point faster than the Fund expected in January (Table 1). Given the strong correlation between equity returns and economic growth, the equity bull market will likely survive a tax increase (Chart 3). Table 1Growth Remains Robust Chart 3Stocks Usually Outperform Bonds When Economic Growth Is Strong   Of course, some stocks could still feel the pinch from higher taxes. The tech sector is especially vulnerable, given that it currently enjoys one of the lowest effective tax rates in the S&P 500 (Chart 4). Tech companies have also been very adept at shifting income from intangible assets such as patents to offshore tax havens, which is likely to put them in the crosshairs of the soon-to-be bulked up IRS.1 We currently favor value over growth stocks. The likelihood that higher taxes will have a disproportionately negative effect on growth sectors such as tech only reinforces this view. Chart 4Tech Is Vulnerable To Higher Taxes   Higher Taxes: Start Of A Long-Term Trend? While we are not too worried about the near-term impact of higher taxes on equity prices, we are more concerned about the longer-term consequences. As we discuss below, not only is Biden likely to raise personal income and capital gains taxes to fund future spending initiatives such as the forthcoming American Families Plan, but the pressure to keep raising business taxes will persist well beyond his administration. There are four reasons for this: Reason #1: The effective US corporate tax rate is still very low Chart 5Corporate Tax Revenues Are Low In April 2018, four months after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act came into effect, the Congressional Budget Office projected that US corporations would pay $276 billion in corporate taxes in 2019. In the end, they paid only $230 billion.2 US corporate income tax receipts stood at only 1% of GDP in 2018-19, half of what they were in 2013-17 (Chart 5). During Ronald Reagan’s second term in office, US corporations faced an effective tax rate of around 30%. Today, it is less than 15% (Chart 6). As a share of GDP, the US government collects less corporate tax revenue than almost all other OECD economies (Chart 7).   Chart 6The Economy-Wide Effective Corporate Tax Rate Has Been Shrinking For More Than Three Decades Chart 7US Corporate Taxation Is Not High Chart 8Trump Was Unlucky To Be Singled Out By The IRS Moreover, the US government often does not even bother to even collect the money that is owed to it. Audits of corporations with more than $20 billion in assets are down 50% since 2011. Audits of individuals with annual income above $1 million are down 80% (Chart 8). In his testimony to the US Senate this week Chuck Rettig, IRS Commissioner, estimated that tax evasion costs the government $1 trillion per year. Reason #2: The failure of Trump’s tax cuts to boost investment spending will make it easier to eventually fully reverse them If the Trump tax cuts had raised investment spending, it would be easier to overlook the negative effect that they had on the budget deficit. The evidence, however, suggests that lower corporate taxes did very little to spur capex. Chart 9 shows that capital spending barely increased as a share of GDP in the two years following the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. According to the International Monetary Fund, only one-fifth of the tax cuts were used to finance capital investment and R&D spending.3 Along the same lines, Hanlon, Hoopes, and Slemrod found that fewer than a quarter of S&P 500 companies discussed plans to increase capex in response to lower taxes during their conference calls.4 Chart 9Trump's Tax Cuts Did Little To Spur Investment Chart 10Business Equipment And IP Do Not Last Long   Why did corporate investment fail to rise much? One answer is that a tax on profits is not the same thing as a tax on capital investment. As Appendix 1 explains, lower corporate taxes are unlikely to have much of an effect on debt-financed capital spending when interest costs are tax deductible. Unlike long-lived assets such as homes, most of the corporate capital stock is fairly short-lived (Chart 10). The demand for business equipment and software depends more on the outlook for aggregate demand than on the cost of capital. Finally, as we explained in a report entitled Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around, the majority of corporate profits these days can be attributed to monopolistic power of one form or another. Standard economic theory suggests that taxing monopoly rents will not reduce output or investment. Reason #3: Rising bond yields will make it more expedient to fund spending with higher taxes rather than increased borrowing With interest rates still at exceptionally low levels, there is no immediate need to raise taxes to finance increased government spending. This is especially true for infrastructure spending, which can reasonably be expected to boost economic growth (and hence tax receipts) over the long haul. Chart 11US Interest Payments Will Skyrocket Under The Status Quo If interest rates were to rise, however, governments would likely find it advantageous to increase taxes rather than face spiralling debt-servicing costs. Public debt levels are very high in the US and in most other economies, so any increase in interest rates would siphon funds from social programs towards bondholders. This would not be popular with voters. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that federal government interest payments will swell rapidly over the coming decades if measures are not taken to rein in budget deficits (Chart 11). As we discuss next, these measures are likely to take the form of higher taxes rather than spending cuts.   Reason #4: The political winds are shifting in favor of higher taxes on corporations and the wealthy Democrats have been moving leftward for some time. In 2001, 50% of Democrats said that “government should do more to solve our country’s problems.” Today, that number is 83% (Chart 12). Chart 12Democrats Want More Government Chart 13Big Ticket Social And Health Care Spending To Keep Rising While Republicans continue to show a preference for small government, this may not last. Medicare and Social Security consume over 40% of all federal non-interest spending. Outlays on both programs (Medicare in particular) are set to grow rapidly over the coming years (Chart 13). To the extent that the political preferences of older Americans lean Republican, this could make the GOP more inclined to support higher taxes in order to sustain benefits to the elderly. The fact that corporations and the rich increasingly favor socially liberal policies is leading conservative Republicans to ask why they should continue to support tax cuts for people and companies that seemingly hate them. Whereas Joe Biden won the richest US counties by 20 percentage points last November, Trump saw his support rise in the poorest counties (Chart 14). Reflecting this trend, the share of Republicans who expressed “hardly any confidence in Corporate America” rose from 19% in February 2018 to 30% in March 2021 (Chart 15).   Chart 14Democrats Have Made Serious Inroads Among The Better-Off Chart 15Republicans Growing More Skeptical Of Corporate CEOs More than twice as many Republicans now favor raising corporate taxes as lowering them (Chart 16). Nationally, 73% of Americans are dissatisfied with the influence that corporations have over the nation, a 25-point jump from 2001 (Chart 17). Chart 16More Americans Want To Soak The Rich Chart 17Souring Attitudes Toward Big Corporations Given the shift in public opinion, it is not too surprising that the Republican response to Biden‘s tax plan was decidedly “low energy”. After a perfunctory condemnation of the plan, Republican leaders quickly pivoted to attacking “woke” corporations. Addressing the corporate reaction to Georgia’s new election law, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell declared “We are witnessing a coordinated campaign by powerful and wealthy people to mislead and bully the American people.” He went on to say, “From election law to environmentalism to radical social agendas to the Second Amendment, parts of the private sector keep dabbling in behaving like a woke parallel government. Corporations will invite serious consequences if they become a vehicle for far-left mobs to hijack our country from outside the constitutional order.” If current trends continue, as we suspect they will, the US corporate sector will be left without a party to defend its interests. Thus, while the near-term outlook for stocks is still bright, the long-term outlook is growing increasingly dim.   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist pberezin@bcaresearch.com   Appendix 1: When Do Higher Taxes On Corporate Profits Reduce Investment? Suppose a company is considering whether to purchase a piece of machinery for $1000. Let us assume that the company faces an external rate of return, r, of 8%. That is to say, it can borrow and lend at 8%. The accompanying table illustrates how the firm’s profits will vary depending on its internal rate of return (the return on investment that the machine will generate). Let us start with the case where the company finances the purchase of the machine by issuing new debt. For now, assume that the internal rate of return is 10% and that the machine can be used indefinitely (i.e., it never depreciates). In this case, the machine will generate $100 in operating income per year. After subtracting the $80 in interest expense, the company will be left with $20 in pre-tax income (Example A). Suppose the company faces an income tax of 20% and interest is fully tax deductible. Then, the company will pay a tax of $20*0.2=$4, leaving it with $16 in after-tax profits (Example B). Notice that while the tax reduced the company’s after-tax profit, it did not extinguish the incentive to purchase the machine in the first place. After all, while $20 is better than $16, $16 is still better than zero. Thus, in this simple example, we see that when the purchase of capital equipment is financed through debt and interest payments are fully tax deductible, the imposition of a profit tax will not affect the ultimate decision of whether to invest or not. Things change when interest is not tax deductible. In this case, the internal rate of return must rise to r/(1-t) to make the company indifferent between buying the machine or not. In the example above, this means the internal rate of return must increase to 8%/(1-0.2)=10%. Then, the company will make an operating profit of $100, pay $20 in tax on that profit, and after paying $80 in interest, end up breaking even (Example C). The calculus in deciding whether to invest in new capital equipment is similar for equity financing as it is for debt financing when interest payments are not tax deductible. The best way to think about equity financing is to ask how much the market price of the machine will be after the company purchases it. If there is no tax and the internal rate of return is 10%, the market price will be $100/0.08=$1250 (Example D). Since the company can buy the machine for $1000, it makes sense to buy it. If the owner of the machine has to pay a profit tax of 20% on the stream of income that it generates, its market value will only be $80/0.08=$1000 (Example E). At this point, the company is indifferent about whether to purchase the machine or not. How do things change when we abandon the assumption that the machine lasts forever? The main difference is that the decision of whether to buy the machine becomes less sensitive to changes in the cost of capital. For example, suppose the machine only lasts one year. To make it worthwhile for the company to purchase that machine, the revenue that it generates in that one year must rise dramatically (Example F). This makes the decision to purchase the machine much less dependent on the interest rate and more dependent on business cycle considerations, especially the outlook for aggregate demand.   Appendix Table 1 Footnotes 1 Jed Graham, “Biden's Tax Plan: What It Means For Amazon, Google, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft,” Investor’s Business Daily (April 8, 2021). 2 “The Accuracy of CBO’s Baseline Estimates for Fiscal Year 2019,” Congressional Budget Office (December 2019). 3 Emanuel Kopp, Daniel Leigh, Susanna Mursula, and Suchanan Tambunlertchai, “U.S. Investment Since the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017,” IMF Working Paper (May 31, 2019). 4 Michelle Hanlon, Jeffrey L. Hoopes, and Joel Slemrod, “Tax Reform Made Me Do It!” NBER Working Paper 25283 (November 2018). Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores

Highlights Stronger global growth in the wake of continued and expected fiscal and monetary stimulus, and progress against COVID-19 are boosting oil demand assumptions by the major data suppliers for this year.  We lifted our 2021 global demand estimate by 640k b/d to 98.25mm b/d, and assume OPEC 2.0 will make the necessary adjustments to keep Brent prices closer to $60/bbl than not, so as not to disrupt a fragile recovery. We are maintaining our 2022 and 2023 Brent forecasts at $65/bbl and $75/bbl. Commodity markets are ignoring the rising odds of armed conflict involving the US, Russia and China and their clients and allies.  Russia has massed troops on Ukraine’s border and warned the US not to interfere.  China has massed warships off the coast of the Philippines, and continues its incursions in Taiwan’s air-defense zone, keeping US forces on alert.  Intentional or accidental engagement would spike oil prices.  Two-way price risk abounds.  In addition to the risk of armed hostilities, faster distribution of vaccines would accelerate recovery and boost prices above our forecasts.  Downside risk of a resurgence in COVID-19-induced lockdowns remains, as rising death and hospitalization rates in Brazil, India and Europe attest (Chart of the Week). Feature Oil-demand estimates – ours included – are reviving in the wake of measurable progress in combating the COVID-19 pandemic in major economies, and an abundance of fiscal and monetary stimulus, particularly out of the US.1 On the back of higher IMF GDP projections, we lifted our 2021 global demand estimate by 640k b/d to 98.25mm b/d in this month’s balances. In our modeling, we assume OPEC 2.0 will make the necessary adjustments to keep Brent prices closer to $60/bbl than not, so as not to disrupt a fragile recovery. In an unusual turn of events, the early stages of the recovery in oil demand will be led by DM markets, which we proxy using OECD oil consumption (Chart 2). Thereafter, EM economies, re-take the growth lead next year and into 2023. Chart of the WeekCOVID-19 Deaths, Hospitalizations Threaten Global Recovery Chart 2DM Demand Surges This Year Absorbing OPEC 2.0 Spare Capacity We continue to model OPEC 2.0, the producer coalition led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia, as the dominant producer in the market. The growth we are expecting this year will absorb a significant share of OPEC 2.0’s spare capacity, most of which – ~ 6mm b/d of the ~ 8mm b/d – is to be found in KSA (Chart 3). The core producers’ spare capacity allows them to meet recovering demand faster than the US shale producers can mobilize rigs and crews and get new supply into gathering lines and on to main lines. We model the US shale producers as a price-taking cohort, who will produce whatever the market allows them to produce. After falling to 9.22mm b/d in 2020, we expect US production to recover to 9.56mm b/d this year, 10.65mm b/d in 2022, and 11.18mm in 2023 (Chart 4). Lower 48 production growth in the US will be led by the shales, which will account for ~ 80% of total US output each year. Chart 3Core OPEC 2.0 Spare Capacity Will Respond First To Higher Demand Chart 4Shale Is The Marginal Barrel In The Price Taking Cohort OPEC 2.0’s dominant position on the supply side allows it to capture economic rents before non-coalition producers, which will remain a disincentive to them until the spare capacity is exhausted. Thereafter, the price-taking cohort likely will fund much of its E+P activities out of retained earnings, given their limited ability to attract capital. Equity investors will continue to demand dividends that can be maintained and grown, or return of capital via share buybacks. This will restrain production growth to those firms that are profitable. We expect the OPEC 2.0 coalition’s production discipline will keep supply levels just below demand so that inventories continue to fall, just as they have done during the COVID-19 pandemic, despite the demand destruction it caused (Chart 5). These modeling assumptions lead us to continue to expect supply and demand will continue to move toward balance into 2023 (Table 1). Chart 5Supply-Demand Balances in 2021 Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) We continue to expect this balancing to induce persistent physical deficits, which will keep inventories falling into 2023 (Chart 6). As inventories are drawn, OPEC 2.0’s dominant-producer position will allow it to will keep the Brent and WTI forward curves backwardated (Chart 7).2 We are maintaining our 2022 and 2023 Brent forecasts at $65/bbl and $75/bbl (Chart 8). Chart 6OPEC 2.0 Policy Continues To Keep Supply Below Demand... Chart 7OECD Inventories Fall to 2023 Chart 8Brent Forecasts Rise As Global Economy Recovers Two-Way Price Risk Abounds Risks to our views abound on the upside and the downside. To the upside, the example of the UK and the US in mobilizing its distribution of vaccines is instructive. Both states got off to a rough start, particularly the US, which did not seem to have a strategy in place as recently as January. After the US kicked its procurement and distribution into high gear its vaccination rates soared and now appear to be on track to deliver a “normal” Fourth of July holiday in the US. The UK has begun its reopening this week. Both states are expected to achieve herd immunity in 3Q21.3 The EU, which mishandled its procurement and distribution likely benefits from lessons learned in the UK and US and achieves herd immunity in 4Q21, according to McKinsey’s research. Any acceleration in this timetable likely would lead to stronger growth and higher oil prices. The next big task for the global community will be making vaccines available to EM economies, particularly those in which the pandemic is accelerating and providing the ideal setting for mutations and the spread of variants that could become difficult to contain. The risk of a resurgence in large-scale COVID-19-induced lockdowns remains, as rising death and hospitalization rates in Brazil, India and Europe attest. Cry Havoc The other big upside risk we see is armed conflict involving the US, Russia, China and their clients and allies. Commodity markets are ignoring these risks at present. Even though they do not rise to the level of war, the odds of kinetic engagement – planes being shot down or ships engaging in battle in the South China Sea – are rising on a daily basis. This is not unexpected, as our colleagues in BCA Research’s Geopolitical Strategy pointed out recently.4 Indeed, our GPS service, led by Matt Gertken, warned the Biden administration would be tested in this manner by Russia and China from the get-go. Russia has massed troops on Ukraine’s border and warned the US not to interfere. China has massed warships off the coast of the Philippines, and continues its incursions in Taiwan’s air-defense zone, keeping US forces on alert. Political dialogue between the US and Russia and the US and China is increasingly vitriolic, with no sign of any leavening in the near future. Intentional or accidental engagement could let slip the dogs of war and spike oil prices briefly. Finally, OPEC 2.0 is going to have to accommodate the “official” return of Iran as a bona fide oil exporter, if, as we expect, it is able to reinstate its nuclear deal – i.e., the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – with Western states, which was abrogated by then-President Donald Trump in 2018. This may prove difficult, given our view that the oil-price collapse of 2014-16 was the result of the Saudis engineering a market-share war to tank prices, in an effort to deny Iran $100+ per-barrel prices that had prevailed between end-2010 and mid-2014. OPEC 2.0, particularly KSA, has not publicly involved itself in the US-Iran negotiations. However, it is worthwhile recalling that following the disastrous market-share war launched in 2014, KSA and the rest of OPEC 2.0 did accommodate Iran’s return to markets post-JCPOA.   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 and WTI prices rallied sharply following the release of the EIA’s Weekly Petroleum Status Report showing a 9.1mm-barrel decline in US crude and product stocks for the week ended 9 April 2021. This was led by a huge draw in commercial crude and distillate inventories (5.9mm barrels and 2.1mm barrels, respectively). These draws came on the back of generally bullish global demand upgrades by the major data services (EIA, IEA and OPEC) over the past week. These assessments were supported by EIA data showing refined-product demand – i.e., “product supplied” – jumped 1.1mm b/d for the week ended 9 April. With vaccine distributions picking up steam, despite setbacks on the Johnson & Johnson jab, the storage draws and improved demand appear to have catalyze the move higher. Continued weakness in the USD also provided a tailwind, as did falling real interest rates in the US. Base Metals: Bullish Nickel prices fell earlier this week, as China’s official Xinhua news agency reported that Chinese Premier, Li Keqiang stressed the need to strengthen raw materials’ market regulation, amidst rising commodities prices, which been pressuring corporate financial performance (Chart 9). This statement came after China’s top economic advisor, Liu He also called for authorities to track commodities prices last week. Nickel prices fell by around $500/ ton earlier this week on this news, and were trading at $16,114.5/MT on the London Metals exchange as of Tuesday’s close. Other base metals were not affected by this news. Precious Metals: Bullish The US dollar and 10-year treasury yields fell after March US inflation data was released earlier this week. US consumer prices rose by the most in nearly nine years. The demand for an inflation hedge, coupled with the falling US dollar and treasury yields, which reduce the opportunity cost of purchasing gold, caused gold prices to rise (Chart 10). This uncertainty, coupled with the increasing inflationary pressures due to the US fiscal stimulus will increase demand for gold. Spot COMEX gold prices were trading at $1,746.20/oz as of Tuesday’s close. Ags/Softs: Neutral The USDA reported ending stocks of corn in the US stood at 1.35 billion bushels, well below market estimates of 1.39 billion and the 1.50 billion-bushel estimate by the Department last month, according to agriculture.com’s tally.  Global corn stocks ended at 283.9mm MT vs a market estimate of 284.5mm MT and a Department estimate of 287.6mm MT.  Chart 9Base Metals Are Being Bullish Chart 10Gold Prices To Rise   Footnotes 1     Please see US-Russia Pipeline Standoff Could Push LNG Prices Higher, which we published on 8 April 2021 re the IMF’s latest forecast for global growth.  Briefly, the Fund raised its growth expectations for this year and next to 6% and 4.4%, respectively, nearly a full percentage-point increase versus its January forecast update for 2021 2     A backwardated forward curve – prompt prices trading in excess of deferred prices – is the market’s way of signaling tightness.  It means refiners of crude oil value crude availability right now over availability a year from now.  This is exactly the same dynamic that drives an investor to pay $1 today for a dollar bill delivered tomorrow than for that same dollar bill delivered a year from now (that might only fetch 98 cents today, e.g.). 3    Please see When will the COVID-19 pandemic end?, published 26 March 2021 by McKinsey & Co. 4    Please see The Arsenal Of Democracy, a prescient analysis published 2 April 2021 by BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy.  The report notes the Biden administration “still faces early stress-tests on China/Taiwan, Russia, Iran, and even North Korea.  Game theory helps explain why financial markets cannot ignore the 60% chance of a crisis in the Taiwan Strait. A full-fledged war is still low-probability, but Taiwan remains the world’s preeminent geopolitical risk.”   Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2021 Summary of Closed Trades

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