Nickel

Supply and demand shocks in markets critical to the renewable-energy and defense industries will continue to play havoc with prices, which will negatively impact capex. In the short run, this benefits China given its already-dominant position in these markets. Longer term, investors already are providing capital for long-term projects needed for the energy transition. We remain long the XME ETF, given its low exposure to lithium and nickel holdings.

Indonesia will not revert to dictatorship. Yet the guardrails against authoritarianism are also constraining the actions of the next government in tackling near term domestic and regional challenges. For long-term positioning, use potential selloff from a “dictatorship scare” to build position as structural outlook for Indonesia is positive due to the China-West divorce and the global energy transition.

Executive Summary Tight Inventories Spike Metals Commodities' Watershed Moment Commodities' Watershed Moment Russia's war against Ukraine is a watershed moment, which will realign production, distribution and consumption of commodities globally. The development of new sources of the critical metals desperately needed to build out renewable energy grids and the drive to secure access to oil, gas and coal will intensify along political lines. China, reinforced by Russia, will lead the East, while the US and its allies will lead the West, in a redux of the Cold War. Local politics will intrude on this process, as left-of-center governments in important commodity-producing states secure their electoral victories and claim greater shares of commodity revenues. The rebuilding of defense systems, particularly in Europe, will compete with the renewable-energy transition. This will stress already-tight metals markets, where low inventories will predispose markets to higher volatility a la this week's oil, natgas and nickel price spikes. This will retard economic growth. In the short term, CO2 emissions will surge. Longer term, the transition to net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 will be pushed back years, as states compete for access to commodities. East-West trade restrictions and hoarding of commodities secured via trade within these respective blocs, as is occurring presently, will increase. Bottom Line: Russia's war against Ukraine is a watershed moment.  The development of new sources of the critical metals desperately needed to build out renewable energy grids, and the drive to secure access to oil, gas and coal will intensify. China, reinforced by Russia, will lead the East, while the US and its allies will lead the West, in a redux of the Cold War. Feature Russia's war with Ukraine provoked a watershed moment for Europe: Leaders suddenly realized they had to reverse decades of energy dependence on Russia, rebuild their militaries, and sustain a massive buildout of the continent's renewable-energy generation and grid. This occurred as inventories of the basic commodities required to achieve all of these objectives were stretched so tight that the mere threat of the cutoff of pipeline natural gas was enough to send benchmark EU natgas prices to a record $113/MMBtu, up nearly 80% from the previous day's close before it settled back to still-elevated levels (Chart 1). Oil inventories also were stretched extremely thin even before Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine 24 February (Chart 2). The situation is not improving, since, in the wake of the Ukraine war, numerous refiners and trading companies now are observing self-imposed sanctions against taking any Russian oil or refined products. It is worthwhile remembering this began before the US and UK announced they would ban all imports of Russian material this week.1 This will stretch supply chains by unknow durations – the movement of crude from Russia to a refiner could take months instead of weeks, until new trade patterns are established. Chart 1Little Flex In EU Gas Inventories Commodities' Watershed Moment Commodities' Watershed Moment Chart 2Little Flex In EU Gas Inventories Little Flex In EU Gas Inventories Little Flex In EU Gas Inventories   Global economic and policy uncertainty is massively elevated, with percent changes in oil and gas prices swinging on a double-digit basis daily. This makes it extremely difficult to bid or offer oil cargoes in the physical market or make markets (i.e., bid or offer) in the futures markets, which has the effect of compounding uncertainty and volatility. Fundamentals – supply, demand and inventories – take a back seat to fear and uncertainty in such markets. This makes it virtually impossible to assign a probability to any price outcomes based on supply and demand – the true definition of uncertainty in the Frank Knight sense – and to make long-term capex decisions over the long term.2 We raised our 2022 and 2023 Brent forecasts on the back of the massive uncertainty in the markets to $90/bbl and $85/bbl, respectively, right after Russia's invasion of Ukraine. We assume 1Q22 Brent will average $100/bbl. We expect core OPEC 2.0 producers – Saudi Arabia, UAE and Kuwait – will increase production beginning in 2Q22; US shale-oil output will rise, and ~ 1.2mm b/d of Iranian production will return to market in 2H22. Among the risks to our forecasts are a failure by core OPEC 2.0 to lift output (we expect an announcement at the end of this month when the producer coalition meets); lower-than-expected US shale output, and a failure to resolve the Iran nuclear deal with the US. Our modeling indicated these outcomes could lift Brent to between $120/bbl and $140/bbl by 2023 (Chart 3). We will be updating our forecasts next week.3 Chart 3Brent Forwards Lift Brent Forwards Lift Brent Forwards Lift EU's Watershed Metals Moment EU leadership is setting out to reverse decades of energy dependence on Russia, rebuild their militaries, and sustain a massive buildout of the continent's renewable-energy grid, all a result of the Ukraine war. This will require massive investment in metals mining and refining, along with steel-making capacity. Already, Germany is pledging to increase LNG import capacity and measures to reduce its dependence on Russian natural gas by 75% this year.4 The EU is looking to restore its natgas inventories to 90% of capacity before next winter, and has pledged to double down on renewables, in order to remove member-state dependence on Russian energy exports.5 These ambitious goals are up against the hard reality of scarce base metals supply globally. This will be exacerbated going forward by actions taken by and against Russia. The Russia-Ukraine crisis will destabilize metal markets, given supply uncertainty from Russia and its contribution to global supply. The commodities heavyweight constitutes 6%, 5% and 4% of global primary aluminum, refined nickel and copper production. Against the backdrop of very low global inventories in these metals (Chart 4), the prices of all three hit record highs over the last few days due to uncertain supply (Chart 5). LME nickel prices more than quadrupled on Tuesday as traders rushed to cover short positions and margin calls. Chart 4Low Inventories... Low Inventories... Low Inventories... Chart 5...Lead To Price Volatility ...Lead To Price Volatility ...Lead To Price Volatility Uncertainty has engulfed metal markets, with a Western ban on Russian metal imports still a possibility. Putin’s announcement regarding raw material export restrictions will further fuel supply uncertainty.6 As in the case of oil, private entities’ self-sanctioning, sanctions on the Russian financial system, and war-related supply chain disruptions are causing current Russian metal export disruptions.7 So far, Western sanctions on commodities have not directly interfered with metal flows from Russia. But markets are taking it day to day. Supply disruptions and sanctions force the formation of new trade patterns, as private entities aim to maximize arbitrage opportunities. For example, high European aluminum price spreads incentivized shipments from China, the world’s largest producer and consumer of refined aluminum. Normally, Europe relies on Russia for aluminum supplies. Rising European physical premiums for delivered metal, caused by Russian export disruptions, will see trading companies take advantage of arbitrage opportunities in other commodities as well. Europe's Risk Profile Rising Since the Ukraine war began, rising European physical premiums in commodities ranging from metals to natgas indicate the continent – more so than others – is particularly vulnerable to Russian export disruptions. Europe’s reliance on Russian energy and its supply disruptions will raise operating costs for smelters and refiners on the continent, threatening smelter shutdowns similar to those we saw this past winter. Markets were expecting power price relief over the warmer months and higher smelting activity. Elevated fuel and power prices, however, will constrain metals refining in Europe, and could shut or close even more smelters, keeping refined metals supply scarce and prices high. Rebuilding Europe's Defenses EU leaders are scheduled to take up a new energy and defense funding proposal today, which media reports are describing as "massive" (no detail provided ahead of the meeting, of course). This program reportedly will be akin to the EU's $2 trillion COVID-relief fund.8 The EU's fast response to defense shortfalls comes against the backdrop discussed above regarding super-tight metals markets, which now face a further complication of unpredictable local politics in metals-producing states. Some of these states have voted left-of-center governments into office, which now appear to be intent on nationalizing mining operations.9 Chile, e.g., accounts for ~ 30% of global copper ore output, and is in the process of re-writing its constitution, which will change tax and royalty law, and could pave the way for nationalization of copper and lithium mines. This political risk compounds any long-term planning operations by consumers like the EU and producers. Investment Implications Energy markets – broadly defined to include oil, gas and coal along with the base metals required for renewables and their supporting grids and electric vehicles – are being rocked by Russia's war with Ukraine. Base metals, in particular, will have to find price levels that destroy demand among competing uses, if the EU's dual-track plan to build out its renewables generation and restore a military capability is approved. A "massive" funding effort in Europe, coupled with equally massive efforts in the US and China – both intent on building out their renewable generation and grids, as well as expanding their defensive capabilities – will be extremely difficult to pull off. Critical base metals inventories remain low, and prices are high because demand exceeds supply for the foreseeable future (Chart 6). Chart 6Tight Inventories Spike Metals Commodities' Watershed Moment Commodities' Watershed Moment The EU will join a world in which the other two great economic centers – the US and China – will engage in a geopolitical competition over access to and control of scarce base metals, oil, gas and coal resources. Russia will remain aggressive toward the West, at least until the Putin regime falls, and will play an ancillary role to China. Fossil fuels and base metals have been starved for capex for more than a decade. Governmental pronouncements will not reverse this. These markets will remain tight, and will get tighter in order to allocate increasingly scarce supply with rapidly growing demand. As such, we remain long commodity-index exposure (S&P GSCI and the COMT ETF), along with equity exposure to oil and gas producers via the XOP ETF, and the XME and PICK ETFs to retain exposure to base metals and bulks producers and traders.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1     Please see Russian tankers at sea despite ‘big unknown’ over who will buy oil, published by ft.com on March 7, 2022. 2     Please see Explained: Knightian uncertainty, published by mit.edu for discussion. 3    Please see Oil Risk Premium Abates, But Still Remains, which we published on February 25, 2022. 4    Please see Germany Revives LNG Import Plans to Cut Reliance on Russian Natural Gas in Marked Policy Shift, published by naturalgasintel.com on March 1, 2022. 5    Please see Climate change: EU unveils plan to end reliance on Russian gas, published by bbc.co.uk on March 8, 2022, and The EU plan to drastically ramp renewables to replace Russian gas, published by pv-magazine.com on March 9, 2022. 6    Please see Russia to Omit Raw Material Exports but Omits Details, published by Bloomberg on March 9, 2022. 7     Please see here for Which companies have stopped doing business with Russia? 8    Please see Ukraine: ECB governing council to meet as crisis intensifies, published on March 8, 2022 by greencentralbanking.com. 9    Please see Chile a step closer to nationalizing copper and lithium, published by mining.com on March 7, 2022, and Add Local Politics To Copper Supply Risks, which we published on November 25, 2021.   Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations

Executive Summary Euro Natgas Soars; LME Nickel Squeezed Euro Natgas, Nickel Soar Euro Natgas, Nickel Soar Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak's threat to halt shipmentsof natgas on Nord Stream 1 to Europe lifted European gas prices 25% overnight, and will reverberate for years. We make the odds of a cut-off of Russian natgas exports to the EU low but not extremely low. Russia’s war is about the status of Ukraine. Russia needs the EU markets, and the EU needs Russia's gas. However, if Russia follows through on Novak's threat, it would be a major disruption for gas markets in the short term. Over the medium to long term, US shale gas producers, LNG terminal operators and exporters will benefit from new demand. On the import side, China likely benefits most from Russia's need to re-route gas. But this will require substantial infrastructure investment to monetize Russia's gas supplies and as such will take years to realize. Separately, the LME has shut down its nickel markets following an explosive 250% rally over two days that took prices above $100,000/MT. Nickel settled at ~ $80,000/MT before the LME closed the market today for margin calls on shorts squeezed by the surge in prices to make margin calls. Bottom Line: We remain long commodity-index exposure (S&P GSCI and the COMT ETF), along with equity exposure to oil and gas producers via the XOP ETF. We also remain long the XME and PICK ETFs to retain exposure to base metals and bulks.

Highlights The faster-than-expected oil-demand recovery from the COVID-19 omicron variant points to higher EM trade volumes this year and next, which, along with a weaker USD, will boost base-metals demand and prices (Chart of the Week). The recovery in iron-ore prices on the back of China stimulus and omicron-induced labor shortages at miners will lift copper prices, the base-metals' bellwether.  Supply-demand balances in refined copper showed a physical deficit of 438K MT for the January-October 2021 period, indicating the market extended its years-long deficit in 2021. Despite the IMF's mark-down in global growth due to slowdowns in the US and China this year, metals demand will continue to exceed supply, which will support prices. Short squeezes – most recently in nickel, following a headline-grabbing copper squeeze in October – will keep base metals' inventories under pressure and forward curves backwardated. We remain long the S&P GSCI and the COMT ETF, as well as the PICK ETF, to remain exposed to backwardation.  At tonight's close, we are getting long the SPDR S&P Metals and Mining ETF (XME) ETF, following its recent sell-off. We are raising our 2022 copper target to $5.00/lb on COMEX, and keeping our 2023 expectation at $6.00/lb. Feature Inadequate development in new base metals supply, which has been apparent for years, means economic recovery and expansion will continue to tax existing supplies over the short run (to end-2023).1  Chart of the WeekExpected Global Trade Pick-Up Will Boost Base Metals Demand Expected Global Trade Pick-Up Will Boost Base Metals Demand Expected Global Trade Pick-Up Will Boost Base Metals Demand Chart 2Physical Deficits Will Persists In Copper... Physical Deficits Will Persists In Copper... Physical Deficits Will Persists In Copper... At a global level, prolonged supply-demand imbalances mean inventories will continue to be drawn hard to cover for prompt supply shortfalls.  This can be seen in the principal base metals we cover: copper (Chart 2), aluminum (Chart 3), nickel (Chart 4), and zinc (Chart 5).  As a result, short squeezes in base metals markets will continue to grab headlines, as persistent physical deficits periodically drain inventories.2   Longer term, the global effort to decarbonize energy supply could be stretched out well beyond 2050, when most policymakers assume the task of replacing fossil-fuel energy sources will largely be completed.  The longer it takes to mobilize capex, the more expensive the energy transition becomes, as markets are continually forced to adjust to short-term shortages leading to price spikes and squeezes in an effort to meet demand. Chart 3...Aluminum... ...Aluminum... ...Aluminum... Chart 4...Nickel... ...Nickel... ...Nickel... Chart 5...And Zinc. ...And Zinc. ...And Zinc. Faster Demand Recovery In Metals Faster-than-expected oil-demand recovery will translate to higher trade volumes globally this year and next.  This is particularly important for EM markets, given oil and metals prices – particularly copper, the base metals bellwether – share a common long-term equilibrium (i.e., they're cointegrated, as seen in the Chart of the Week).3 A pick-up in EM trade volumes, along with a weakening USD this year, will help lift copper prices.  Most trade is in manufactured goods, which will translate into a pick-up in cyclical stocks vs. defensive stocks as well, which also is supportive of copper prices (Chart 6). Copper prices also will be supported by the recovery in iron-ore prices, which have been bid up on the back of increasing stimulus in China and global growth ex-China, as well as omicron-induced labor shortages among miners.  As is typical, copper demand will follow in the wake of steel demand, as construction and infrastructure projects are finished off (i.e., plumbing and wiring are installed) (Chart 7). Chart 6Global Trade Recovery Will Boost Copper Global Trade Recovery Will Boost Copper Global Trade Recovery Will Boost Copper Chart 7Iron Ore Rally Will Boost Copper Iron Ore Rally Will Boost Copper Iron Ore Rally Will Boost Copper Supply Side Remains Challenged Impressive gains put up on the supply side last year in Indonesia – which, according to the International Copper Study Group, posted a 51% increase in copper output at the Grasberg mine over the first 10 months of 2021, – and other smaller producers notwithstanding, geopolitical uncertainty continues to dominate the supply-side risks to base metals generally, copper in particular.4 Economic and political uncertainty in Chile and Peru, which account for 30% and 10% of global copper output, respectively, will continue to keep miners hesitant in their capex allocations, in our view.  Both states have elected left-of-center governments, which still are working through how they will deliver on their election mandates, including revenue re-distribution, taxation and royalties.5 The combination of stronger demand and tepid supply growth will keep base metals inventories under pressure, which will translate into continued backwardation.  This is particularly apparent in the copper (Chart 8) and nickel (Chart 9).  Both of these squeezes resulted from buyers treating the London Metal Exchange as a supplier of last resort – which is an extremely rare occurrence in futures markets – and both required the intervention of the London Metal Exchange to address.6 Chart 8Copper Backwardation Will Persist Copper Backwardation Will Persist Copper Backwardation Will Persist Chart 9...As Will Nickels ...As Will Nickels ...As Will Nickels Investment Implications Base metals markets will continue to find it difficult to match supply with demand, as they have for the past several years.  This further compounds the global energy transition – largely because the suppliers of the metals needed to pull it off are starting from a deep physical deficit position – and likely delays it considerably. In an environment in which obstacles to developing the supply needed to phase out fossil fuels in favor of renewable generation continue to mount, we remain long commodity index exposure – the S&P GSCI and COMT ETF – and favor exposure to miners and trading companies that are responsible for moving metals around the globe. At tonight's close, we are getting long the SPDR S&P Metals and Mining ETF (XME) ETF, following its recent sell-off of 10% for its highs of $47/share.  Our view on base metals is they are a long-term value play, in which miners and the supply side generally, will benefit from the high prices needed to develop the supply the energy transition will require.  The big risk here is these companies once again lose the plot and fail to control costs to produce at the expense of the health of their margins.  If we see this, we will exit the position.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com Paula Struk Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy paula.struk@bcaresearch.com   Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish We expect OPEC 2.0 to announce they'll continue with the return of another 400k b/d at next week's monthly meeting.  In reality, the producer coalition most likely will fail to return these volumes to market and will fall short of the mark again.  The real news markets are waiting for is whether the four states capable of increasing supply and sustaining higher output – Saudi Arabia, Iraq, the UAE and Kuwait – will step up to cover the growing gap between volumes that were pledged and what's actually been delivered.  The coalition agreed in July 2021 to begin returning some of the 5.8mm b/d of output pulled from the market during the COVID-19 pandemic starting in August 2021.  To date, the producer group has fallen short by about 800k b/d, based on the IEA's January 2022 estimates. Failure to increase production by the four core OPEC 2.0 states could keep prices above $90/bbl this year and next (Chart 10). Base Metals: Bullish Iron ore prices have rallied ~ 14% since the start of this year, as markets expect China to ease steel production cuts in 2022 and loosen monetary policy.  Last week, the People’s Bank of China (PBoC) cut its policy interest rate for the first time in nearly two years.  Markets expect more stimulus and policy easing in China as the central bank and government attempt to stimulate an economy mired by COVID-19 lockdowns, a property market slump and high energy prices.  Higher stimulus implies more commodity refining and manufacturing activity, including steel production, which will lead to higher iron ore demand. Precious Metals: Bullish In line with market expectations, the Federal Reserve signaled an initial rate hike in March, in its January Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting. While nominal interest rates will rise, the Fed will remain behind the inflation curve. The US CPI reading for December showed that inflation was 7% higher year-on-year, the highest annual increase in inflation since 1982 (Chart 11). High inflation and the Fed’s slow start to raise nominal interest rates will keep real rates, the opportunity cost of holding gold, low. Chart 10 Brent Forecast Restored To $80/bbl For 2022 Brent Forecast Restored To $80/bbl For 2022 Chart 11 Short Squeezes In Copper, Nickel Highlight Tight Metals Markets Short Squeezes In Copper, Nickel Highlight Tight Metals Markets     Footnotes 1     Please see 2022 Key Views: Past As Prelude For Commodities, published on December 16, 2021 for additional discussion. 2     Please see Column: Nickel gripped by ferocious squeeze as stocks disappear: Andy Home, published by reuters.com on January 20, 2022; and LME copper spreads backwardated amid stock squeeze, published by argusmedia.com on October 20, 2021. 3    This was flagged most recently in the IEA's January 2022 Oil Market Report, which noted, "While the number of Omicron cases is surging worldwide, oil demand defied expectations in 4Q21, rising by 1.1 mb/d to 99 mb/d. In 1Q22, demand is set for a seasonal decline, exacerbated by more teleworking and less air travel. We have raised our global demand estimates by 200 kb/d for 2021 and 2022 – resulting in growth of 5.5 mb/d and 3.3 mb/d, respectively – due to softer Covid restrictions."  Please see Higher Output Needed To Constrain Oil Prices for our latest oil balances and price forecasts.  We published this report last week. 4    Please see International Copper Study Group press release of January 2022. 5    Please see Add Local Politics To Copper Supply Risks, which we published on November 25, 2021, for a discussion of these risks. 6    Please see Footnote 2 above.     Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Trades Closed In 2021 Image

Highlights In the short term, the US stock market price will track the 30-year T-bond price, with every 10 bps move in the yield moving the stock market and bond price by 2.5 percent. We think that the bond market will not allow the stock market to suffer a peak-to-trough decline of more than 15-20 percent. Given that the drawdown is already 10 percent, it equates to no more than 20-40 bps of upside for the 30-year T-bond yield, to a level of 2.3-2.5 percent. Hence, we are quite close to an entry-point for both stocks and long-duration bonds. In the next few years, the structural bull market will continue, ending only at the ultimate low in the 30-year bond yield. But on a 5-year horizon, the blockchain will be the undoing of the US stock market – by undermining the vast profits that the US tech behemoths make from owning, controlling, and manipulating our data and the digital content that we create. In that sense, the blockchain will ultimately reveal – and pop – a ‘super bubble’. Fractal trading watchlist: We add Korea and CAD/SEK, and update bitcoin, biotech, and nickel versus silver. Feature Chart of the WeekIf The Market Is Not Far From Its Fundamentals, Can This Really Be A 'Super Bubble'? If The Market Is Not Far From Its Fundamentals, Can This Really Be A 'Super Bubble'? If The Market Is Not Far From Its Fundamentals, Can This Really Be A 'Super Bubble'? Why has the stock market started 2022 on such a poor footing? Chart I-2 and Chart I-3 identify the main culprit. Through the past year, the tech-heavy Nasdaq index has been tracking the 30-year T-bond price on a one-for-one basis, while the broader S&P 500 shows a connection that is almost as good. Chart I-2The Nasdaq Has Been Tracking The 30-Year T-Bond Price One-For-One... The Nasdaq Has Been Tracking The 30-Year T-Bond Price One-For-One... The Nasdaq Has Been Tracking The 30-Year T-Bond Price One-For-One... Chart I-3…The S&P 500 Has Also Been Tracking The 30-Year T-Bond Price ...The S&P 500 Has Also Been Tracking The 30-Year T-Bond Price ...The S&P 500 Has Also Been Tracking The 30-Year T-Bond Price Therefore, as the 30-year T-bond price has taken a tumble, so have growth-heavy stock markets. Put simply, the ‘bond component’ of these stock markets has been dominating recent performance, overwhelming the ‘profits component’ which tends to move more glacially. It follows that the short-term direction of the stock market has been set – and will continue to be set – by the direction of the 30-year T-bond price. Stocks And Bonds Are Nearing A ‘Pinch Point’ The next few paragraphs are necessarily technical, but worth absorbing – as they are fundamental to understanding the stock market’s recent sell-off, as well as its future evolution. The duration of any investment quantifies how far into the future its cashflows lie, by averaging those cashflows into one theoretical future ‘lump sum’. For a bond, the duration also equals the percentage change in the bond price for every 1 percent change in its yield.1 Crucially, the duration of the US stock market is the same as that of the 30-year T-bond, at around 25 years. Therefore, if all else were equal, the US stock market price should track the 30-year T-bond price, with every 10 bps move in the yield moving the stock market and bond prices by 2.5 percent. In the long run of course, all else is not equal. The 30-year T-bond generates a fixed income stream, whereas the stock market generates income that tracks profits. Allowing for this difference, the US stock market should track: (The 30-year T-bond price) multiplied by (profits expected in the year ahead) multiplied by (a constant) In which the constant expresses the theoretical lump-sum payment 25 years ahead as a multiple of the profits in the year ahead – and thereby quantifies the expected structural growth in profits. We can ignore this constant if the structural growth in profits does not change. Nevertheless, remember this constant, as we will come back to it later when we discuss a putative ‘super bubble’. The ‘bond component’ of the stock market has been dominating recent performance. This model for the stock market seems simplistic. Yet it provides an excellent explanation for the market’s evolution through the past 40 years (Chart I-4), as well as through the past year in which, to repeat, the bond component has been the dominant driver. Chart I-4The US Stock Market = The 30-Year T-Bond Price Multiplied By Profits The US Stock Market = The 30-Year T-Bond Price Multiplied By Profits The US Stock Market = The 30-Year T-Bond Price Multiplied By Profits In the short term then, given the 25 year duration of the US stock market, every 10 bps rise in the 30-year T-bond yield will drag down the stock market by 2.5 percent. We can also deduce that the sell-off will be self-limiting and self-correcting, because at some ‘pinch point’ the bond market will assess that the deflationary impulse from financial instability will snuff out the recent inflationary impulse in the economy. Where is that pinch point? Our sense is that the bond market will not allow the stock market to suffer a peak-to-trough decline of more than 15-20 percent. Given that the drawdown is already 10 percent, it equates to no more than 20-40 bps of upside for the 30-year T-bond yield, to a level of 2.3-2.5 percent. Hence, we are quite close to an entry-point for both stocks and long-duration bonds. The Case Against A ‘Super Bubble’ (And The Case For) As is typical, the recent market setback has unleashed narratives of an almighty bubble starting to pop. Stealing the headlines is value investor Jeremy Grantham of GMO, who claims that “today in the US we are in the fourth super bubble of the last hundred years.” Is there any merit to Mr. Grantham’s claim? An investment is in a bubble if its price has completely broken free from its fundamentals. For example, in the dot com boom, the stock market did become a super bubble. But as we have just shown, the US stock market today is not that far removed from its fundamental components of the 30-year T-bond price multiplied by profits. At first glance then, Mr. Grantham appears to be wrong (Chart of the Week). Still, if the underlying components – the 30-year T-bond and/or profits – were in a bubble, then the stock market would also be in a bubble. In this regard, isn’t the deeply negative real yield on long-dated bonds a sure sign of a bubble? The answer is, not necessarily. As we explained last week in Time To Get Real About Real Interest Rates, the deeply negative real yield on Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS) is premised on an expected rate of inflation that we should take with a huge dose of salt. Putting in a more realistic forward inflation rate, the real yield on long-dated bonds is positive, albeit just. What about profits – are they in a bubble? The US (and world) profit margin stands at an all-time high, around 20 percent greater than its post-GFC average (Chart I-5). But a 20 percent excess is not quite what we mean by a bubble. Chart I-5Profit Margins Are At An All-Time High Profit Margins Are At An All-Time High Profit Margins Are At An All-Time High There is one final way that Mr. Grantham could be right, and for this we must come back to the previously mentioned constant which quantifies the expected long-term growth in profits. If this expected structural growth were to collapse, then the stock market would also collapse. This is precisely what happened to the non-US stock market after the dot com bust, when the expected structural growth – and therefore the structural valuation – phase-shifted sharply lower (Chart I-6 and Chart I-7). As a result, the non-US stock market also phase-shifted sharply lower from the previous relationship with its fundamentals (Chart I-8). Could the same ultimately happen to the US stock market? Chart I-6The Structural Growth And Valuation Of Non-US Stocks Phase-Shifted Down... The Structural Growth And Valuation Of Non-US Stocks Phase-Shifted Down... The Structural Growth And Valuation Of Non-US Stocks Phase-Shifted Down... Chart I-7...Could The Same Happen To ##br##US Stocks? ...Could The Same Happen To US Stocks? ...Could The Same Happen To US Stocks? Chart I-8Non-US Stocks Phase-Shifted Lower From Their Previous Relationship With Fundamentals Non-US Stocks Phase-Shifted Lower From Their Previous Relationship With Fundamentals Non-US Stocks Phase-Shifted Lower From Their Previous Relationship With Fundamentals The answer is yes – and the main risk comes from the blockchain and its threat to the pseudo-monopoly status that the US tech behemoths have in owning, controlling, manipulating, and monetising our data and the digital content that we create. If the blockchain returned that ownership and control back to us, it would devastate the profits of Facebook, Google, and the other behemoths that dominate the US stock market. If the expected structural growth were to collapse, then the stock market would also collapse. That said, the blockchain is a long-term risk to the stock market, likely to manifest itself on a 5-year horizon. Before we get there, in the next deflationary shock, the 30-year T-bond yield has the scope to decline by at least 150 bps, equating to a 40 percent increase in the ‘bond component’ of the US stock market. To conclude, the structural bull market will end only at the ultimate low in the 30-year bond yield. And then, the blockchain will reveal – and pop – a ‘super bubble’. Fractal Trading Watchlist This week we add Korea and CAD/SEK, and update bitcoin, biotech, and nickel versus silver. Of note, the near 30 percent underperformance of Korea through the past year has reached the point of fractal fragility that has signalled previous major reversals in 2015, 2017 and 2019 (Chart I-9). Accordingly, this week’s recommended trade is to go long Korea versus the world (MSCI indexes), setting the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 8 percent.  Chart I-9Korea Is Approaching A Turning Point Versus The World Korea Is Approaching A Turning Point Versus The World Korea Is Approaching A Turning Point Versus The World Korea Approaching A Turning Point Versus EM Korea Approaching A Turning Point Versus EM Korea Approaching A Turning Point Versus EM CAD/SEK Could Reverse CAD/SEK Could Reverse CAD/SEK Could Reverse Bitcoin Near A First Support Level Biotech Approaching A Major Buy Biotech Approaching A Major Buy Biotech Approaching A Major Buy Biotech Approaching A Major Buy Biotech Approaching A Major Buy Nickel Approaching A Sell Versus Silver Nickel Approaching A Sell Versus Silver Nickel Approaching A Sell Versus Silver Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Defined fully, the duration of an investment is the weighted average of the times of its cashflows, in which the weights are the present values of the cashflows. Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades The Case Against A ‘Super Bubble’ (And The Case For) The Case Against A ‘Super Bubble’ (And The Case For) The Case Against A ‘Super Bubble’ (And The Case For) The Case Against A ‘Super Bubble’ (And The Case For) 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - ##br##Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - ##br##Europe Ex Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - ##br##Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - ##br##Other Developed Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Highlights Commodity markets will face growing supply challenges over the next decade as the US and China prepare for war, if only to deter war. Chinese President Xi Jinping's push for greater self-reliance at home and supply chain security abroad is reinforced by the West’s focus on the same interests. The erosion of a single rules-based global trade system increases the odds of economic and even military conflict. The competition for security is precipitating a reforging of global supply chains and a persistent willingness to use punitive measures, which can escalate into boycotts, embargoes, and even blockades (i.e. not only Huawei). The risk of military engagements will rise, particularly along global chokepoints and sea lanes needed to transport vital commodities. Import dependency and supply chain risk are powerful drivers of decarbonization efforts, especially in China. On net, geopolitical trends will keep the balance of commodity-price risks tilted to the upside. Commodity and Energy Strategy remains long commodity index exposure on a strategic basis via the S&P GSCI and the COMT ETF.  Note: Even in the short term, a higher geopolitical risk premium is warranted in oil prices due to US-Iran conflict. Feature The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) under President Xi Jinping has embarked on a drive toward autarky, or economic self-sufficiency, that has enormous implications, especially for global commodities. Beijing believes it can maintain central control, harness technology, enhance its manufacturing prowess, and grow at a reasonable rate, all while bulking up its national security. The challenge is to maintain social stability and supply security through the transition. China lives in desperate fear of the chaos that reigned throughout most of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, which also enabled foreign domination (Chart 1). The problem for the rest of the world is that Chinese nationalism and assertive foreign policy are integral aspects of the new national strategy. They are needed to divert the public from social ills and deter foreign powers that might threaten China’s economy and supply security. Chart 1China Fears Any Risk Of Another ‘Century Of Humiliation’ US-China: War Preparation Pushes Commodity Demand US-China: War Preparation Pushes Commodity Demand The chief obstacle for China is the United States, which remains the world leader even though its share of global power and wealth is declining over time. The US is formally adopting a policy of confrontation rather than engagement with China. For example, the Biden administration is co-opting much of the Trump administration's agenda. Infrastructure, industrial policy, trade protectionism, and the “pivot to Asia” are now signature policies of Biden as well as Trump (Table 1).1 Table 1US Strategic Competition Act Highlights Return Of Industrial Policy, Confrontation With China US-China: War Preparation Pushes Commodity Demand US-China: War Preparation Pushes Commodity Demand Many of these policies are explicitly related to the strategic aim of countering China’s rise, which is seen as vitiating the American economy and global leadership. Biden’s Trump-esque policies are a powerful indication of where the US median voter stands and hence of long-term significance (Chart 2). Thus competition between the US and China for global economic, military, and political leadership is entering a new phase. China’s drive for self-reliance threatens the US-led global trade system, while the US’s still-preeminent geopolitical power threatens China’s vital lines of supply. Chart 2US Public’s Fears Are China-Centric US-China: War Preparation Pushes Commodity Demand US-China: War Preparation Pushes Commodity Demand Re-Ordering Global Trade The US’s and China’s demonstrable willingness to use tariffs, non-tariff trade barriers, export controls, and sanctions cannot be expected to abate given that they are locked in great power competition (Chart 3). More than likely, the US and China will independently pursue trade relations with their respective allies and partners, which will replace the mostly ineffective World Trade Organization (WTO) framework. The WTO is the successor to the rules-based and market-oriented system known as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which was formed following World War II. The GATT’s founders shared a strong desire to avoid a repeat of the global economic instability brought on by World War I, the Great Crash of 1929, and the retreat into autarky and isolationism that led to WWII. Chart 3US and China Imposing Trade Restrictions US and China Imposing Trade Restrictions US and China Imposing Trade Restrictions This inter-war period saw domestically focused monetary policies and punishing tariffs that spawned ruinous bouts of inflation and deflation. Minimizing tariffs, leveling the playing field in trading markets, and reducing subsidization of state corporate champions were among the GATT's early successes. The WTO, like the GATT before it, has no authority to command a state to change its economy or the way it chooses to organize itself. At its inception the GATT's modus vivendi was directed at establishing a rules-based system free of excessive government intrusion and regulation. If governments agreed to reduce their domestic favoritism, they could all improve their economic efficiency while avoiding a relapse into autarky and the military tensions that go with it.2 The prime mover in the GATT's founding and early evolution – the USA – firmly believed that exclusive trading blocs had created the groundwork for economic collapse and war. These trading blocs had been created by European powers with their respective colonies. During the inter-war years the revival of protectionism killed global trade and exacerbated the Great Depression. After WWII, Washington was willing to use its power as the global hegemon to prevent a similar outcome. Policymakers believed that European and global economic integration would encourage inter-dependency and discourage protectionism and war. The fall of the Soviet Union reinforced this neoliberal Washington Consensus. Countries like India and China adopted market-oriented policies. The WTO was formed along with a range of global trade deals. Ultimately the US and the West cleared the way for China to join the trading bloc, hoping that the transition from communism to capitalism would eventually be coupled with social and even political liberalization. The world took a very different turn as the United States descended into a morass of domestic political divisions and foreign military adventures. China seized the advantage to expand its economy free of interference from the US or West. The West failed to insist that liberal economic reforms keep pace.3 Moreover, when China joined the WTO in 2001, the organization was in a state of "regulatory stalemate," which made it incapable of dealing with the direct challenges presented by China.4 Today President Xi has consolidated control over the Communist Party and directs its key economic, political, and military policymaking bodies. He has deepened party control down to the management level of SOEs – hiring and firing management. SOEs have benefited from Xi’s rule (Chart 4). But now the West is also reasserting the role of the state in the economy and trade, which means that punitive measures can be brought to bear on China’s SOEs. Chart 4State-Owned Enterprises Benefit From Xi Administration State-Owned Enterprises Benefit From Xi Administration State-Owned Enterprises Benefit From Xi Administration What Comes After The WTO? The CCP has shown no interest in coming around to the WTO's founding beliefs of government non-interference in the private sector. For example, it is doubling down on subsidization and party control of SOEs, which compete against firms in other WTO member states. Nor has the party shown any inclination to accept a trade system based on the GATT/WTO founding members' Western understanding of the rule of law. These states represent market-based economies with long histories of case law for settling disputes. Specifically, China’s fourteenth five-year plan and recent policies re-emphasize the need to upgrade the manufacturing sector rather than rebalancing the economy toward household consumption. The latter would reduce imbalances with trade deficit countries like the US but China is wary of the negative social consequences of too rapidly de-industrializing its economy. It wants to retain its strategic and economic advantage in global manufacturing and it fears the social and political consequences of fully adopting consumer culture (Chart 5). Chart 5China’s Economic Plans Re-Emphasize Manufacturing, Not Consumption US-China: War Preparation Pushes Commodity Demand US-China: War Preparation Pushes Commodity Demand The US, EU, and Japan have proposed reform measures for the WTO aimed at addressing “severe excess capacity in key sectors exacerbated by government financed and supported capacity expansion, unfair competitive conditions caused by large market-distorting subsidies and state owned enterprises, forced technology transfer, and local content requirements and preferences.”5 But these measures are unlikely to succeed. China disagrees with the West’s characterization. In 2018-19, during the trade war with the US, Beijing contended that WTO members must “respect members’ development models.” China formally opposes “special and discriminatory disciplines against state-owned enterprises in the name of WTO reform.”6 In bilateral negotiations with the US this year, China’s first demand is that the US not to oppose its development model of “socialism with Chinese characteristics” (Table 2). Table 2China’s Three Diplomatic Demands Of The United States (2021) US-China: War Preparation Pushes Commodity Demand US-China: War Preparation Pushes Commodity Demand Yet it is hard for the US not to oppose this model because it involves Beijing using the state’s control of the economy to strengthen national security strategy, namely by the fusion of civil and military technology. Going forward, the Biden administration will violate the number one demand that Chinese diplomats have made: it will attempt to galvanize the democracies to put pressure on China’s development model. China’s demand itself reflects its violation of the US primary demand that China stop using the state to enhance its economy at the expense of competitors. If a breakdown in global trading rules is replaced by the US and China forming separate trading blocs with their allies and partners, the odds of repeating the mistakes of the inter-bellum years of 1918-39 will significantly increase. Tariff wars, subsidizing national champions, heavy taxation of foreign interests, non-tariff barriers to trade, domestic-focused monetary policies, and currency wars would become more likely. China’s Strategic Vulnerability The CCP has delivered remarkable prosperity and wealth to the average Chinese citizen in the 43 years since it undertook market reforms, and especially since its accession to the WTO in 2001 (Chart 6). China has transformed from an economic backwater into a $15.4 trillion (2020) economy and near-peer competitor to the US militarily and economically.7 This growth has propelled China to the top of commodity-importing and -consuming states globally for base metals and oil. We follow these markets closely, because they are critical to sustaining economic growth, regardless of how states are organized. Production of and access to these commodities, along with natural gas, will be critical over the next decade, as the world decarbonizes its energy sources, and as the US and China address their own growth and social agendas while vying for global hegemony. Decarbonization is part of the strategic race since all major powers now want to increase economic self-sufficiency and technological prowess. Chart 6CCPs Remarkable Success In Growing Chinas Economy CCPs Remarkable Success In Growing Chinas Economy CCPs Remarkable Success In Growing Chinas Economy Over recent decades China has become the largest importer of base metals ores (Chart 7) and the world's top refiner of many of these metals. In addition, it is the top consumer of refined metal (Chart 8). Chart 7China Is World’s Top Ore Importer US-China: War Preparation Pushes Commodity Demand US-China: War Preparation Pushes Commodity Demand Chart 8China Is Worlds Top Refined Metal Consumer China Is Worlds Top Refined Metal Consumer China Is Worlds Top Refined Metal Consumer By contrast, the US is not listed among ore importers or metals consumers in the Observatory of Economic Complexity (OEC) databases we used to map these commodities. This reflects not only domestic supplies but also the lack of investment and upgrades to the US's critical infrastructure over 2000-19.8 Going forward, the US is trying to invest in “nation building” at home. An enormous change has taken shape in strategic liabilities. In the oil market, the US went from being the world's largest importer of oil in 2000, accounting for more than 24% of imports globally, to being the largest oil and gas producer by 2019, even though it still accounted for more than 12% of the world's imports (Chart 9). In 2000, China accounted for ~ 3.5% of the world's oil imports and by 2019 it was responsible for nearly 21%. China is far behind per capita US energy consumption, given its large population, but it is gradually closing the gap (Chart 10). Overall energy consumption in China is much higher than in the US (Chart 11). Chart 9US Oil Imports Collapse As Shale Production Grows US-China: War Preparation Pushes Commodity Demand US-China: War Preparation Pushes Commodity Demand Chart 10Energy Use Per Capita In China Far From US Levels... Energy Use Per Capita In China Far From US Levels... Energy Use Per Capita In China Far From US Levels... Chart 11China Is World’s Largest Primary Energy Consumer US-China: War Preparation Pushes Commodity Demand US-China: War Preparation Pushes Commodity Demand China's impressive GDP growth in the twenty-first century is primarily responsible for China's stunning growth in imports and consumption of oil (Chart 12) and copper (Chart 13), which we track closely as a proxy for the entire base-metals complex. Chart 12Global Oil Demand Forecast Remains Steady Chinas GDP Drives Oil Consumption, Imports Global Oil Demand Forecast Remains Steady Chinas GDP Drives Oil Consumption, Imports Global Oil Demand Forecast Remains Steady Chinas GDP Drives Oil Consumption, Imports Chart 13Global Oil Demand Forecast Remains Steady Chinas GDP Drives Refined Copper Consumption And Ore Imports Global Oil Demand Forecast Remains Steady Chinas GDP Drives Refined Copper Consumption And Ore Imports Global Oil Demand Forecast Remains Steady Chinas GDP Drives Refined Copper Consumption And Ore Imports China’s importance in these markets points to an underlying strategic weakness, which is its dependency on imports. This in turn points to the greatest danger of the breakdown in US-China relations and the global trade system. The Road To War? China is extremely anxious about maintaining supply security in light of these heavy import needs. Its pursuit of economic self-sufficiency, including decarbonization, is driven by its fear of the US’s ability to cut off its key supply lines. China’s first goal in modernizing its military in recent years was to develop a naval force capable of defending the country from foreign attack, particularly in its immediate maritime surroundings. Historically China suffered from invaders across the sea who took advantage of its weak naval power to force open its economy and exploit it. Today China is thought to have achieved this security objective. It is believed to have a high level of capability within the “first island chain” that surrounds the coast, from the Korean peninsula to the Spratly Islands, including southwest Japan and Taiwan (Map 1).9 China’s militarization of the South China Sea, suppression of Hong Kong, and intimidation of Taiwan shows its intention to dominate Greater China, which would put it in a better strategic position relative to other countries. Map 1China’s Navy Likely Achieved Superiority Within The First Island Chain US-China: War Preparation Pushes Commodity Demand US-China: War Preparation Pushes Commodity Demand China’s capability can be illustrated by comparing its naval strength to that of the United States, the most powerful navy in the world. While the US is superior, China would be able to combine all three of its fleets within the first island China, while the US navy would be dispersed across the world and divided among a range of interests to defend (Table 3). China would also be able to bring its land-based air force and missile firepower to bear within the first island chain, as opposed to further abroad.10 Table 3China’s Naval Growth Enables Primacy Within First Island Chain US-China: War Preparation Pushes Commodity Demand US-China: War Preparation Pushes Commodity Demand In this sense China is militarily capable of conquering Taiwan or other nearby islands. President Xi Jinping had in fact ordered China’s armed forces be capable of doing so by 2020.11 Taiwan continues to be the most significant source of insecurity for the regime. True, a military victory would likely be a pyrrhic victory, as Taiwan’s wealth and tech industry would be destroyed, but China probably has the raw military capability to defeat Taiwan and its allies within this defined space. However, this military capability needs to be weighed against economic capability. If China seized military control of Taiwan, or Okinawa or other neighboring territories, the US, Japan, and their allies would respond by cutting off China’s access to critical supplies. Most obviously oil and natural gas. China’s decarbonization has been impressive but the reliance on foreign oil is still a fatal strategic vulnerability over the next few years (Chart 14). China is rapidly pursuing a Eurasian strategy to diversify away from the Middle East in particular. But it still imports about half its oil from this volatile region (Chart 15). The US navy is capable of interdicting China’s critical oil flows, a major inhibition on China’s military ambitions within the first island chain. Chart 14Chinas Energy Diversification Still Leaves Vulnerabilities Chinas Energy Diversification Still Leaves Vulnerabilities Chinas Energy Diversification Still Leaves Vulnerabilities Of course, if the US and its allies ever blockaded China, or if China feared they would, Beijing could be driven to mount a desperate attack to prevent them from doing so, since its economic, military, and political survival would be on the line. Chart 15China Still Dependent On Middle East Energy Supplies China Still Dependent On Middle East Energy Supplies China Still Dependent On Middle East Energy Supplies The obvious historical analogy is the US-Japan conflict in WWII. Invasions that lead to blockades will lead to larger invasions, as the US and Japan learned.12 However, the lesson from WWII for China is that it should not engage the US navy until its own naval power has progressed much further. In the event of a conflict, the US would be imposing a blockade at a distance from China’s naval and missile forces. When it comes to the far seas, China’s naval capabilities are extremely limited. Military analysts highlight that China lacks a substantial naval presence in the Indian Ocean. China relies on commercial ports, where it has partial equity ownership, for ship supply and maintenance (Table 4). This is no substitute for naval basing, because dedicated military facilities are lacking and host countries may not wish to be drawn into a conflict. Table 4China’s Network Of Part-Owned Ports Across The World: Useful But Not A Substitute For Military Bases US-China: War Preparation Pushes Commodity Demand US-China: War Preparation Pushes Commodity Demand Further, Beijing lacks the sea-based air power necessary to defend its fleets should they stray too far. And it lacks the anti-submarine warfare capabilities necessary to defend its ships.13 These capabilities are constantly improving but at the moment they are insufficient to overthrow US naval control of the critical chokepoints like the Strait of Hormuz or Strait of Malacca. While China’s naval power is comparable to the US’s Asia Pacific fleet (the seventh fleet headquartered in Japan), it is much smaller than the US’s global fleet and at a much greater disadvantage when operating far from home. China’s navy is based at home and focused on its near seas, whereas US fleet is designed to operate in the far seas, especially the Persian Gulf, which is precisely the strategic area in question (Chart 16).14 China is gradually expanding its navy and operations around the world, so over time it may gain the ability to prevent the US from cutting off its critical supplies in the Persian Gulf. But not immediately. The implication is that China will have to avoid direct military conflict with the United States until its military and naval buildup has progressed a lot further. Chart 16China’s Navy At Huge Disadvantage In Distant Seas US-China: War Preparation Pushes Commodity Demand US-China: War Preparation Pushes Commodity Demand Meanwhile Beijing will continue diversifying its energy sources, decarbonizing, and forging supply chains across Eurasia via the Belt and Road Initiative. What could go wrong? We would highlight a few risks that could cause China to risk war even despite its vulnerability to blockade: Chart 17China’s Surplus Of Males Undergirds Rise In Nationalism US-China: War Preparation Pushes Commodity Demand US-China: War Preparation Pushes Commodity Demand Domestic demographic pressure. China is slated to experience a dramatic bulge in the male-to-female ratio over the coming decade (Chart 17).15 A surfeit of young men could lead to an overshoot of nationalism and revanchism. This trend is much more important than the symbolic political anniversaries of 2027, 2035, and 2049, which analysts use to predict when China’s military might launch a major campaign. Domestic economic pressure. China’s turn to nationalism reflects slowing income growth and associated social instability. An economic crisis in China would be worrisome for regional stability for many reasons, but such pressures can lead nations into foreign military adventures. Domestic political pressure. China has shifted from “consensus rule” to “personal rule” under Xi Jinping. This could lead to faulty decision-making or party divisions that affect national policy. A leadership that carefully weighs each strategic risk could decay into a leadership that lacks good information and perspective. The result could be hubris and belligerence abroad. Foreign aggression. Attempts by the US or other powers to arm China’s neighbors or sabotage China’s economy could lead to aggressive reaction. The US’s attempt to build a technological blockade shows that future embargoes and blockades are not impossible. These could prompt a war rather than deter it, as noted above. Foreign weakness. China’s capabilities are improving over time while the US and its allies lack coordination and resolution. An opportunity could arise that China’s strategists believe they cannot afford to miss. Afghanistan is not one of these opportunities, but a US-Iran war or another major conflict with Russia could be. The breakdown in global trade is concerning because without an economic buffer, states may resort to arms to resolve disputes. History shows that military threats intended to discourage aggressive behavior can create dilemmas that incentivize aggression. The behavior of the US and China suggests that they are preparing for war, even if we are generous and assume that they are doing so only to deter war. Both countries are nuclear powers so they face mutually assured destruction in a total war scenario. But they will seek to improve their security within that context, which can lead to naval skirmishes, proxy wars, and even limited wars with associated risks of going nuclear. Investment Takeaways The pursuit of the national interest today involves using fiscal means to create more self-sufficient domestic economies and reduce international supply risks. Both China and the West are engaged in major projects to this end, including high-tech industrialization, domestic manufacturing, and decarbonization. These trends are generally bullish for commodities, even though they include trends like military modernization and naval expansion that could well be a prelude to war. War itself leads to commodity shortages and commodity price inflation, but of course it is disastrous for the people and economies involved. Fortunately, strategic deterrence continues to operate for the time being. The underlying geopolitical trend will put commodity markets under continual pressure. A final urgent update on oil and the Middle East: The US attempt to conduct a strategic “pivot” to Asia Pacific faces a critical juncture. Not because of Afghanistan but because of Iran. The Biden administration will have trouble unilaterally lowering sanctions on Iran after the humiliating Afghanistan pullout. The new administrations in both Iran and Israel are likely to establish red lines and credible threats. A higher geopolitical risk premium is thus warranted immediately in global oil markets. Beyond short-term shows of force, everything depends on whether the US and Iran can find a temporary deal to avoid the path to a larger war. But for now short-term geopolitical risks are commodity-bullish as well as long-term risks.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1     There are also significant differences between Biden and Trump in other areas such as redistribution, immigration, and social policy. 2     See Ravenhill, John (2020), Regional Trade Agreements, Chapter 6 in Global Political Economy, which he edited for Oxford University Press, particularly pp. 156-9. 3    “As time went by, the United States realized that Communism not only did not retreat, but also further advanced in China, with the state-owned economy growing stronger and the rule of the Party further entrenched in the process." See Henry Gao, “WTO Reform and China Defining or Defiling the Multilateral Trading System?” Harvard International Law Journal 62 (2021), p. 28, harvardilj.org.  4    See Mavroidis, Petros C. and Andre Sapir (2021), China and the WTO, Why Multilateralism Still Matters (Princeton University Press) for discussion.  See also Confronting the Challenge of Chinese State Capitalism published by the Center for Strategic & International Studies 22 January 2021. 5    Gao (2021), p. 19. 6    Gao (2021), p. 24. 7     Please see China's GDP tops 100 trln yuan in 2020 published by Xinhuanet 18 January 2021. 8    We excluded 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic's effects on supply and demand for these ores, metals and crude oil. 9    See Captain James Fanell, “China’s Global Navy Strategy and Expanding Force Structure: Pathway To Hegemony,” Testimony to the US House of Representatives, May 17, 2018, docs.house.gov. 10   Fanell (2018), p. 13. 11    He has obliquely implied that his vision for national rejuvenation by 2035 would include reunification with Taiwan. Others suggest that the country’s second centenary of 2049 is the likely deadline, or the 100th anniversary of the People’s Liberation Army. 12    The US was a major supplier of oil to Japan, and in 1941 it froze Japan's assets in the US and shut down all oil exports, in response to Japan's military incursion into China in the Second Sino-Japanese War of 1937-45.  Please see Anderson, Irvine H. Jr. (1975), "The 1941 De Facto Embargo on Oil to Japan: A Bureaucratic Reflex," Pacific Historical Review, 44:2, pp. 201-231.  13   See Jeffrey Becker, “Securing China’s Lifelines Across the Indian Ocean,” China Maritime Report No. 11 (Dec 2020), China Maritime Studies Institute, digital-commons.usnwc.edu. 14   See Rear Admiral Michael McDevitt, “Becoming a Great ‘Maritime Power’: A Chinese Dream,” Center for Naval Analyses (June 2016), cna.org. 15   For discussion see Major Tiffany Werner, “China’s Demographic Disaster: Risk And Opportunity,” 2020, Defense Technical Information Center, discover.dtic.mil.  

Highlights Over the short term – 1-2 years – the pick-up in re-infection rates in Asia and LatAm states with large-scale deployments of Sinopharm and Sinovac COVID-19 vaccines will re-focus attention on demand-side risks to the global recovery (Chart of the Week). The UAE-Saudi impasse re extending the return of additional volumes of OPEC 2.0 spare capacity to the oil market over 2H21 will be short-lived.  The UAE's official baseline production will be increased to 3.8mm b/d from 3.2mm b/d presently, and its output in 2H21 will be adjusted accordingly.  Over the medium term – 3-5 years out – the risk to the expansion of metal supplies needed for renewables and electric vehicles (EVs) will rise, as left-of-center governments increase taxes and royalties, and carbon prices move higher. Rising metals costs will redound to the benefit of oil and gas producers, and accelerate R+D in carbon- and GHG-reduction technologies. Longer-term – 5-10 years out – the active discouragement of investment in hydrocarbons will contribute to energy shortages. In anticipation of continued upside volatility in commodity prices and share values of oil, gas and metals producers, we remain long the S&P GSCI and COMT ETF, and long equities of producers and traders via the PICK ETF. Feature Our conversations with clients almost invariably leads us to considering the risks to our long-standing bullish views for energy and metals. This week, we reprise some of the highlights of these conversations. In the short term, our bullish call on oil is underpinned by the assumption of continued expansion in vaccinations, which we believe will lead to global economic re-opening and increased mobility, as the world emerges from the devastation of COVID-19. This expectation is once again under scrutiny. On the supply side, the very public negotiations undertaken by the UAE and the leaders of OPEC 2.0 – the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia – over re-basing the UAE's production reminds investors there is substantial spare capacity from the coalition available for the market over the short term. The slow news cycle going into the US Independence Day holiday certainly was a fortuitous time to make such a point. Chart of the WeekWorrisome Uptick Of COVID-19 Cases Assessing Risks To Our Commodity Views Assessing Risks To Our Commodity Views KSA-UAE Supply-Side Worries The abrupt end to this week's OPEC 2.0 meeting was unsettling to markets. Shortly after the meeting ended – without being concluded – officials from the Biden administration in the US spoke with officials from KSA and the UAE, presumably to encourage resolution of outstanding issues and to get more oil into the market to keep crude oil prices below $80/bbl (Chart 2). We're confident the KSA-UAE impasse re extending the return of additional volumes of spare capacity to the oil market over 2H21 will be short-lived. The UAE's official baseline production number (i.e., its October 2018 output level) will be increased to 3.8mm b/d from 3.2mm b/d presently, and its output in 2H21 will be adjusted accordingly. Coupled with a likely return of Iranian export volumes in 4Q21, this will bring prices down into the mid- to high-$60/bbl range we are forecasting. Chart 2US Pushing For Resolution of KSA-UAE Spat US Pushing For Resolution of KSA-UAE Spat US Pushing For Resolution of KSA-UAE Spat Longer term, markets are worried this incident is a harbinger of a breakdown in OPEC 2.0's so-far-successful production-management strategy, which has lifted oil prices 200% since their March 2020 nadir. At present, the producer coalition has ~ 6-7mm b/d of spare capacity, which resulted from its strategy to keep the level of supply below demand. A breakdown in this discipline – in extremis, another price war of the sort seen in March 2020 or from 2014-2016 – could plunge oil markets into a price collapse that re-visits sub-$40/bbl levels. In our view, economics – specifically the cold economic reality of the price elasticity of supply – continues to work for the OPEC 2.0 coalition: Higher revenues are realized by members of the group as long as relatively small production cuts produce larger revenue gains – e.g., a 5% (or less) cut in production that produces a 20% (or more) increase in price trumps a 20% increase in production that reduces prices by 50%. Besides, none of the members of the coalition possess the wherewithal to endure another shock-and-awe display from KSA similar to the one following the breakdown of the March 2020 OPEC 2.0 meeting. We also continue to expect US shale-oil producers to be disciplined by capital markets, and to retain a focus on providing competitive returns to their shareholders, which will limit supply growth to that which maintains profitability. Until we see actual evidence of a breakdown in the coalition's willingness to maintain its production-management strategy, we will continue to assume it remains operative. Worrisome COVID-19 Re-Infection Trends Reports of increased re-infection rates in Latin American and Asia-Pacific states providing Chinese Sinopharm and Sinovac COVID-19 vaccines will re-focus attention on demand-side risks to the global recovery. Conclusive data on the efficacy of these vaccines is not available at present, based on reporting from Health Policy Watch (HPW).1 The vast majority of these vaccines were purchased in Latin America and the Asia-Pacific region, where ~ 80% of the 759mm doses of the two Chinese vaccines were sold, according to HPW's reporting. This will draw the attention of markets to this risk (Chart 3). Of particular concern are the increases in re-infection rates in the Seychelles and Chile, where the majority of populations in both countries were inoculated with one of the Chinese vaccines. Re-infections in Indonesia also are drawing attention, where more than 350 healthcare workers were re-infected after receiving the Sinovac vaccination.2 The risk of renewed global lockdowns remains small, but if these experiences are repeated globally with adverse health consequences, this assessment could be challenged. Chart 3COVID-19 Returning In High-Vaccination States Assessing Risks To Our Commodity Views Assessing Risks To Our Commodity Views Transition Risks To A Low-Carbon Economy Over the medium- to long-terms, our metals views are premised on the expectation the build-out of the global EV fleet and renewable electricity generation – including its supporting grids – will require massive increases in the supply of copper, aluminum, nickel, and tin, not to mention iron ore and steel. This surge in demand will be occurring as governments rush headlong into unplanned and unsynchronized wind-downs of investment in the hydrocarbon fuels that power modern economies.3 The big risk here is new metal supplies will not be delivered fast enough to build all of the renewable generation, EVs and their supporting grids and infrastructures to cover the loss of hydrocarbons phased out by policy, legal and boardroom challenges. Such a turn of events would re-invigorate oil and gas production. Renewable energy and electric vehicles are the sine qua non of the drive to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. However, the rising price of base metals will add to already high costs of rebuilding power grids to make them suitable for green energy. Given miners’ reluctance to invest in new mines, we do not expect metals prices to drop anytime soon. According to Wood Mackenzie, in 2019 the cost of shifting just the US power grid to renewable energy over the next 10 years will amount to $4.5 trillion.4 Given these cost and supply barriers, fossil fuels will need to be used for longer than the IEA outlined in its recent and controversial report on transitioning to a net-zero economy.5 To ensure that fossil fuels can be used while countries work to achieve their net zero goals, carbon capture utilization and storage (CCUS) technology will need to be developed and made cheaper. The main barrier to entry for CCUS technology is its high cost (Chart 4). However, like renewable energy, the more it is deployed and invested in, the cheaper it will become, following the trend seen in the development of renewable energy and EVs, which were aided by large-scale subsidies from governments to encourage the development of the technology. These cost reductions are already visible: In its 2019 report, the Global CCS Institute noted the cost of implementing CCS technology initially used in 2014 had fallen by 35% three years later. Chart 4CCUS Can Be Expensive Assessing Risks To Our Commodity Views Assessing Risks To Our Commodity Views Metals Mines' Long Lead Times In 2020 the total amount of discovered copper reserves in the world stood at ~ 870mm MT (Chart 5), according to the US Geological Service (USGS). As of 2017, the total identified and undiscovered amount of reserves was ~ 5.6 billion MT.6 The World Bank recently estimated additional demand for copper would amount to ~ 20mm MT p.a. by 2050 (Chart 6).7 Glencore’s recently retired CEO Ivan Glasenberg last month said that by 2050, miners will need to produce around 60mm MT p.a. of copper to keep up with demand for countries’ net zero initiatives.8 Even with this higher estimate, if miners focus on exploration and can tap into undiscovered reserves, supply will cover demand for the renewable energy buildout. Chart 5Copper Reserves Are Abundant Assessing Risks To Our Commodity Views Assessing Risks To Our Commodity Views Chart 6Call On Base Metals Supply Will Be Massive Out To 2050 Assessing Risks To Our Commodity Views Assessing Risks To Our Commodity Views While recent legislative developments in Chile and Peru, which together constitute ~ 34% of total discovered copper reserves, could lead to significantly higher costs as left-of-center governments re-write these states' constitutions, geological factors would not be the main constraint to copper supply for the renewables energy buildout: Even if copper mining companies were to move out of these two countries, there still is about 570 million MT in discovered copper reserves, and nearly ten times that amount in undiscovered reserves. As we have written in the past, capital expenditure restraint is the principal reason the supply side of copper markets – and base metals generally – is challenged (Chart 7). Unlike in the previous commodity boom, this time mining companies are focusing on providing returns to shareholders, instead of funding the development of new mines (Chart 8). Chart 7Copper Prices Remains Parsimonious Copper Prices Remains Parsimonious Copper Prices Remains Parsimonious Chart 8Shareholder Interests Predominate Metals Agendas Assessing Risks To Our Commodity Views Assessing Risks To Our Commodity Views Of course, it is likely metals miners, like oil producers, are waiting to see actual demand for copper and other base metals pick up before ramping capex. Sharp increases in forecasted demand is not compelling for miners, at this point. This means metals prices could stay elevated for an extended period, given the 10-15-year lead times for copper mines (Chart 9). For example, the Kamoa-Kakula mine in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) now being brought on line took roughly 24 years of exploration and development work, before it started producing copper. Technological breakthroughs that increase brownfield projects’ productivity, or significant increases in the amount of recycled copper as a percent of total copper supply would address some of the price pressures arising from the long lead times associated with the development of new copper supply. Another scenario with a non-trivial probability that threatens the viability of metals investing is a breakthrough – or breakthroughs – in CCUS technology, which allows oil and gas producers to remove enough carbon from their fuels to allow firms using these fuels to achieve their net-zero carbon goals. Chart 9Long Lead Times For Mine Development Assessing Risks To Our Commodity Views Assessing Risks To Our Commodity Views Investment Implications Short-term supply-demand issues affecting the oil market at present are transitory, and do not signal a shift in the fundamentals supporting our bullish call on oil. Our thesis based on continued production discipline remains intact. That said, we will continue to subject it to rigorous scrutiny on a continual basis. Our average Brent forecast for 2021 remains $66.50/bbl, with 2H21 prices averaging $70/bbl. For 2022 and 2023 we continue to expect prices to average $74 and $81/bbl, respectively (Chart 10). WTI will trade $2-$3/bbl lower. Our metals view has become slightly more nuanced, thanks to our client conversations. One of the unintended consequences of the unplanned and uncoordinated rush to a net-zero carbon future will be an improvement in the competitive position of oil and gas as transportation fuels and electric-generation fuels going forward. This will be driven by rising costs of developing and delivering the metals supplies needed to effect the net-zero transition. We expect markets will provide incentives to CCUS technologies and efforts to decarbonize oil and gas fuels, which will contribute to the global effort to arrest rising temperatures. This suggests the rush to sell these assets – which is underway at present – could be premature.9 In the extreme, this could be a true counterbalance to the metals story, if it plays out. Chart 10Our Oil Price View Remains Intact Our Oil Price View Remains Intact Our Oil Price View Remains Intact     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 The monthly OPEC 2.0 meeting ended without any action to increase monthly supplies, following the UAE's bid to increase its baseline reference production – determined based on October 2018 production levels – to 3.8mm b/d, up from 3.2mm b/d. S&P Global Platts reported the UAE's Energy Minister, Suhail al-Mazrouei, advanced a proposal to raise its monthly production level under the coalition's overall output deal, while KSA's energy minister, Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman, insisted the UAE follow OPEC 2.0 procedures in seeking an output increase. We do not expect this issue to become a protracted standoff between these states. The disagreement between the ministers is procedural to substantive. Remarks by bin Salman last month – to wit, KSA has a role in containing inflation globally – and his earlier assertions that production policy of OPEC 2.0 would be driven by actual oil demand, as opposed to forecasted oil demand, suggest the Kingdom is not aiming for higher oil prices per se. Base Metals: Bullish Spot benchmark iron ore (62 Fe) prices traded above $222/MT this week in China on the back of stronger steel demand, according to mining.com (Chart 11). Market participants are anticipating further steel-production restrictions and appear to be trying to get out in front of them. Precious Metals: Bullish The USD rally eased this week, allowing gold prices to stabilize following the June Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting. In the two weeks since the FOMC, our gold composite indicator shows that gold started entering oversold territory (Chart 12). We believe gold prices will start correcting upwards, expecting investor bargain-hunting to pick up after the price drop. The mixed US jobs report, which showed the unemployment rate ticked up more than expected, implies that interest rates are not going to be raised soon. Our colleagues at BCA Research's US Bond Strategy (USBS) expect rates to increase only by end-2022.10 This, along with slightly higher odds of a potential COVID-19 resurgence, will support gold prices in the near-term. Ags/Softs: Neutral The USDA's Crop Progress report for the week ended 4 July 2021 showed 64% of the US corn crop was in good to excellent condition, down from the 71% reported for the comparable 2020 date. The Department reported 59% of the bean crop was in good to excellent shape vs 71% the year earlier. Chart 11 BENCHMARK IRON ORE 62% FE, CFR CHINA (TSI) GOING DOWN BENCHMARK IRON ORE 62% FE, CFR CHINA (TSI) GOING DOWN Chart 12 Sentiment Supports Oil Prices Sentiment Supports Oil Prices     Footnotes 1     Please see Are Chinese COVID Vaccines Underperforming? A Dearth of Real-Life Studies Leaves Unanswered Questions, published by Health Policy Watch, June 18, 2021. 2     According to HPW, the World Health Organization's Emergency Use Listing for these two vaccines "were unique in that unlike the Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Moderna, and Jonhson & Johonson vaccines that it had also approved, neither had undergone review and approval by a strict national or regional regulatory authority such as the US Food and Drug Administration or the European Medicines Agency. Nor have Phase 3 results of the Sinopharm and Sinovac trials been published in a peer-reviewed medical journal.  More to the point, post-approval, any large-scale tracking of the efficacy of the Sinovac and Sinopharm vaccine rollouts by WHO or national authorities seems to be missing." 3    Please see A Perfect Energy Storm On The Way, which we published on June 3, 2021 for additional discussion.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4    Please refer to The Price of a Fully Renewable US Grid: $4.5 Trillion, published by greentechmedia 28 June 2019. 5    Please refer to the IEA's Net Zero By 2050, published in May 2021. 6    Please refer to USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries, 2021. 7     Please refer to Minerals for Climate Action: The Mineral Intensity of the Clean Energy Transition, published by the World Bank. 8    Please refer to Copper supply needs to double by 2050, Glencore CEO says, published by reuters.com on June 22, 2021. 9    Please see the FT's excellent coverage of this trend in A $140bn asset sale: the investors cashing in on Big Oil’s push to net zero published on July 6, 2021. 10   Please refer to Watch Employment, Not Inflation, published by the USBS on June 15, 2021.   Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2021 Summary of Closed Trades Image

Highlights Political and corporate climate activism will increase the cost of developing the resources required to produce and deliver energy going forward – e.g., oil and gas wells; pipelines; copper mines, and refineries. Over the short run, the fastest way for investor-owned companies (IOCs) to address accelerated reductions in CO2 emissions imposed by courts and boards is to walk away from the assets producing them, which could be disruptive over the medium term. Longer term, state-owned companies (SOCs) not facing the constraints of IOCs likely will be required to provide an increasing share of the resources needed to produce and distribute energy. The real difficulty will come in the medium term. Capex for critical metals like copper languishes, just as the call on these metals steadily increases over the next 30 years (Chart of the Week). The evolution to a low-carbon future has not been thought through at the global policy level. A real strategy must address underinvestment in base metals and incentivize the development of technology via a carbon tax – not emissions trading schemes – so firms can innovate to avoid it. We remain long energy and metals exposures.1 Feature And you may ask yourself, "Well … how did I get here?" David Byrne, Once In A Lifetime Energy markets – broadly defined – are radically transforming from week to week. The latest iteration of these markets' evolution is catalyzed by climate activists, who are finding increasing success in court and on corporate boards – sometimes backed by major institutional investors – and forcing oil and gas producers to accelerate CO2 emission-reduction programs.2 Climate activists' arguments are finding increasing purchase because they have merit: Years of stiff-arming investors seeking clarity on the oil and gas producers' decarbonization agendas, coupled with a pronounced failure to provide returns in excess of their cost of capital, have given activists all of the ammo needed to argue their points. Chart of the WeekCall On Metals For Energy Will Increase A Perfect Energy Storm On The Way A Perfect Energy Storm On The Way This activism is not limited to the courts or boardrooms. Voters in democratic societies with contested elections also are seeking redress for failures of their governments to effectively channel mineral wealth back into society on an equitable basis, and to protect their environments and the habitats of indigenous populations. This voter activism is especially apparent in Chile and Peru, where elections and constitutional conventions likely will result in higher taxes and royalties on metals IOCs operating in these states, which will increase production costs and ultimately be passed on to consumers.3 These states account for ~ 40% of world copper output. IOCs Walk Away Earlier this week, Exxon walked away from an early-stage offshore oil development project in Ghana.4 This followed the unfavorable court rulings and boardroom setbacks experienced by Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron and Exxon recently (referenced in fn. 2). While the company had no comment on its abrupt departure, its action shows how IOCs can exercise their option to put a project back to its host government, thus illustrating one of the most readily available alternatives for energy IOCs to meet court- or board-mandated CO2 emissions targets. If these investments qualify as write-offs, the burden will be borne by taxpayers. As climate activism increases, state-owned companies (SOCs) not facing the constraints of IOCs likely will be required to provide an increasing share of the resources – particularly oil and gas – needed to produce and distribute energy going forward. This is not an unalloyed benefit, as the SOCs still face stranded-asset risks, if they invest in longer-lived assets that are obviated by a successful renewables + grid buildout globally. That is a cost that will have to be compensated, when the SOCs work up their capex allocations. Still, if legal and investor activism significantly accelerates IOCs' capex reductions in oil and gas projects, the SOCs – particularly those in OPEC 2.0 – will be able to expand their position as the dominant supplier in the global oil market, and could perhaps increase their influence on price levels and forward-curve dynamics (Chart 2).5 Chart 2OPEC 2.0s Could Expand If Investor Activism Increases OPEC 2.0s Could Expand If Investor Activism Increases OPEC 2.0s Could Expand If Investor Activism Increases Higher Call On Metals At present, there is a lot of talk about the need to invest in renewable electricity generation and the grid structure supporting it, but very little in the way of planning for this transition. Other than repeated assertions of its necessity, little is being said regarding how exactly this strategy will be executed given the magnitude of the supply increase in metals required. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the refined copper market, which has been in a physical deficit – i.e., production minus consumption is negative – for the last 6 years (Chart 3). Physical copper markets in China, which consumes more than 50% of refined output, remain extremely tight, as can be seen in the ongoing weakness of treating charges and refining charges (TC/RC) for the past year (Chart 4). These charges are inversely correlated to prices – when TC/RCs are low, it means there is surplus refining capacity for copper – unrefined metal is scarce, which drives down demand for these services. Chart 3Coppers Physical Deficit Likely Persist Coppers Physical Deficit Likely Persist Coppers Physical Deficit Likely Persist Chart 4Chinas Refined Copper Supply Remains Tight Chinas Refined Copper Supply Remains Tight Chinas Refined Copper Supply Remains Tight Theoretically, high prices will incentivize higher levels of production. However, after the last decade’s ill-timed investment in new mine discoveries and expansions, mining companies have become more wary with their investments, and are using earnings to pay dividends and reduce debt. This leads us to believe that mining companies will not invest in new mine discoveries but will use capital expenditure to expand brownfield projects to meet rising demand. In the last decade, as copper demand rose, capex for copper rose from 2010-2012, and fell from 2013-2016 (Chart 5). During this time, the copper ore grade was on a declining trend. This implies that the new copper brought online was being mined from lower-grade ore, due to the expansion of existing projects(Chart 6). Chart 5Copper Capex Growth Remains Weak A Perfect Energy Storm On The Way A Perfect Energy Storm On The Way Chart 6Copper Ore-Quality Declines Persist Through Capex Cycle A Perfect Energy Storm On The Way A Perfect Energy Storm On The Way Capex directed at keeping ore production above consumption will not be sufficient to avoid major depletions of ore supplies beginning in 2024, according to Wood Mackenzie. The consultancy foresees a cumulative deficit of ~ 16mm MT by 2040. Plugging this gap will require $325-$500 billion of investment in the copper mining sector.6 The Case For A Carbon Tax The low-carbon future remains something of a will-o'-the-wisp – seen off in the future but not really developed in the present. Most striking in discussions of the low-carbon transition is the assumption of resource availability – particularly bases metals –in, e.g., the IEA's Net Zero by 2050, A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector, published last month. In the IEA's document, further investment in hydrocarbons is not required beyond 2025. The copper, aluminum, steel, etc., required to build the generation and supporting grid infrastructure will be available and callable as needed to build all the renewable generation the world requires. The document is agnostic between carbon trading and carbon taxes as a way to price carbon and incentivize the technology that would allow firms and households to avoid a direct cost on carbon. A real strategy must address the fact that most of the world will continue to rely on fossil fuels for decades, as development goals are pursued. Underinvestment in base metals and its implications for the buildout of generation and grids has to be a priority if these assets are to be built. Given the 5-10-year lead times base metals mines require to come online, it is obvious that beyond the middle of this decade, the physical reality of demand exceeding supply will assert itself. A good start would be a global effort to impose and collect carbon taxes uniformly across states.7 This would need to be augmented with a carbon club, which restricts admission and trading privileges  to those states adopting such a scheme. Harmonizing the multiple emissions trading schemes worldwide will be a decades-long effort that is unlikely to succeed. Such schemes also can be gamed by larger players, producing pricing distortions. A hard and fast tax that is enforced in all of the members of such a carbon club would immediately focus attention on the technology required to avoid paying it – mobilizing capital, innovation and entrepreneurial drive to make it a reality. This would support carbon-capture, use and storage technologies as well, thus extending the life of existing energy resources as the next generation of metals-based resources is built out. In addition, a carbon tax raises revenue for governments, which can be used for a variety of public policies, including reducing other taxes to reduce the overall burden of taxation. Lastly, a tax eliminates the potential for short-term price volatility in the pricing of carbon – as long as households and firms know what confronts them they can plan around it.  Tax revenues also can be used to reduce the regressive nature of such levies. Investment Implications The lack of a coherent policy framework that addresses the very real constraints on the transition to a low-carbon economy makes the likelihood of a volatile, years-long evolution foreordained. We believe this will create numerous investment opportunities as underinvestment in hydrocarbons and base metals production predisposes oil, natural gas and base metals prices to move higher in the face of strong and rising demand. We remain long commodity index exposure – the S&P GSCI and GSCI Commodity Dynamic Roll Strategy ETF (COMT), which is optimized to take advantage of the most backwardated commodity forward curves in the index. These positions were up 5.3% and 7.2% since inception on December 7, 2017 and March 12, 2021, respectively, at Tuesday's close. We also remain long the MSCI Global Metals & Mining Producers ETF (PICK), which is up 33.9% since it was put on December 10, 2020. Expecting continued volatility in metals – copper in particular – we will look for opportunities to re-establish positions in COMEX/CME Copper after being stopped out with gains. A trailing stop was elected on our long Dec21 copper position established September 10, 2020, which was closed out with a 48.2% gain on May 21, 2021. Our long calendar 2022 vs short calendar 2023 COMEX copper backwardation trade established April 22, 2021, was closed out on May 20, 2021, leaving us with a return of 305%.   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 OPEC 2.0 offered no surprises to markets this week, as it remained committed to returning just over 2mm b/d of production to the market over the May-July period, 70% of which comes from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), according to Platts. While Iran's return to the market is not a given in OPEC 2.0's geometry, we have given better than even odds it will return to the market beginning in 3Q21 and restore most of the 1.4mm b/d not being produced at present to the market over the course of the following year. OPEC itself expects demand to increase 6mm b/d this year, somewhat above our expectation of 5.3mm b/d. Stronger demand could raise Brent prices above our average $63/bbl forecast for this year (Chart 7). Brent was trading above $71/bbl as we went to press. Base Metals: Bullish BHP declared operations at its Escondida and Spence mines were running at normal rates despite a strike by some 200 operations specialists. BHP is employing so-called substitute workers to conduct operation, according to reuters.com, which also reported separate unions at both mines are considering strike actions in the near future. Precious Metals: Bullish The Fed’s reluctance to increase nominal interest rates despite indications of higher inflation will reduce real rates, which will support higher gold prices (Chart 8). We agree with our colleagues at BCA Research's US Bond Strategy that the Fed is waiting for the US labor market to reach levels consistent with its assessment of maximum employment before it makes its initial rate hike in this interest-rate cycle. Subsequent rate changes, however, will be based on realized inflation and inflation expectations. In our opinion, the Fed is following this ultra-accommodative monetary policy approach to break the US liquidity trap, brought about by a rise in precautionary savings due to the pandemic. In addition, we continue to expect USD weakness, which also will support gold and precious metals prices. We remain long gold, expecting prices to clear $2,000/oz this year. Ags/Softs: Neutral Corn prices fell more than 2% Wednesday, following the release of USDA estimates showing 95% of the corn crop was planted by 31 May 2021, well over the 87% five-year average. This was in line with expectations. However, the Department's assessment that 76% of the crop was in good-to-excellent condition exceeded market expectations. Chart 7 By 2023 Brent Trades to $80/bbl By 2023 Brent Trades to $80/bbl Chart 8 Gold Prices Going Up Gold Prices Going Up Footnotes 1     Please see Trade Tables below. 2     Please see OPEC, Russia seen gaining more power with Shell Dutch ruling and EXCLUSIVE BlackRock backs 3 dissidents to shake up Exxon board -sources published by reuters.com June 1, 2021 and May 25, 2021. 3    Please see Chile's govt in shock loss as voters pick independents to draft constitution published by reuters.com May 17, 2021, and Peru’s elite in panic at prospect of hard-left victory in presidential election published by ft.com June 1, 2021.  Peru has seen significant capital flight on the back of these fears.  See also Results from Chile’s May 2021 elections published by IHS Markit May 21, 2021 re a higher likelihood of tax increases for the mining sector.  The risk of nationalization is de minimis, according to IHS. 4    Please see Exxon walks away from stake in deepwater Ghana block published by worldoil.com June 1, 2021. 5    Please see OPEC 2.0's Production Strategy In Focus, which we published on May 20, 2021, for a recap our how we model OPEC 2.0's strategy.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 6    Please see Will a lack of supply growth come back to bite the copper industry?, published by Wood Mackenzie on March 23, 2021. 7     Please see The Challenges and Prospects for Carbon Pricing in Europe published by the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies last month for a discussion of carbon taxes vs. emissions trading schemes.     Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2021 Summary of Closed Trades Higher Inflation On The Way Higher Inflation On The Way

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