Asset Allocation

Highlights Global oil demand will remain betwixt and between recovery and relapse through 3Q21, as stronger DM consumer spending and increasing mobility wrestles with persistent concerns over COVID-19-induced lockdowns in Latin America and Asia. These concerns will be allayed as vaccines become more widely distributed, and fears of renewed lockdowns – and their associated demand destruction – recede.  Going by US experience – which can be tracked on a weekly basis – as consumer spending rises in the wake of relaxed restrictions on once-routine social interactions, fuel demand will follow suit (Chart of the Week). OPEC 2.0 likely will agree to return ~ 400k b/d monthly to the market over the course of the next year and a hal. For 2021, we raised our average forecast to $70/bbl, and our 2H21 expectation to $74/bbl. For 2022 and 2023, we expect Brent to average $75 and $78/bbl. These estimates are highly sensitive to demand expectations, particularly re containment of COVID-19. Feature For every bit of good news related to the economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic, there is a cautionary note. Most prominently, reports of increasing demand for refined oil products like diesel fuel and gasoline in re-opening DM economies are almost immediately offset by fresh news of renewed lockdowns, re-infections in highly vaccinated populations, and fears a new mutant strain of the coronavirus will emerge (Chart 2).1 In this latter grouping, EM economies feature prominently, although Australia this week extended its lockdown following a flare-up in COVID-19 cases. Chart of the WeekUS Product Demand Revives As Economy Reopens Chart 2COVID-19 Infection And Death Rates Keep Markets On EdgeOur expectation on the demand side is unchanged from last month – 2021 oil demand will grow ~ 5.4mm b/d vs. 2020 levels, while 2022 and 2023 consumption will grow 4.1 and 1.6mm b/d, respectively (Chart 3). These estimates reflect the slowing of global GDP growth over the 2021-23 interval, which can be seen in the IMF's and World Bank's GDP estimates, which we use to drive our demand forecasts.2 Weekly data from the US seen in the Chart of the Week provide a hint of what can be expected as DM and EM economies re-open in the wake of relaxed restrictions on once-routine social interactions. Demand for refined products – e.g., gasoline, diesel fuel and jet fuel – will recover, but at uneven rates over the next 2-3 years. The US EIA notes the recovery in diesel demand, which is included in "Distillates" in the chart above, has been faster and stronger than that of gasoline and jet fuel. This is largely because it reflects the lesser damage done to freight movement and activities like mining and manufacturing. The EIA expects 4Q21 US distillate demand to come in 100k b/d above 4Q19 levels at 4.2mm b/d, and to hit an all-time record of 4.3mm b/d next year. US gasoline demand is not expected to surpass 2019 levels this year or next, in the EIA's forecast. This is partly due to improved fuel efficiencies in automobiles – vehicle-miles travelled are expected to rise to ~ 9mm miles/day in the US, which will be slightly higher than 2019's level. Jet fuel demand in the US is expected to return to 2019 levels next year, coming in at 1.7mm b/d. Chart 3Global Oil Demand Forecast Remains Steady Quantifying Demand Risks We use the recent uptick in COVID-19 cases as the backdrop for modelling demand-destruction scenarios in this month’s oil balances (Chart 2). We consider different scenarios of potential demand destruction caused by the resurgence in the pandemic (Table 1). Last year, demand fell by 9% on average, which we take to be the extreme down move over an entire year. In our simulations, we do not expect demand to fall as drastically this time. Table 1Demand-Destruction Scenario Outcomes We modelled two scenarios – a 5% drop in demand (our low-demand-destruction scenario) and an 8% drop in demand (our high-demand-destruction scenario). A demand drop of a maximum of 2% made nearly no difference to prices, and so, we did not include it in our analysis. In both cases, demand starts to fall by September and reaches its lowest point in October 2021. We adjusted changes to demand in the same proportion as changes in demand in 2020, before making estimates converge to our base-case by end-2022. The estimates of price series are noticeably distinct during the period of the simulation (Chart 4). Starting in 2023, the low-demand-destruction prices and base-case prices nearly converge, as do their inventory levels. Prices and inventory levels in the high-demand-destruction case remain lower than the base-case during the rest of the forecast sample. OPEC 2.0 and world oil supply were kept constant in these scenarios. World oil supply is calculated as the sum of OPEC 2.0 and Non-OPEC 2.0 supply. Non-OPEC 2.0 can be broken down into the US, and Non-OPEC 2.0, Ex-US countries. Examples of these suppliers are the UK, Canada, China, and Brazil. OPEC 2.0 can be broken down into Core-OPEC 2.0 and the cohort we call "The Other Guys," which cannot increase production. Core-OPEC 2.0 includes suppliers we believe have excess spare capacity and can inexpensively increase supply quickly. Chart 4Brent Forecasts Rise As Global Economy Recovers COVID-19 Demand Destruction Scenarios OPEC 2.0 Remains In Control We continue to expect the OPEC 2.0 producer coalition led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia to maintain its so-far-successful production policy, which has kept the level of supply below demand through most of the COVID-19 pandemic (Chart 5). This allowed OECD inventories to fall below their pre-COVID range, despite a 9% loss of global demand last year (Chart 6). We expect this discipline to continue and for OPEC 2.0 to continue restoring its market share (Table 2). Chart 5OPEC 2.0 Production Policy Kept Supply Below Demand Chart 6...And Drove OECD Inventories Down Table 2BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) Our expectation last week the KSA-UAE production-baseline impasse will be short-lived remains intact. We expect supply to be increased after this month at a rate of 400k b/d a month into 2022, per the deal most members of the coalition signed on to prior to the disagreement between the longtime GCC allies. This would, as the IEA notes, largely restore OPEC 2.0's spare capacity accumulated via production cutbacks during the pandemic of ~ 6-7mm b/d by the end of 2022 (Chart 7). It should be remembered that most of OPEC 2.0's spare capacity is held by Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states, which includes the UAE. The UAE's official baseline production number (i.e., its October 2018 production level) likely will be increased to 3.65mm b/d from 3.2mm b/d, and its output in 2H21 and 2022 likely will be adjusted upwards. As one of the few OPEC 2.0 members that actually has invested in higher production and can increase output meaningfully, it would, like KSA, benefit from providing barrels out of this spare capacity.3 Chart 7OPEC 2.0 Spare Capacity Will Return As we noted last week, we do not think this impasse was a harbinger of a breakdown in OPEC 2.0's so-far-successful production-management strategy. In our view, this impasse was a preview of how negotiations among states with the capacity to raise production will agree to allocate supply in a market starved for capital in the future. This is particularly relevant as US shale producers continue to focus on providing competitive returns to their shareholders, which will limit supply growth to that which can be done profitably. We see the "price-taking cohort" – i.e., those producers outside OPEC 2.0 exemplified by the US shale-oil producers – remaining focused on maintaining competitive margins and shareholder priorities. This means maintaining and growing dividends, and returning capital to shareholders will have priority as the world transitions to a low-carbon business model (Chart 8).4 For 2021, we raised our average forecast to $70/bbl on the back of higher prices lifting the year-to-date average so far, and our 2H21 expectation to $74/bbl. For 2022 and 2023, we expect Brent to average $75 and $78/bbl (Chart 9). These estimates are highly sensitive to demand expectations, which, in turn, depend on the global success in containing and minimizing COVID-19 demand destruction, as we have shown above. Chart 8US Shale Producers Focus On Margins Chart 9Raising Our Forecast Slightly Investment Implications In our assessment of the risks to our views in last week's report, we noted one of the unintended consequences of the unplanned and uncoordinated rush to a so-called net-zero future will be an improvement in the competitive position of oil and gas. This is somewhat counterintuitive, but the logic goes like this: The accelerated phase-out of conventional hydrocarbon energy sources brought about policy, regulatory and legal imperatives already is reducing oil and gas capex allocations within the price-taking cohort exemplified by US shale-oil producers. This also will restrict capital flows to EM states with heavy resource endowments and little capital to develop them. Our strong-conviction call on oil, gas and base metals is premised on our view that renewables and their supporting grids cannot be developed and deployed quickly enough to make up for the energy that will be foregone as a result of these policies. Capex for the metals miners has been parsimonious, and brownfield projects continue to dominate. Greenfield projects can take more than a decade to develop, and there are few in the pipeline now as the world heads into its all-out renewables push. In a world where conventional energy production is being forced lower via legislation, regulation, shareholder and legal decisions, higher prices will ensue even if demand stays flat or falls: If supply is falling, market forces will lift oil and gas prices – and the equities of the firms producing them – higher. As for metals like copper and their producers, if supply is unable to keep up with demand, prices of the commodities and the equities of the firms producing them will be forced to go higher.5 This call underpins our long S&P GSCI and COMT ETF commodity recommendations, and our long MSCI Global Metals & Mining Producers ETF (PICK) recommendation. We will look for opportunities to get long oil and gas producer exposure via ETFs as well, given our view on oil and metals spans the next 5-10 years.   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 US EIA expects growth in large-scale solar capacity will exceed the increase in wind generation for the first time ever in 2021-22. The EIA forecasts 33 GW of solar PV capacity will be added to the US grid this year and next, with small-scale solar PV increasing ~ 5 GW/yr. The EIA expects wind generation to increase 23 GW in 2021-22. The EIA attributed the slow-down in wind development to the expiration of a $0.025/kWH production tax credit at the end of 2020. Taken together, solar and wind generation will account for 15% of total US electricity output by the end of 2022, according to the EIA. Nuclear power will account for slightly less than 20% of US generation in 2021-22, while hydro will fall to less than 7% owing to severe drought in the western US. At the other end of the generation spectrum, coal will account for ~ 24% of generation this year, as it takes back incremental market share from natural gas, and ~ 22% of generation in 2022. Base Metals: Bullish Iron ore prices continue to trade above $215/MT in China, even as demand is expected to slow in 2H21. Supply additions from Brazil, which ships higher quality 65% Fe ore, have been slower than expected, which is supporting prices (Chart 10). Separately, the Chinese government's auction of refined copper earlier this month cleared the market at $10,500/MT, or ~ $4.76/lb. Spot copper has been trading on either side of $4.30/lb this month, which indicates the Chinese market remains well bid. Precious Metals: Bullish The 13-year record jump in the US Consumer Price Index reported this week for the month of June is bullish for gold, as it produced weaker real rates and sparked demand for inflation hedges. Fed Chair Powell continued to stick to the view that the recent rise in inflation is transitory. The Fed’s dovish outlook will support gold prices and likely will lead to a weaker US dollar, as it reduces the possibility that US interest rates will rise soon. A falling USD will further bolster gold prices (Chart 11). Chart 10 Chart 11     Footnotes 1     We highlighted this risk in last week's report, Assessing Risks To Our Commodity Views, which is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Two events – in the Seychelles and Chile, where the majority of the populations were inoculated – highlight re-infection risk. Re-infections in Indonesia along with lockdowns following the spread of the so-called COVID-19 Delta variant also are drawing attention. Please see Euro 2020 final in UK stokes fears of spread of Delta variant, published by The Straits Times on July 11, 2021. The news service notes that in addition to the threats super-spreader sporting events in Europe present, "The rapid spread of the Delta variant across Asia, Africa and Latin America is exposing crucial vaccine supply shortages for some of the world's poorest and most vulnerable populations. Those two factors are also threatening the global economic recovery from the pandemic, Group of 20 finance ministers warned on Saturday." 2     Please see the recently published IMF World Economic Outlook Reports and the World Bank Global Economic Prospects. 3    If, as we suspect, KSA and the UAE are playing a long game – i.e., a 20-30-year game – this spare capacity will become more valuable as investment capex into oil production globally slows. Please see The $200 billion annual value of OPEC’s spare capacity to the global economy published by kapsarc.org on July 17, 2018. 4    Please see Bloomberg's interview with bp's CEO Bernard Looney at Banks Need ‘Radical Transparency,’ Citi Exec Says: Summit Update, which aired on July 13, 2021. In addition to focusing on margins and returns, the company – like its peers among the majors – also is aiming to reduce oil production by 20% by 2025 and 40% by 2030. 5    This turn of events is being dramatically played out in the coal markets, where the supply of metallurgical coals is falling as demand increases. Please see Coal Prices Hit Decade High Despite Efforts to Wean the World Off Carbon published by wsj.com on June 25, 2021.   Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2021 Summary of Closed Trades

Special Report

In lieu of next week’s report, I will be presenting the quarterly Counterpoint webcast titled ‘Where Is The Groupthink Wrong? And How To Profit From It.’ I do hope you can join. We will then take a summer break, so our next report will come out on August 5. Highlights The quantum theory of finance describes the strange quantum effects of ultra-low inflation, of ultra-low interest rates, and of ultra-low probabilities. The key finding of the quantum theory of finance is that when inflation and interest rates get ultra-low, inflation becomes completely insensitive to monetary policy, while risk-asset valuations become hyper-sensitive to monetary policy. The hyper-sensitivity of $500 trillion of global risk-assets to bond yields means that the ultimate low in the US T-bond yield is still to come. Given the hyper-sensitivity of equity valuations to bond yields and the demand for US assets during bond market rallies, it also means that the structural bull market in equities and the structural bull market in the US dollar are both still intact. Feature Feature ChartNear The Lower Bound In Bond Yields, Potential Losses Are Greater Than Potential Gains When things get ultra-small, the laws of physics undergo a radical shift. Classical physics breaks down, and we must to turn to an alternative theory to explain and predict the physical world. That theory is the quantum theory of physics. In this updated Special Report we propose that, just as there is the quantum theory of physics, there is The Quantum Theory Of Finance. When inflation and interest rates get ultra-low, the laws of economics and finance undergo a radical shift. And we must turn to the alternative theory to explain and predict the economic and financial world. In the physical world, the allowable values of a physical system appear to be continuous, with all values permitted. In fact, the permitted values occur in discrete ‘quanta’. At ultra-small scales, these quantum effects become the dominant driver of physical systems and form the foundation of the quantum theory of physics. Likewise, in the economic and financial world of ultra-low inflation and interest rates, quantum effects become the dominant drivers of the system. These quantum effects take three forms: The quantum effects of ultra-low inflation. The quantum effects of ultra-low interest rates. The quantum effects of ultra-low probabilities. The Quantum Effects Of Ultra-Low Inflation Even though inflation is continuous mathematically, we do not perceive it as such psychologically. Instead we perceive inflation as ‘quantum states’ of either price stability or price instability. A recent IFO paper points out that households’ inflation perceptions are “more in line with the imperfect information view prevailing in social psychology than with the rational actor view assumed in mainstream economics.”1 And in Real-Feel Inflation: Quantitative Estimation of Inflation Perceptions, Michael Ashton confirms that “it would be challenging for a consumer to distinguish 1 percent inflation from 2 percent inflation – that fine of a gradation in perception would be extremely unusual to find.”2 There are several reasons why we perceive inflation imprecisely: We do not recognise quality change and substitution adjustments. We tend to feel inflation asymmetrically, noticing goods whose prices are rising, but noticing less goods whose prices are falling. This is the classic attribution bias: higher prices are inflation, lower prices are “good shopping.” Items whose prices are volatile tend to draw more attention, and give more opportunities for these asymmetries to compound. We notice the price changes of small, frequently purchased items more than the price changes of large infrequently purchased items. We perceive the cost of homeownership as the monthly mortgage payment, and not the imputed cost of owners’ equivalent rent (OER). Yet OER is the largest single item in the US core CPI basket, weighted at 30 percent. The result of these biases is that we perceive inflation intuitively, as a quantum state rather than as a precise number within a continuum. The quantum effects of ultra-low inflation mean that policymakers can take an economy from the state of price instability to the state of price stability, and vice-versa, but they cannot sustainably hit an arbitrary inflation target within the quantum state, such as 2 percent (Chart I-2). Chart I-2Mission Impossible: 2 Percent Inflation The Quantum Effects Of Ultra-Low Interest Rates Policymakers accept that there exists an interest rate, at around -1 percent, below which there would be an exodus of bank deposits. Hence, this marks the lower bound of policy interest rates. When policy interest rates are at, or near, this lower bound, central banks can turn to a second strategy: they can promise to keep the policy rate ultra-low for an extended period. Thereby they can pull down the long bond yield towards the lower bound too. To do this, they must convince the market that their promise is genuine. Enter quantitative easing (QE) which, in the words of the ECB’s former Chief Economist Peter Praet, is nothing more than “a signalling channel which reinforces the credibility of forward guidance on (ultra-low) policy rates.” Once forward guidance plus QE has taken bond yields close to their lower bound, we start to see the quantum effects of ultra-low interest rates. Specifically, the bond investor is left with a highly asymmetric payoff – the bond price can fall much more than it can rise. Witness the performance of Swiss bonds through the past three years. The worst drawdowns have far exceeded the best gains (Feature Chart, Chart I-3 and Chart I-4). Chart I-3Swiss Bonds Offer Small Potential Gains... Chart I-4...But Big Potential Losses This asymmetric payoff is technically known as negative skew and it starts to take effect when bond yields decline to around 2 percent above their lower bound. So, if the lower bound for the 10-year T-bond yield is -0.5 percent, the negative skew in its payoffs would start to take effect at around 1.5 percent. One important implication of the quantum effect of ultra-low interest rates is that the asymmetry of bond payoffs becomes very similar to the asymmetry of equity and other risk-asset payoffs (Chart I-5). This is important because, as we describe in the next section, it is the skew of an asset’s payoff that establishes its absolute and relative riskiness. Chart I-5Equities Can Suffer Bigger Short-Term Losses Than Short-Term Gains (Negative Skew) The Quantum Effects Of Ultra-Low Probabilities We are very bad at comprehending low probabilities. For example, we cannot distinguish a 1 in a 1000 risk from a 1 in a 100 risk, even though the second risk is ten times greater than the first. This is what Daniel Kahneman’s and Amos Tversky’s Nobel prize winning Prospect Theory called the ‘quantal effect’ of ultra-low probabilities. Kahneman and Tversky discovered that our fears and hopes come in quanta rather than in a continuum, with the result that we overweight the tail-events in a payoff distribution. “Because people are limited in their ability to comprehend and evaluate extreme probabilities, highly unlikely events are either ignored or over-weighted.” If the payoff distribution is symmetric, then our overweighting of the positive and negative tails cancels out, meaning there is no impact on the value of the payoff (Figure I-1). However, if the payoff distribution is skewed, then the longer tail dominates our perceived value of the payoff. Figure I-1In A Symmetric Payoff, We Overestimate The Big Gain And the Big Loss Equally, So It Cancels Out A lottery payoff has an extreme positive skew. There exists a miniscule chance of winning a fortune. As we overweight this highly unlikely event, we overvalue the lottery ticket relative to its expected payoff (Figure I-2). And this explains the existence of the multi-billion dollar lottery industry. Figure I-2In A Positively-Skewed Payoff (Lottery), We Overestimate The Big Gain, So We Overpay Conversely, the payoff from equities has a negative skew. As we overweight the tail-event of losing a lot of money, we undervalue this negatively skewed payoff (Figure I-3). In other words, we demand a higher return from a negatively skewed payoff relative to a symmetrical payoff, such as the payoff from bonds when yields are not ultra-low. And this explains the existence of the so-called ‘equity risk premium.’ Figure I-3In A Negatively-Skewed Payoff (Risk-Assets), We Overestimate The Big Loss, So We Demand A ‘Risk Premium’ Crucially though, at ultra-low bond yields – when both equity and bond payoffs carry the same negative skew – we no longer demand a higher return from equities versus bonds. As the equity risk premium compresses, the return demanded from equities and other risk-assets collapses to the ultra-low bond yield. Put another way, the valuation of risk-assets soars. The Quantum Theory Of Finance, The Past And The Future The key finding of the quantum theory of finance is this. When inflation and interest rates get ultra-low, inflation becomes completely insensitive to monetary policy, while risk-asset valuations become hyper-sensitive to monetary policy. This is the story of the past decade, and most likely the story of the coming years. For over a decade now, central banks have fixated on hitting their 2 percent inflation targets when the quantum effects of ultra-low inflation make such a target unachievable. In their misguided fixation, the unleashing of trillions of dollars of QE has taken bond yields to unprecedented lows which has driven risk-asset valuations to unprecedented highs, and made them hyper-sensitive to the slightest move in bond yields (Chart I-6 and Chart I-7). Chart I-6Real Estate Prices Have Massively Outperformed Rents Chart I-7Equity Prices Have Massively Outperformed Profits Yet to be clear, though policymakers cannot consistently hit the 2 percent inflation target, they could certainly take the economy back to price instability – if they pursued ultra-loose monetary policy combined with ultra-loose fiscal policy aggressively enough for long enough. But if a major economy were to take this road – intentionally or accidentally – the $500 trillion valuation of global risk-assets that is premised on ultra-low inflation and ultra-low interest rates would collapse. As we have previously written, this means that The Road To Inflation Ends At Deflation and the ultimate low in the T-bond yield is still to come. Alternatively, another deflationary shock could take us to this ultimate low in the T-bond yield more directly. Given the hyper-sensitivity of equity valuations to bond yields and the massive portfolio inflows into US assets during shocks, this also means that the structural bull markets in equities and the structural bull market in the US dollar are both still intact. Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see Households’ Inflation Perceptions and Expectations: Survey Evidence from New Zealand, IFO Working Paper, February 2018 available at https://www.ifo.de/DocDL/wp-2018-255-hayo-neumeier-inflation-perceptions-expectations.pdf 2 Please see Real-Feel Inflation: Quantitative Estimation of Inflation Perceptions by Michael Ashton, National Association for Business Economics available at https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1057/be.2011.35.pdf Fractal Trade Update We are pleased to report that long USD/CAD achieved its 3.7 percent profit target, and short building materials (PKB) versus healthcare (XLV) achieved its 15 percent profit target. Combined with other successes, this lifts the 6-month win ratio to an all-time high of 76 percent, comprising 12.3 winners versus just 3.9 losers. This week, we present two new candidates for countertrend reversal. First, the strong recent rally in Australian 30-year bonds has reached fragility on its 65-day fractal structure. The recommended trade is to short Australian versus Canadian 30-year bonds, setting the profit-target and symmetrical stop-loss at 3.9 percent. Second, the strong recent rally in lead versus platinum has also reached fragility on its 65-day fractal structure. The recommended trade is to short lead versus platinum, setting the profit-target and symmetrical stop-loss at 6.4 percent. Chart I-8Short Australian Vs, Canadian 30-Year Bonds Chart I-9Short Lead Vs. Platinum Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Equity Market Performance   Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area   Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations   Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations    

Highlights US labor-market disappointments notwithstanding, the global recovery being propelled by real GDP growth in the world's major economies is on track to be the strongest in 80 years. This growth will fuel commodity demand, which increasingly confronts tighter supply.  Higher commodity prices will ensue, and feed through to realized and expected inflation.  Manufacturers will continue to see higher input and output prices. Our modeling suggests the USD will weaken to end-2023; however, most of the move already has occurred.  Real US rates will remain subdued, as the Fed looks through PCE inflation rates above its 2% target and continues to focus on its full-employment mandate (Chart of the Week). Given these supportive inflation fundamentals, we remain long gold with a price target of $2,000/oz for this year.  We are upgrading silver to a strategic position, expecting a $30/oz price by year-end.  We remain long the S&P GSCI Dynamic Roll Index ETF (COMT) and the S&P GSCI, expecting tight supply-demand balances to steepen backwardations in forward curves, and long the Global Metals & Mining Producers ETF (PICK). Global economic policy uncertainty will remain elevated until broader vaccine distributions reduce lockdown risks. Feature The recovery of the global economy catalyzed by massive monetary accommodation and fiscal stimulus is on track to be the strongest in the past 80 years, according to the World Bank.1 The Bank revised its growth expectation for real GDP this year sharply higher – to 5.6% from its January estimate of 4.1%. For 2022, the rate of global real GDP growth is expected to slow to 4.3%, which is still significantly higher than the average 3% growth of 2018-19. DM economies are expected to grow at a 4% rate this year – double the average 2018-19 rate – while EM growth is expected to come in at 6% this year vs a 4.2% average for 2018-19. The big drivers of growth this year will be China, where the Bank expects an unleashing of pent-up demand to push real GDP up by 8.5%, and the US, where massive fiscal and monetary support will lift real GDP 6.8%. The Bank expects other DM economies will contribute to this growth, as well. Growth in EM economies will be supported by stronger demand and higher commodity prices, in the Bank's forecast. Commodity demand is recovering faster than commodity supply in the wake of this big-economy GDP recovery. As a result, manufacturers globally are seeing significant increases in input and output prices (Chart 2). Chart of the WeekUS Real Rates Continue To Languish Chart 2Global Manufacturers' Prices Moving Higher These price increases at the manufacturing level reflect the higher-price environment in global commodity markets, particularly in industrial commodities – i.e., bulks like iron ore and steel; base metals like copper and aluminum; and oil prices, which touch most processes involved in getting materials out of the ground and into factories before they make their way to consumers, who then drive to stores to pick up goods or have them delivered. Chart 3Commodity Price Increases Reflected in CPI Inflation Expectations These price pressures are being picked up in 5y5y CPI swaps markets, which are cointegrated with commodity prices (Chart 3). This also is showing up in shorter-tenor inflation gauges – monthly CPI and 2y CPI swaps. Oil prices, in particular, will be critical to the evolution of 5-year/5-year (5y5y) CPI swap rates, which are closely followed by fixed-income markets (Chart 4). Chart 4Oil Prices Are Key To 5Y5Y CPI Swap Rates Higher Gold Prices Expected CPI inflation expectations drive 5-year and 10-year real rates, which are important explanatory variables for gold prices (Chart 5).2 In addition, the massive monetary and fiscal policy out of the US also is driving expectations for a lower USD: Currency debasement fears are higher than they otherwise would be, given all the liquidity and stimulus sloshing around global markets, which also is bullish for gold (Chart 6). Chart 5Weaker Real Rates Bullish For Gold Chart 6Weaker USD Supports Gold All of these effects, particularly the inflationary impacts, are summarized in our fair-value gold model (Chart 7). At the beginning of 2021, our fair-value gold model indicated price would be closer to $2,005/oz, which was well above the actual gold price in January. Gold prices have remained below the fair value model since the beginning of 2021. The model explains gold prices using real rates, TWIB, US CPI and global economic policy uncertainty. Based on our modeling, we expect these variables to continue to be supportive of gold, bolstering our view the yellow metal will reach $2000/ oz this year. Unlike industrial commodities, gold prices are sensitive to speculative positioning and technical indicators. Our gold composite indicator shows that gold prices may be reflecting bullish sentiment. This sentiment likely reflects increasing inflation expectations, which we use as an explanatory variable for gold prices. The fact that gold is moving higher on sentiment is corroborated by the latest data point from Marketvane’s gold bullish consensus, which reported 72% of the traders expect prices to rise further (Chart 8). Chart 7BCAs Gold Fair-Value Model Supports 00/oz View Chart 8Sentiment Supports Oil Prices Investment Implications The massive monetary and fiscal stimulus that saw the global economy through the worst of the economic devastation of the COVID-19 pandemic is now bubbling through the real economy, and will, if the World Bank's assessment proves out, result in the strongest real GDP growth in 80 years. Liquidity remains abundant and interest rates – real and nominal – remain low. In its latest Global Economic Prospects, the Bank notes, " The literature generally suggests that monetary easing, both conventional and unconventional, typically boosts aggregate demand and inflation with a lag of 1-3 years …" The evidence for this is stronger for DM economies than EM; however, as the experience in China shows, scale matters. If the Bank's assessment is correct, the inflationary impulse from this stimulus should be apparent now – and it is – and will endure for another year or two. This stimulus has catalyzed organic growth and will continue to do so for years, particularly in economies pouring massive resources into renewable-energy generation and the infrastructure required to support it, a topic we have been writing about for some time.3 We remain long gold with a price target of $2,000/oz for this year. We are long silver on a tactical basis, but given our growth expectations, are upgrading this to a strategic position, expecting a $30/oz price by year-end. As we have noted in the past, silver is sensitive to all of the financial factors we consider when assessing gold markets, and it has a strong industrial component that accounts for more than half of its demand.4 Supportive fundamentals remain in place, with total supply (mine output and recycling) falling, demand rising and balances tightening (Chart 9). Worth noting is silver's supply is constrained because of underinvestment in copper production at the mine level, where silver is a by-product. On the demand side, continued recovery of industrial and consumer demand will keep silver prices well supported. In terms of broad commodity exposure, we remain long the S&P GSCI Dynamic Roll Index ETF (COMT) and the S&P GSCI, expecting tight supply-demand balances to continue to draw down inventories – particularly in energy and metals markets – which will lead to steeper backwardations in forward curves. Backwardation is the source of roll-yields for long commodity index investments. Investors initially have a long exposure in deferred commodity futures contracts, which are then liquidated and re-established when these contracts become more prompt (i.e., closer to delivery). If the futures' forward curves are backwardated, investors essentially are buying the deferred contracts at a lower price than the price at which the position likely is liquidated. We also remain long the Global Metals & Mining Producers ETF (PICK), an equity vehicle that spans miners and traders; the longer discounting horizon of equity markets suits our view on metals. Chart 9Upgrading Silver To Strategic Position Chart 10Wider Vaccine Distribution Will Support Gold Demand Global economic policy uncertainty will remain elevated until broader vaccine distributions reduce lockdown risks. We expect the wider distribution of vaccines will become increasingly apparent during 2H21 and in 2022. This will be bullish for physical gold demand – particularly in China and India – which will add support for our gold position (Chart 10).       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 US EIA expects Brent crude oil prices to fall to $60/bbl next year, given its call higher production from OPEC 2.0 and the US shales will outpace demand growth. The EIA expects global oil demand will average just under 98mm this year, or 5.4mm b/d above 2020 levels. For next year, the EIA is forecasting demand will grow 3.6mm b/d, averaging 101.3mm b/d. This is slightly less than the demand growth we expect next year – 101.65mm b/d. We are expecting 2022 Brent prices to average $73/bbl, and $78/bbl in 2023. We will be updating our oil balances and price forecasts in next week's publication. Base Metals: Bullish Pedro Castillo, the socialist candidate in Peru's presidential election, held on to a razor-thin lead in balloting as we went to press. Markets have been focused on the outcome of this election, as Castillo has campaigned on increasing taxes and royalties for mining companies operating in Peru, which accounts for ~10% of global copper production. The election results are likely to be contested by opposition candidate rival Keiko Fujimori, who has made unsubstantiated claims of fraud, according to reuters.com. Copper prices traded on either side of $4.50/lb on the CME/COMEX market as the election drama was unfolding (Chart 11). Precious Metals: Bullish As economies around the world reopen and growth rebounds, car manufacturing will revive. Stricter emissions regulations mean the demand for autocatalysts – hence platinum and palladium – will rise with the recovery in automobile production. Platinum is also used in the production of green hydrogen, making it an important metal for the shift to renewable energy. On the supply side, most platinum shafts in South Africa are back to pre-COVID-19 levels, according to Johnson Matthey, the metals refiner. As a result, supply from the world’s largest platinum producer will rebound by 40%, resulting in a surplus. South Africa accounts for ~ 70% of global platinum supply. The fact that an overwhelming majority of platinum comes from a nation which has had periodic electricity outages – the most recent one occurring a little more than a week ago – could pose a supply-side risk to this metal. This could introduce upside volatility to prices (Chart 12). Ags/Softs: Neutral As of 6 June, 90% of the US corn crop had emerged vs a five-year average of 82%; 72% of the crop was reported to be in good to excellent condition vs 75% at this time last year. Chart 11 Chart 12 Footnotes 1     Please see World Bank's Global Economic Prospects update, published June 8, 2021. 2     In fact, US Treasury Inflation-Indexed securities include the CPI-U as a factor in yield determination.  3    For our latest installment of this epic evolution, please see A Perfect Energy Storm On The Way, which we published last week.  It is available at ces.bcareserch.com. 4    Please see Higher Inflation Expectations Battle Lower Risk Premia In Gold Markets, which we published February 4, 2021. It is available at ces.bcareserch.com.     Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2021 Summary of Closed Trades

Highlights China's high-profile jawboning draws attention to tightness in metals markets, and raises the odds the State Reserve Board (SRB) will release some of its massive copper and aluminum stockpiles in the near future. Over the medium- to long-term, the lack of major new greenfield capex raises red flags for the IEA's ambitious low-carbon pathway released last week, which foresees the need for a dramatic increase in renewable energy output and a halt in future oil and gas investment to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. Copper demand is expected to exceed mined supply by 2028, according to an analysis by S&P, which, in line with our view, also sees refined-copper consumption exceeding production this year (Chart of the Week). A constitution re-write in Chile and elections in Peru threaten to usher in higher taxes and royalties on mining in these metals producers, placing future capex at risk. Chile's state-owned Codelco, the largest copper producer in the world, fears a bill to limit mining near glaciers could put as much as 40% of its copper production at risk. We remain bullish copper and look to get long on politically induced sell-offs as the USD weakens. Feature Politicians are inserting themselves in the metals markets' supply-demand evolutions to a greater degree than in the past, which is complicating the short- and medium-term analysis of prices. This adds to an already-difficult process of assessing markets, given the opacity of metals fundamentals – particularly inventories, which are notoriously difficult to assess. Chinese Communist Party (CCP) jawboning of market participants in iron ore, steel, copper and aluminum markets over the past two weeks has weakened prices, but, with the exception of steel rebar futures in Shanghai – down ~ 17% from recent highs, and now trading at ~ 4911 RMB/MT –  the other markets remain close to records.  Benchmark 62% Fe iron ore at the port of Tianjin was trading ~ 4% lower at $211/MT, while copper and aluminum were trading ~ 5.5% and 6.5% off their recent records at $4.535/lb and $2,350/MT, respectively. In addition to copper, aluminum markets are particularly tight (Chart 2). Jawboning aside, if fundamentals continue to keep prices elevated – or if we see a new leg up – China's high-profile jawboning could presage a release by the State Reserve Board (SRB) of some of its massive copper and aluminum stockpiles in the near term. In the case of copper, market guesses on the size of this stockpile are ~ 2mm to 2.7mm MT. On the aluminum side, Bloomberg reported CCP officials were considering the release of 500k MT to quell the market's demand for the metal. Chart of the WeekContinue Tightening In Copper Expected Chart 2Aluminum Remains Tight Brownfield Development Not Sufficient Our balances assessments continue to indicate key base metals markets are tight and will remain so over the short term (2-3 years). Economies ex-China are entering their post-COVID-19 recovery phase. This will be followed by higher demand from renewable generation and grid build-outs that will put them in direct competition with China for scarce metals supplies for decades to come. Markets will continue to tighten. In the bellwether copper market, we expect this tightness to remain a persistent feature of the market over the medium term – 3 to 5 years out – given the dearth of new supply coming to market. Copper prices are highly correlated with the other base metals (Chart 3) – the coefficient of correlation with the other base metals making up the LME's metals index is ~ 0.86 post-GFC – and provide a useful indicator of systematic trends in these markets. Chart 3Copper Correlation With LME Index Ex-Copper Copper ore quality has been falling for years, as miners focused on brownfield development to extend the life of mines (Chart 4). In Chart 5, we show the ratio of capex (in billion USD) to ore quality increases when capex growth is expanding faster than ore quality, and decreases when capex weakens and/or ore quality degradation is increasing. Chart 4Copper Capex, Ore Quality Declines Chart 5Capex-to-Ore-Quality Decline Set Market Up For Higher Prices Falling prices over the 2012-19 interval coincide with copper ore quality remaining on a downward trend, likely the result of previous higher prices that set off the capex boom pre-GFC. The lower prices favored brownfield over greenfield development. Goehring and Rozencwajg found in their analysis of 24 mines, about 80% of gross new reserves booked between 2001-2014 were due not to new mine discoveries but to companies reclassifying what was once considered to be waste-rock into minable reserves, lowering the cut-off grade for development.1 This is consistent with the most recent datapoints in Chart 5, due to falling ore grade values, as companies inject less capex into their operations and use it to expand on brownfield projects. Higher prices will be needed to incentivize more greenfield projects. A new report from S&P Global Market Intelligence shows copper reserves in the ground are falling along with new discoveries.2 According to the S&P analysts, copper demand is expected to exceed mined supply by 2028, which, in line with our view, sees refined-copper consumption exceeding production this year. Renewables Push At Risk Just last week, the IEA produced an ambitious and narrow path for governments to collectively reach a net-zero emissions (NZE) goal by 2050.3 Among its many recommendations, the IEA singled out the overhaul of the global electric grid, which will be required to accommodate the massive renewable-generation buildout the agency forecasts will be needed to achieve its NZE goals. The IEA forecasts annual investment in transmission and distribution grids will need to increase from $260 billion to $820 billion p.a. by 2030. This is easier said than done. Consider the build-out of China's grid, which is the largest grid in the world. To become carbon neutral by 2060, per its stated goals, investment in China’s grid and associated infrastructure is expected to approach ~ $900 billion, maybe more, over the next 5 years.4 The world’s largest fossil-fuel importer is looking to pivot away from coal and plans to more than double solar and wind power capacity to 1200 GW by 2030. Weening China off coal and rebuilding its grid to achieve these goals will be a herculean lift. It comes as no surprise that IEA member states have pushed back on the agency's NZE-by-2050 plan. This primarily is because of its requirement to completely halt fossil-fuel exploration and spending on new projects. Japan and Australia have pushed back against this plan, citing energy security concerns. Officials from both countries have stated that they will continue developing fossil fuel projects, as a back-up to renewables. Japan has been falling behind on renewable electricity generation (Chart 6). Expensive renewables and the unpopularity of nuclear fuel could make it harder for the world’s fifth largest fossil fuels consumer to move away from fossil fuels. Around the same time the IEA released its report, Australia committed $464 million to build a new gas-fired power station as a backup to renewables. Chart 6Japan Will Continue Building Fossil-Fuel Back-Up Generation Just days after the IEA report was published, the G7 nations agreed to stop overseas coal financing. This could have devastating effects for emerging and developing nations‘ electricity grids which are highly dependent on coal. In 2020 70% and 60% of India and China’s electricity respectively were produced by coal (Chart 7).5 Chart 7EM Economies Remain Reliant On Coal-Fired Generation Near-Term Copper Supply Risks Rise Even though inventories appear to be rebuilding, mounting political risks keep us bullish copper (Chart 8). Lawmakers in Chile and Peru are in the process of re-writing their constitutions to, among other things, raise royalties and taxes on mining activities in their respective countries. This could usher in higher taxes and royalties on mining for these metals producers, placing future capex at risk. In addition, Chile's state-owned Codelco, the largest copper producer in the world, fears a bill to limit mining near glaciers could put as much as 40% of its copper production at risk.6 None of these events is certain to occur. Peruvian elections, for one thing, are too close to call at this point, and Chile has a history of pro-business government. However, these are non-trivial odds – i.e., greater than Russian roulette odds of 1:6 – and if any or all of these outcomes are realized, higher costs in copper and lithium prices would result, and miners would have to pass those costs on to buyers. Bottom Line: We remain bullish base metals, especially copper. Another leg up in copper would pull base metals higher with it. We would look to get long on politically induced sell-offs, particularly with the USD weakening, as expected Chart 8Global Copper Inventories Rebuilding But Still Down Y/Y   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 Next Tuesday's OPEC 2.0 meeting appears to be a fairly staid affair, with little of the drama attending previous gatherings. Russian minister Novak observed the coalition would be jointly "calculating the balances" when it meets, taking into account the likely official return of Iran as an exporter, according to reuters.com. We expect a mid-year deal on allowing Iran to return to resume exports under the nuclear deal abrogated by the Trump administration in 2019, and reckon Iran has ~ 1.5mm b/d of production it can bring back on line, which likely would return its crude oil production to something above 3.8mm b/d by year-end. We are maintaining our forecast for Brent to average $64.45/bbl in 2H21; $75 and $78/bbl, in 2022 and 2023, respectively. By end 2023, prices trade to $80/bbl. Our forecast is premised on a wider global recovery going into 2H21, and continued production discipline from OPEC 2.0 (Chart 9). Base Metals: Bullish Our stop-losses was elected on our long Dec21 copper position on May 21, which means we closed the position with 48.2% return. The stop loss on our long 2022 vs short 2023 COMEX copper futures backwardation recommendation also was elected on May 20, leaving us with a return of 305%. We will be looking for an opportunity to re-establish these positions. Precious Metals: Bullish We expect the collapse in bitcoin prices, the US Fed’s decision to not raise interest rates, and a weakening US dollar to keep gold prices well bid (Chart 10). China’s ban on cryptocurrency services and Musk’s acknowledgment of the energy intensity of Bitcoin mining sent Bitcoin prices crashing. The Fed’s decision to keep interest rates constant, despite rising inflation and inflation expectations will reduce the opportunity cost of holding gold. According to our colleagues at USBS, the Fed will make its first interest rate hike only after the US economy has reached "maximum employment". The Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey reported that job openings rose nearly 8% in March to 8.1 million jobs, however, overall hiring was little changed, rising by less than 4% to 6 million. As prices in the US rise and the dollar depreciates, gold will be favored as a store of value. On the back of these factors, we expect gold to hit $2,000/oz. Ags/Softs: Neutral Corn futures were trading close to 20% below recent highs earlier in the week at ~ $6.27/bu, on the back of much faster-than-expected plantings. Chart 9 Chart 10     Footnotes 1     Please refer to Goehring & Rozencwajg’s Q1 2021 market commentary. 2     Please see Copper cupboard remains bare as discoveries dwindle — S&P study published by mining.com 20 May 2021. 3    Please see Net Zero by 2050 – A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector, published by the IEA. 4    Please see China’s climate goal: Overhauling its electricity grid, published by Aljazeera.  5    We discuss this in detail in Surging Metals Prices And The Case For Carbon-Capture published 13 May 2021, and Renewables ESG Risks Grow With Demand, which was published 29 April 2021.  Both are available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 6    Please see A game of chicken is clouding tax debate in top copper nation, Fujimori looks to speed up projects to tap copper riches in Peru and Codelco says 40% of its copper output at risk if glacier bill passes published by mining.com 24, 23 and 20 May 2021, respectively.    Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2021 Summary of Closed Trades

Special Report

Highlights We update our assumptions for the likely 10-15 year return for a wide range of different asset classes. Our methodology is basically unchanged from our last Return Assumptions report published in 2019, though we have refined our analysis and use of data in some areas. Returns over the next decade will be very low compared to history. We project that a standard global portfolio (50% equities, 30% bonds, and 20% alternatives) will return only 3.0% a year in nominal terms. That compares to a historic return of 6.3%. There are still some assets that will produce better returns, most notably small caps (4.9% a year in the US) and alternatives (6.2% for private equity, for example). But they also carry higher risk. Spreadsheets are available with detailed data. Introduction This is the third edition of our work on return assumptions. Since publishing the previous reports in November 2017 and June 2019, we have had many opportunities to discuss our methodologies with clients and in the Global Asset Allocation course at the BCA Academy. This has allowed us to test and, in many cases, refine our approach. We believe the methodologies we use have stood the test of time. We have always emphasized that this sort of capital markets assumptions (CMA) analysis is an art, not a precise science. We continue to prefer to project returns over a somewhat undefined 10-15 year period, since this allows us to think about the underlying trend of likely returns. Many other CMA papers use five (or even three) year time horizons which, in our view, are problematical since they rely heavily on a forecast of the timing, length, and severity of the next recession. Our approach is based on the concept that the return on the risk-free long-term government bond is the cornerstone to projecting asset returns, and that this return is rather predictable: It is approximately the current yield. Most other asset returns can be built up from that – the return on high-yield bonds, for example, by assuming that their historic spread over government bonds, and default and recovery rates will continue in the future. For equities, we continue to use six different methodologies, which are based on a mixture of valuation and projected earnings growth. This approach – that assumed returns can be built up from a combination of current yield plus forecast future growth in capital values – also works for most alternative asset classes, for example real estate. We have made a few minor changes to our methodology in this edition. We have, for example, made our use of historical data (for spreads, profit margins, growth relative to GDP, etc.) more consistent, using the 20-year average where possible. The biggest change this time is that clients can download here a spreadsheet with all the data in this report in order, for example, to use the data as inputs into their own optimizers. In addition, we have set up our detailed spreadsheet to allow clients to see the underlying inputs, the formulae behind our methodologies, and to input their own assumptions. This will also allow us to update the results of our analysis as often as needed. Please let us know here if you would like more details about this additional service. This Special Report is structured as follows. First, we analyze the overall results: What is the probable return from each asset class over the next 10-15 years, and how do these differ from historical returns. Next, we describe in detail the methodologies we use, for (1) economic growth, (2) fixed-income instruments, (3) equities, and (4) 12 different alternative asset classes. Then, we describe our way of forecasting currency returns, and show the return assumptions in different base currencies. Finally, we update the numbers for volatility and correlations, which many investors need as inputs into optimization programs. The summary of our results is shown in Table 1. The results are all average annual nominal total returns, in local currency terms (except for global indexes, which are in US dollars). The data is updated to end-April 2021 (except for some alternative asset classes where only quarterly data is available). Table 1BCA Assumed Returns Overall Results Returns over the coming decade are likely to be very disappointing compared to history. Our assumptions suggest a typical global portfolio, consisting of 50% large-cap equities, 30% bonds, and 20% alternatives, will produce an annual nominal return of only 3.0%, compared to an average of 6.3% over the past 20 years. A US-only portfolio with a similar composition is likely to produce only a 3.1% return, compared to 7% in history. The reason is simple: Valuations currently are very stretched in almost every asset class. The risk-free rate (the 10-year government bond yield) in the US is 1.6% (compared to a 20-year average of 3.1%). It is negative in the euro area (in nominal terms) and zero in Japan. These rates are the anchor for the returns of all other asset classes, which are theoretically priced off the risk-free rate plus a risk premium. We have long argued that valuations are not a good timing tool for investors. An asset can remain very expensive or very cheap for a considerable period. But all the evidence shows that the valuation at the starting point is a very powerful indicator of long-run returns. The yield on government bonds, for example, has a strong correlation with their 10-year return (Chart 1). In the equity market, the Shiller PE has historically had little correlation with the return over one or two years, but has a 90% correlation with the return over the subsequent 10 years (Chart 2). Chart 1Starting Yield Determines Bond Returns Chart 2Valuation Drive Long-Run Equtiy Returns     With valuations in equity markets now expensive relative to history (for example, forward PE for US stocks of 22x compared to a 20-year average of 16x, and 18x in the euro zone compared to 13x), investors should expect that equity market returns will be low relative to history. Our assumptions point to a 2.6% annual return from US stocks, 2.3% from the euro zone, and 1.6% from Japan (compared to 8.5%, 3.9%, and 3.5% over the past 20 years). Our assumptions are significantly lower than when we last published our analysis in 2019; then we projected 5.6% for US stocks, 4.7% for the euro zone, and 6.2% for Japan. The difference is that equity multiples have risen and risk-free rates have fallen significantly since then. So what should investors do? They have only two choices: Lower their return assumptions, or increase their weightings in riskier asset classes. Chart 3Hard To See How US Pension Funds Will Achieve Their Targets The average US public pension fund (Chart 3) still assumes a return of 7% a year, and private pension funds’ assumption is not much lower. And yet corporate pension funds have been pushed by their consultants in recent years to increase their weighting in bonds, to more closely match their liabilities (Chart 4). It is almost mathematically impossible to achieve their targets with that sort of portfolio. In other countries, such as Australia or Canada, pension funds’ return targets are typically inflation or cash plus 3-4 percentage points. But even those targets are challenging.   Chart 4...Especially With Over 50% In Bonds There are asset classes which will produce higher returns. For example, we project a return of 4.9% from US small-cap stocks – and 9.7% from UK small caps. US high-yield bonds should produce a return of 3.2% a year (even after defaults) and Emerging Markets local currency sovereign debt 2.7% (in USD terms) – not exactly exciting, but at least a pick-up over other fixed-income securities. The projected returns from illiquid alternative assets continue to look relatively attractive. An equal-weighted portfolio of the 12 alternatives we cover is projected to return 5.7% a year, not much lower than the forecast of 6.1% from our 2019 report (and compared to an average of 7.1% of the past 20 years). There are some alt assets where returns have started to trend down: Private equity, for instance, is projected to return 6.2% a year, compared to 11.1% in history, and hedge funds 4.5%, compared to 5.9%. But the illiquidity premium should not disappear completely, even if the move of alternative investments to become more mainstream has reduced it to a degree. So adding more risky assets to a portfolio is an answer, at least for those investors with a long enough time-horizon that allows them to bear the inevitable big drawdowns that come with having a more volatile portfolio. And, unfortunately, lower returns mean that the incremental return gained for each unit of risk taken has declined compared to the past 10 or 20 years (Chart 5) – the efficient frontier has flattened significantly. Chart 5You Need To Take More Risk To Produce Return How We Came Up With The Assumptions GDP Growth Several of our methodologies use assumptions (for example, in equity methods (2) and (3), based on projections of earnings growth, real-estate capital-value growth, and commodities prices) which require estimates of nominal GDP growth in each country and region. To make these forecasts, we assume that nominal GDP growth can be decomposed into: (1) growth of the working-age population, (2) productivity growth, and (3) inflation. This ignores capital intensity, but it has been relatively stable over history and is difficult to forecast. Table 2 shows the assumptions we use, and our forecasts for real and nominal GDP in each country and region. Table 2Calculations Of Trend GDP Growth For population growth we use the United Nations’ median forecast of annual growth in the population aged 25-54 between 2020 and 2040. This ranges from -1% in Japan to +1% in Emerging Markets – although note that the range of forecast population growth in EM varies widely from 1.2% in India to -1.1% in Korea (and in China, too, is negative at -0.7%). This estimate is reasonably reliable, although it does miss some possible factors, such as changes in the female participation rate, hours worked, and changing openness to immigration. Productivity is much harder to forecast. Over the past 10 to 20 years, productivity growth has trended down in most countries (Charts 6A & B). We take a slightly more optimistic view, assuming that productivity growth over the next 10-15 years will equal the 20-year average. We base this on the belief that part of the decline in productivity since the Global Financial Crisis is due to cyclical reasons which are now dissipating, and also to expectations that new technologies coming through (artificial intelligence, big data, automation, robotics etc) will boost productivity in the coming years. Others take a more pessimistic view. The Congressional Budget Office’s forecast of trend real US GDP growth in 2022-2031 of 1.8%, for example, is lower than our estimate of 2.2% mainly because of its more cautious estimate of productivity growth. Chart 6AProductivity Growth (I) Chart 6BProductivity Growth (II)   To derive nominal GDP growth, we assume that inflation over the next 10 years will be on average the same as over the past 20 years, for example 2% in the US, 1.6% in the euro area, 0.1% in Japan, and 3.9% in Emerging Markets (using a weighted average of EM by equity market cap). This estimate, too, has a high degree of uncertainty. One could imagine a scenario whereby inflation picks up significantly over the next decade due to excessively easy monetary policy, overly generous fiscal spending, growth in protectionism, rising labor pressure for wage increases, and the effects of a rising dependency ratio (the ratio of non-working people, especially retirees, to total population).1 But another scenario of continued “secular stagnation” and disinflation, caused by automation-driven job losses and a chronic lack of aggregate demand, is also conceivable. We think our middle-path forecast is the most sensible one to use in projecting likely asset returns, but investors might also want to plan based on these alternative scenarios too. Note that for Emerging Markets, we continue to show two different scenarios, which vary according to different projections of productivity growth. EM productivity growth has been declining steadily since around 2010, and in all major emerging economies, not just China. Our first scenario assumes that this decline ends and that, as in our assumption for developed economies, productivity growth reverts to the 20-year average. The more pessimistic (and, in our view, more likely) scenario assumes that the deterioration in productivity continues and that in 10 years’ time, EM productivity is the same as the average of developed economies. Which scenario will be correct depends on whether emerging economies, not least China, are able to implement structural reforms over the next decade, for example liberalizing the labor market, allowing a greater role for the private sector, improving corporate governance, and institutionalizing more orthodox fiscal and particularly monetary policy. Fixed Income Our anchor for calculating assumed returns is the return on long-term risk-free assets, specifically the 10-year government bond in the strongest countries. It is a reasonable assumption that an investor who buys, for example, a 10-year Treasury bond today and holds it for 10 years will make 1.6% a year in nominal US dollar terms. While this is not perfectly mathematically correct (since it ignores reinvested interest payments, for instance), empirically the return on government bonds has been very closely linked to the yield at the start-point in history (see Chart 1). From this starting-point in each country, we can easily build up the return for other fixed-income assets. These assumptions and the results are shown in Table 3. Table 3Fixed-Income Return Calculations Government bonds in most countries have an average duration of less than 10 years. Over the past five years, in the US it has averaged 6.4 years, and in the euro area 8.0 years. Only in the UK is the average over 10 years: 12.4 years to be precise. To calculate the return from the government bond index for each country we therefore assume that the shape of the yield curve (using the spread between 7-year and 10-year bonds) in future will be the same as the historic 20-year average. Cash. We assume that over the next 10 years the yield on cash will gradually revert to an equilibrium level. We calculate a market-implied real long-term neutral rate from the 10-year historical average of 5-year/5-year OIS implied forwards deflated by the 5-year/5-year implied CPI swap rate. This is a change from the methodology we used in 2019, when we based this off the neutral rate, r*, as calculated by the Holston Laubach-Williams model. But the New York Fed has temporarily stopped updating its calculation of this due to pandemic-induced volatility in the data, and anyway it was not available for every country. We turn the real cash rate into a total nominal return using our assumption for inflation described in detail in the GDP section above, the 20-year historical average of CPI. For inflation-linked securities, such as TIPS, we take the average yield over the past 10 years (a 20-year average was not available in many markets) and add the assumption for inflation described above. Corporate credit. We assume that spreads, and default and recovery rates, while highly volatile over the cycle, remain stable in the long run (Chart 7). We use 20-year averages for these, except that data for investment-grade default rates in Japan, the UK, Canada, and Australia are not available and so we use the average of the US and the euro zone. High-yield default rates are not available for the UK either, and so we do the same. Other bonds. For government-related debt (which is a big part of some bond indexes, 28% in the US for example) we assume that the 20-year historical average of the option-adjusted spread over government bonds will apply in the future too. We use the same methodology for securitized debt (for example, mortgage- and asset-based bonds): The 20-year average spread over the return on government bonds. Emerging Market debt. The assumptions and results for the three categories of EM debt (US dollar sovereign debt, US dollar corporate debt, and local currency sovereign debt) are shown in Table 4. We here assume that the 20-year average historical spread will continue in future. Default and recovery rates are a little harder to calculate, due to a lack of data. For USD sovereign debt (where defaults are rare and so hard to project), we use the rating-based default rate, calculated by Aswath Damodaran of NYU Stern School of Business.2 For USD-denominated EM corporate debt, we use the historical average, calculated by Moody's 2.5%.3 For local-currency debt, we use the same rating-based default rate as for USD sovereign debt. To translate the return into hard currency, we assume that currencies will move in line with the inflation differential between Emerging Markets and the US. For EM inflation we use an average of the IMF’s inflation forecasts for the nine largest emerging markets weighted by their weights in the J.P. Morgan GBI-EM Global Diversified local government bond index, and compare this to our US inflation forecast. This produces an EM inflation forecast of 2.9% a year, compared to 2.2% for the US, thus lowering the USD-based return from local EM debt by 0.7 percentage point. (See a more detailed discussion of forecasting long-term EM currency changes in the Currency section below). Index returns. Table 3 also shows the assumed return for the Bloomberg Barclays bond index for each country and for the global bond index, based on a weighted average of our assumption for each fixed-income asset class and country. Chart 7ACredit Spreads & Default Rates (I) Chart 7BCredit Spreads & Default Rates (II)   Table 4Emerging Market Debt   Equities The assumptions and detailed results for seven different equity markets are shown in Table 5. We have not made any substantial changes to our methodology for equities. We continue to use the average of six different methods to calculate the probable equity returns over the next 10-15 years. These are: Equity Risk Premium (ERP). The return from equities equals the yield on government bonds (we use 10-year bonds) plus an equity risk premium. For the US, we use an equity risk premium of 3.5%. This is based on work by Dimson, Marsh and Staunton4 showing that this is approximately the average excess return of equities over bonds in developed economies since 1900. We scale the equity risk premium for other countries using their average beta to the US market over the past 10 years. This varies from 0.66 for Japan (giving an ERP of 2.3%) and 1.2 in the euro area (ERP is 4.2%). Growth model. Here we assume that the return from equities equals the current dividend yield plus dividend growth. We need to adjust the dividend yield, however, to take into account that in some countries, particularly the US, it is more tax efficient for companies to do buybacks than to pay out dividends. We do this by adding equity withdrawals to the dividend yield. But this needs to be done on a net basis (taking into account equity issuance). We calculate this using the average annual change in the index divisor over the past 10 years. For the US, this is -0.8%, meaning there are more buybacks than new share issues. But in all other regions, the number is positive, and as high as 5.9% a year for Emerging Markets. This dilution is something that many calculations of assumed equity returns miss. For dividend growth, we assume that the dividend payout ratio remains stable, and that earnings growth is correlated with nominal GDP growth. However, history shows that earnings grow more slowly than GDP (logically so, when you consider that companies usually grow fastest before they list on a stock exchange). So we deduct 1% from nominal GDP growth to derive our earnings growth assumption. Note that for Emerging Markets, we use two different measures of dividend growth, depending on future productivity growth, as detailed above in our explanation of the GDP projections. Growth model (with reversion to mean). To take into account that valuations and profit margins typically revert to mean over the long run, we adjust the standard growth model (No. 2 above) by assuming that the current 12-month forward PE ratio and forward net profit margin for each country gradually revert over the next 10 years to their 20-year average. In the US, for example, that would mean that the current 12-month forward PE of 22.5x falls back to 16.0x, and profit margin of 12.5% falls to 10.7%. In every country and region, the profit margin is currently above the long-run average, and in all except the UK the PE is too. Note that we have changed from using the trailing PE and margin, because to use these now would be misleading given the big pandemic-driven decline in profits in 2020. Earnings yield. An intrinsically intuitive (and empirically demonstrable) way of estimating future returns is to use the earnings yield. This is based on the idea that an investor’s return from owning a stock comes either from the company paying a dividend, or from it investing retained earnings and paying a dividend in future. In the US, for example, a forward PE of 22.5x translates into an earnings yield of 4.4%. Again, here we switched this time to using 12-month forward forecast earnings yield, rather the trailing. Shiller PE. There is a strong correlation between valuation at the starting-point and the subsequent return from equities, at least over the long-run, although not over a period of less than 3-5 years (Chart 2). We regressed the Shiller PE (current price divided by average real earnings over the past 10 years) against the return from equities over the subsequent 10 years for each country and region. Composite valuation metric. The Shiller PE has its detractors. Using a fixed 10-year period does not reflect the different lengths of recessions and bull markets. It may say more about the mean-reverting nature of earnings than about whether the current price level is too high. So we also use the BCA Compositive Valuation Metric, which comprises eight indicators including, besides standard valuation measures such as price/sales and price/book, more esoteric ones such as market cap/GDP and Tobin’s Q. Again, we regress the metric against the subsequent 10-year return. Table 5Equity Return Calculations Alternative Assets Real Estate & REITs. We use the same basic methodology for both: The current yield (cap rate or dividend yield) plus projected capital value appreciation (linked to GDP growth). For US direct real estate, for example, we use the simple average cap rate of the five categories of commercial real estate (CRE), apartments, office, retail, industrial, and hotels in major cities: 6.1%. We also use the simple average of available city and category data for other countries. Cap rates are notoriously hard to estimate precisely; our data include a range of real estate, not just prime locations. We assume that capital values will grow in line with nominal GDP growth (using the same assumptions for this as we used for equities, 4.2%). We then deduct 0.5% for maintenance. This produces an expected return of 9.8% for the US. The only difference for REITs is that we do not deduct maintenance since this should already be reflected in the dividend yield. US REITs have a dividend yield currently of 3.5%, which produces an assumed return of 7.7% (Table 6). One risk with this methodology is that in the post-pandemic world, work and life practices might change. This will hurt office and residential real estate in major cities (which are overrepresented in investible CRE), though smaller cities and rural areas might benefit. As a result, capital values might fall. Table 6Alternatives Return Calculations Farmland & Timberland. Our methodology is similar to that for real estate: Current yield plus projected growth in capital values. For farmland, we use the farmland renter yield, sourced from the US Department of Agriculture. To estimate future land values, we take the gap between land value growth over the past 40 years (3.7%) and nominal growth of world GDP over that time (5.2%), assume that gap will continue and so deduct it from our estimate of global nominal GDP growth going forward (3.6%). This gives a result of 6.5%. For timberland, we assume that annualized returns in the future are the same as over the past 20 years. This produces a return assumption of 5.7%, which is (logically) moderately lower than our assumed return for farmland. Private Equity & Venture Capital. We project the return for private equity (PE) using the 30-year time-weighted average of the three-year rolling annualized return of PE over US large-cap equities, 3.6% (Chart 8). This produces an assumed return of 6.2%. For venture capital (VC), we use the same historical average for VC over PE (0.4%) to arrive at an assumed return of 6.6%. Hedge Funds. We use the 20-year time-weighted return of the Hedge Fund Composite Index over cash, 3.5% (Chart 9). This projects a future annual nominal return of 4.5%. Commodities. We previously used a methodology based on the idea that commodities’ bear markets in history have been rather fairly consistent, lasting on average 17 years, with an average decline of 50%, and that the current bear market began in 2012 (Chart 10). However, there are arguments that a new “commodities super-cycle” may be starting, driven by government infrastructure spending, and investment in alternative energy.5 We are agnostic for now on whether that will be the case, but it makes sense to switch to a neutral methodology, more in line with what we use for other assets classes: The return from commodities relative to GDP over the long run. Specifically, the CRB Raw Industrials Index has risen by an annualized 1.6% since 1951, during which time US nominal GDP growth averaged 6% (Chart 11). We assume that the differential will continue in future (although we calculate growth using global, not US, GDP), giving an annual return from commodities over the next 10-15 years of -0.9%. Gold. We calculate this using a regression of the gold price against nominal GDP growth and the annual change in the real 10-year yield over the past 40 years. For the forward-looking return assumption, we use a forecast of real rates (based on the equilibrium cash rate plus the average historical spread between the 10-year yield and cash) and a forecast of global nominal GDP growth. This produces an assumed return of 3.8%. Structured products. This asset class consists mainly of mortgage-backed and other asset-backed securitized instruments. In the US, these have historically returned 0.6% over US Treasurys. We assume that this premium continues, producing a total future return of 1.1% a year. Chart 8Private Equity Premium Chart 9Hedge Fund Return Over Cash     Chart 10Commodity Prices In History Chart 11Commodity Prices Vs. GDP Growth     Currencies Chart 12Currencies Tend To Revert To PPP To translate our local currency returns into an investor’s base currency, we need to arrive at some projections for FX movements over the next decade. Fortunately, for developed market currencies at least, it is relatively straightforward to use purchasing power parities (PPP) to do this since, over the long run, all the major currencies have tended to revert to PPP (Chart 12). We assume that in 10 years’ time all currencies will trade at PPP. We use the IMF’s estimate of today’s PPP for each currency to calculate the current under- or over-valuation. We assume that PPP will change in future years according to the relative inflation between each country and the US. The IMF provides five-year inflation forecasts and we assume that inflation will continue at this rate until 2031. For the euro zone, we calculate the PPP of the euro using the GDP-weighted PPPs of the five largest economies. The results (Table 7) suggest that the US dollar is currently overvalued and, given the forecast of higher inflation in the US than elsewhere in the future, will depreciate significantly against all major currencies except the Australian dollar. The USD is projected to depreciate by 1.7% a year against the euro and 1.1% against the yen over the next 10 years. It is likely to appreciate by 1.3% a year against the AUD, however. Table 7Currency Return Calculations Emerging Markets (Table 8) are more complicated. There is no evidence that EM currencies move towards PPP over time. All the major EM currencies are currently very cheap versus PPP (varying from 34% undervalued for the Chinese yuan to 67% for the Indonesian rupiah) but they were 10 years ago, too, and have not significantly moved towards PPP over that time. Table 8EM Currencies To calculate likely EM currency moves against the USD, therefore, we carry out a regression of the nine largest EM currencies against their relative CPI inflation rate to US inflation in history. We assume an intercept of zero. The regression coefficients vary from +0.5 for China to -1.7 for Malaysia. Apart from China, Malaysia, Poland and South Africa, the coefficients were negative, meaning that historically the USD has strengthened against the EM currency at least partly in line with relative inflation. To calculate likely future currency movements, we use the IMF’s five-year inflation forecasts and assume that the same rate of inflation will continue for our whole projection period. This methodology points to moderate annual depreciation of most EM currencies against the USD, varying from 0.8% a year for the Russian ruble to 0.1% for the Indonesia rupiah. The Chinese yuan and Taiwanese dollar are projected to appreciate moderately. We calculate the average EM currency movement using the weights of these nine large economies in the EM J.P. Morgan GBI-EM Global Diversified local-currency sovereign bond index. This produces a small (0.1%) a year appreciation. However, the IMF’s EM inflation forecasts may be too optimistic. It forecasts, for example, that Brazilian inflation will be only 3.3% a year in future, compared to an average of 6.1% over the past 20 years, and Russian inflation 4.0% versus a historical average of 9.3%. This suggests that EM currency performance could be worse than our projections. Table 9 shows the returns for the major asset classes expressed in local currency terms for six base currencies, based on the calculations explained above. Table 9Returns In Different Base Currencies Correlation And Volatility Below, in Table 10, we provide correlations for clients who need these inputs for their optimization calculations. Table 10Long-Run Correlation Matrix Returns can be calculated using the sort of forward-looking methodologies we have described above. For volatility, we think it is reasonable to use historical average data (Table 1, far right column), since volatility does not tend to trend over the long run (Chart 13). But correlation is a different matter. Correlations have varied significantly in history due to structural changes or regime shifts. The correlation of equities to bonds, it is well known, has moved from positive in the 1980s and 1990s, to negative since 2000 – probably because inflation disappeared as a factor moving bond prices (Chart 14). The correlation between equity market has risen as a result of the globalization of investment flows, though note that it fell back in 2010-2019. Chart 13Volatility Is Fairly Stable In The Long Run Chart 14Correlations Are Not Stable   So what correlations should investors use in an optimizer? Our recommendation would be to use the longest period of history available. A US investor, for example, might take the average correlation between Treasury bonds and large-cap US equities since 1945, 0.1%. Table 10 shows the correlation since 1973 of all the major asset classes for which data is available. Unfortunately, this misses some important asset classes such as high-yield bonds and Emerging Market equities, whose history does not go back that far. The results are intuitive – and prudent. From these numbers, it would seem sensible to use an assumption of a small positive correlation between US Treasurys and US equities, for example. US investment-grade debt has a correlation of 0.4 against equities. Global equity markets are all fairly highly correlated to each other, ranging mostly from 0.4 to 0.7. The most non-correlated asset class is commodities, especially gold.   Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com   Amr Hanafy, Senior Analyst Global Asset Allocation amrh@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 These are themes that BCA Research has been writing about for several years. See, for example, please see Global Investment Strategy, "1970s-Style Inflation: Could It Happen Again? (Part 1)," dated August 10, 2018; and " 1970s-Style Inflation: Could It Happen Again? (Part 2)," dated August 24, 2018. 2 Please see http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/datafile/ctryprem.html 3 Annual Emerging Markets Default Study: Coronavirus Will Push Up Default Rates https://www.moodys.com/researchdocumentcontentpage.aspx?docid=PBC_1214906 4 Please see, for example, https://www.credit-suisse.com/media/assets/corporate/docs/about-us/research/publications/credit-suisse-global-investment-returns-yearbook-2021-summary-edition.pdf. 5 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy, "Industrial Commodities Super-Cycle Or Bull Market?", dated March 4, 2021.

Special Report

Highlights The selloff in crypto-currencies on May 19 may be overblown but the risk of government intervention is a rising headwind for this asset class. While environmental concerns are a threat to Bitcoin, the entire crypto-currency complex faces a looming confrontation over governance. Digital currencies are a natural evolution of money following coinage and paper. Moreover a sizable body of consumers is skeptical of governments and traditional banking. Loose monetary conditions are fueling a speculative mania. However, governments fought for centuries to gain a monopoly over money. As crypto-currencies become more popular, governments will step in to regulate and restrict them. Central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) threaten to remove the speed and transactional advantage of crypto-currencies, leaving privacy/anonymity as their main use-case. Feature The prefix “crypto” derives from the Greek kruptos or “hidden.” This etymology highlights one of the biggest problems confronting the crypto-currency craze in financial markets today. Speed and anonymity are the greatest assets of the digital tokens. But the former advantage is being eroded by competitors while the latter is becoming a political liability. In the 2020s, governments are growing stronger and more interventionist, not weaker and more laissez faire. Chart 1Loose Money Fuels Crypto Mania Bitcoin and rival crypto-currency Ethereum fell by 29.5% and 43.2% in intra-day trading on May 19, only to finish the day down by 13.8% and 27.2%, respectively. The market panicked on news that China’s central bank had banned firms from handling transactions in crypto-currencies. What really happened was that China’s National Internet Finance Association, China Banking Association, and Payment and Clearing Association issued a statement merely reiterating a 2013 and 2017 policy that already banned firms from handling transactions in crypto-currencies. These three institutions also warned about financial speculation regarding crypto-currencies.1 The crypto market suffered a spike in volatility because it is in the midst of a speculative mania. In the last five years, total market capitalization of crypto-currencies has risen from around $7 billion to $2.3 trillion,2 recording a 34,000% gain. Some crypto-currencies have even recorded returns in excess of that number over a shorter horizon. Price gains have been driven by retail buyers who may or may not know much about this new asset class (Chart 1). Prior to the May 19 selloff, prices had grown overextended and recent concerns over the environment, sustainability, and governance (ESG) had shaken confidence in Bitcoin and its peers. Chinese authorities have already banned financial firms from providing crypto services in a bid to deter ownership of crypto-currencies. And China is not alone. The latest market jitters are a warning sign that government interference in the crypto-currency market is a real threat. Regulation and sovereign-issued digital currencies are starting to enter the fray. While ultra-dovish central bank policies are not changing soon, and therefore crypto-currency price bubbles can continue to grow, crypto-currencies will remain subject to extreme volatility and precipitous crashes. In this report we argue that the fundamental problem with crypto-currencies is that they threaten the economic sovereignty of nation-states. Environmental degradation, financial instability, and black market crime, and other concerns about cryptos have varying degrees of merit. But they provide governments with ample motivation to pursue a much deeper interest in regulating a technological innovation that has the power to undermine state influence over the economy and society. Government scrutiny is a legitimate reason for crypto buyers to turn sellers. Does The World Need Crypto-Currencies? Broadly speaking, there are two primary justifications for crypto-currencies, centered on a transactional basis: speed and privacy/anonymity. The crux of crypto-currency creation rests on these two use cases.3 The speed of crypto-currencies comes from their ability to increase efficiency in local and global payment systems by facilitating financial transactions without the need of a third party (e.g. a financial institution). Cross-border settlement of traditional (fiat) currency transactions processed through the standard SWIFT communications system takes up to two business days. Most transactions involving crypto-currencies over a blockchain network are realized in less than an hour, cross-border or not.4 The fees involved with third-party payments are often more expensive than transacting with crypto-currencies. Simply put, excluding the “middleman” can save money. This is a selling point in a global market that expects to see retail cross-border transactions reach $3.5 trillion by the end of 2021, of which up to 5% are associated with transaction-based fees.5 But this breakthrough in payment system technology can be overstated and is not the main reason for using crypto-currency. Speculation drives current use, especially given that there is speculative behavior even among those who believe that cryptos are safe-haven assets or promising long-term investments (Chart 2). Chart 2Crypto-Currency Use Driven By Speculation Chart 3Consumers Growing Skeptical Of Banking Regulation If a person wants to buy an item from a company in a distant country, that person could use a crypto-currency just as he or she could use a credit card. Both parties would have a secure medium of exchange but, unlike with a credit card, both would avoid using fiat currencies. Neither party could conduct the same transaction using gold or silver. The crucial premise is the existence of an online community of individuals and firms who for one reason or another want to avoid fiat currencies. From a descriptive point of view, the crypto-currency phenomenon implies a lack of trust in modern governments, or at least their monetary systems, and an assertion of individual property rights. The list of crypto-currencies continues to grow. To date, there are approximately 9,800 of them. Some are trying to prove their economic value or use, while others have been created with no intended purpose or problem to solve. Even so, there has yet to be a crypto-currency that overwhelms the use of slower fiat money. In a recent Special Report, BCA Research’s Foreign Exchange Strategist Chester Ntonifor showed that crypto-currencies still have a long way to go to have a chance at replacing fiat monies. While crypto-currencies are showing signs of significant improvement as mediums of exchange, they still fall short as stores of value and units of account. The other primary case for crypto-currencies is privacy or anonymity. The bypassing of intermediaries implies a greater control of funds by the two parties of a transaction. Crypto-currencies are said to be more “private” compared to fiat money. Fiat money is controlled by governments and banks while crypto-currencies have only “owners.” Crypto-currencies are anonymous because they are stored in digital wallets with alphanumeric sequences – there is a limited personal data trail that follows crypto-currency compared to those of electronic fiat currency transactions. In a post-9/11, post-GFC, post-COVID world where a sizable body of consumers is growing more skeptical of government surveillance and regulation and banking industry practices (Chart 3), crypto-currencies give users more than just a means to transact with. However, privacy is not the same as security. Hacking and fraud can affect cryptos as well as other forms of money and attacks will increase with the value of the currencies. Bitcoin At The Helm Of Crypto-Currency Market Chart 4Bitcoin Slows Bitcoin has cemented its status as the number one currency in the crypto-verse.6 It is considered to be the first crypto-currency created, it is the most widely accepted, it is touted as a store of value or “digital gold,” and it is the most featured in quoting alternative crypto-currency pairs across crypto exchanges. As it stands, Bitcoin accounts for around 42% of total crypto-currency market capitalization.7 This share has declined from around 65% at the start of 2021 on the back of the frenzied rise of several alternative coins.8 But rising risks to Bitcoin’s standing will cause the entire crypto-market to retreat. In a Special Report penned in February, BCA Research’s Chief Global Strategist Peter Berezin argued that Bitcoin is more of a trend than a solution and that its usefulness is diminishing. Bitcoin’s transaction speed is slowing and its transaction cost is rising (Chart 4). Slowing speed and rising cost on the Bitcoin network are linked to a scalability problem. The crypto-currency’s network has a limited rate at which it can process transactions related to the fact that records (or “blocks”) in the Bitcoin blockchain are limited in size and frequency. This means that one of its fundamental justifications, transactional speed, will become less attractive over time, should the network not address these issues. Bitcoin also consumes a significant amount of energy, a controversy that is gaining traction in the crypto-currency market after Elon Musk, the “techno-king” of Tesla, cited environmental concerns in reversing his decision to accept Bitcoin payment for his company’s electric vehicles. Energy consumption rises as more coins are mined, since mining each new Bitcoin becomes more computer-power intensive. The need for computing power and energy will continue to increase until all 21 million Bitcoins (total supply) are mined, which is currently estimated to occur by the year 2140. Strikingly, the energy needed to mine Bitcoin over a year are comparable to a small country’s annual power consumption, such as Sweden or Argentina (Chart 5). Chart 5Bitcoin Consumes More Energy Than A Small Country … Bitcoin also generates significant quantities of electronic waste (Chart 6). Chart 6… And Generates A Lot Of Electronic Waste Bitcoin mining is heavily domiciled in China, which accounts for 65% of global mining activity (Figure 1). China’s energy mix is dominated by coal power, which makes up approximately 65% of the country’s total energy mix even after a decade of aggressive state-led efforts to reduce coal reliance. Of this, coal powered energy makes up approximately 60% of Bitcoin’s energy mix in China.9 With several countries aiming to minimize carbon emissions, and with approximately 60% of Bitcoin mining powered by coal-fired energy globally,10 Bitcoin imposes a major negative environmental impact. Figure 1Bitcoin Mining Well Anchored In Asia Bitcoin does not shape up well when compared to gold’s energy intensity either. Bitcoin mining now consumes more energy than gold mining over a single year. While the energy difference is not large, the economic value is. Gold’s energy consumption to economic value trade-off is lower than that of Bitcoin. The production value of gold in 2020 was close to $200 billion, while Bitcoin was measured at less than $25 billion (Chart 7A). On a one-to-one basis, gold even has a lower carbon footprint than Bitcoin (Chart 7B). Chart 7AGold Outshines Bitcoin On Production Value And Carbon Footprint Chart 7BGold Outshines Bitcoin On Production Value And Carbon Footprint Crypto-currency energy consumption and carbon footprint will attract the attention of government regulators. Of course, not all crypto-currencies are heavy polluters. But if the supply of cryptos is constrained by mining difficulties then they will require a lot of energy. If the supply is not constrained then the price will be low. Government Regulation Is Coming Environmental concerns point to the single greatest threat to crypto-currencies – the Leviathan, i.e. the state. In this sense the crypto market’s wild fluctuations on May 19, at the mere whiff of tougher Chinese regulation, are a sign of what is to come. Governments around the world have so far left crypto-currencies largely unregulated but this laissez-faire attitude is already changing. Environmental regulation has already been mentioned. Governments will also be eager to expand their regulatory powers to “protect” consumers, businesses, and banks from extreme volatility in crypto markets. But investors will underrate the regulatory threat if they focus on these issues. At the most basic level, governments around the world will not sit idly by and lose what could become significant control of their monetary systems. The ability to establish and control legal tender is a critical part of economic sovereignty. Governments won control of the printing press over centuries and will not cede that control lightly. If crypto-currencies are adopted widely, then finance ministries and central banks will lose their ability to manipulate the money supply and the general level of prices effectively. Politicians will lose the ability to stimulate the economy or keep inflation in check. Most importantly, while one may view such threats as overblown, it is governments, not other organizations, that will make the critical judgment on whether crypto-currencies threaten their sovereignty. Throughout the world, most crypto-currency exchanges are regulated to prevent money laundering. Crypto-currencies are not legal tender and, aside from Bitcoin, their use is mostly banned in China (Table 1). However, more specialized regulation that targets energy and economic use has yet to be brought into law across the world. Table 1World Governments Will Not Relinquish Hard-Fought Monopolies Over Money Supply In China, initial coin offerings (ICOs – the equivalent of an initial public offering on the stock market) and trading platforms are banned from engaging in exchanges between the yuan and crypto-currencies or tokens. In fact, China recognizes crypto-currencies only as virtual commodities or virtual property. India is another country where exchanges and ICOs are banned. While crypto-currencies are not banned, they are not legal tender. Indian policymakers have recently proposed banning crypto-currencies, however. The proposed legislation is one of the world’s strictest policies against crypto-currencies. It would criminalize possession, issuance, mining, trading, and transferring crypto-assets. If the ban becomes law, India would be the first major economy to make holding crypto-currency illegal. Even China, which has banned mining and trading, does not penalize possession. In the US, Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen has already expressed concerns regarding the illicit use of cryptos for supposed criminal gain.11 She is in alignment with European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde. Because of the anonymity of crypto-currencies, identifying users behind illicit transactions is difficult. This means regulators face headwinds in identifying transactions that are made for criminal gain, as compared to fiat transactions. Governments have long dealt with the anonymity of cash but they have ways of monitoring bank accounts and paper bills. Crypto-currencies are beyond their immediate sight of control and therefore will attract growing scrutiny and legislative action in this regard. The Colonial Pipeline ransomware attack on May 7, which temporarily shuttered about 45% of the fuel supply line for the eastern United States, illustrates the point. The DarkSide group of hackers who orchestrated the attack demanded a ransom payment of $4.4 million worth of Bitcoin, which Colonial Pipeline paid them on May 7. Shortly thereafter, unspecified “law enforcement agencies” clawed back the $4.4 million from the hackers’ account (transferring it to an unknown address) and DarkSide lost access to its payment server, DOS servers, and blog. This episode should not be underrated. It was a successful, large-scale cyber-attack on critical infrastructure in the world’s most powerful country. It highlighted the illicit uses to which crypto-currencies can be put. True, criminals demand ransoms in fiat money as well – and many crypto-currency operators will distance themselves from the criminal underworld. Nevertheless governments will give little slack to an emerging technology that presents big new law enforcement challenges and is not widely used by the general public. Ultimately governments will pursue their sovereign interests in controlling money, the economy, and trade, listening to their banking lobby, expanding their remit to “protect” consumers, and cracking down on illicit activity. Governments are not capable of abolishing crypto-currencies altogether, or the underlying technology of blockchain. But they will play a large and growing role in regulating them. Central Banks Advancing On Digital Currencies Central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) will leave crypto-currencies in the realm of speculative assets. CBDCs are a form of digital money denominated in a country’s national unit of account and represent a liability on a central bank’s balance sheet. This is different from current e-money that represents a claim on a private financial institution’s balance sheet. It is also different from crypto-currencies, because there is a central authority behind a CBDC, unlike with crypto-currencies due to their decentralized nature. In China, the People’s Bank of China (PBoC) has suggested its rollout of a digital yuan is “ready” despite no release to date. Beta testing is ongoing in several provinces. The PBoC’s justification for a digital yuan comes from China’s growing cashless economy. The transition away from cash is largely thanks to mobile payment platforms like Alibaba’s Alipay and Tencent’s WeChat Pay, which, between the two of them, control almost the entire mobile payments market of some 850 million users. There is a significant amount of systemic risk in this system – one reason why Chinese authorities have recently subjected these companies to new scrutiny and regulation. Should Alibaba or Tencent go bankrupt, the local payment system will crash. The PBoC’s efforts will increase competition in the local payments space and reduce this systemic risk. Policymakers are also concerned that as Chinese citizens choose to hold their money in digital wallets provided by Alibaba and Tencent instead of bank accounts, liquidity is being drained from the traditional banking system, putting deposit levels at banks under strain, and posing risks to liability matching. The digital yuan will still involve a third party, unlike crypto-currencies which do not. Doing away with commercial banks is not a reality – indeed the Chinese Communist Party seeks to buttress the state-owned commercial banks in order to maintain control of the economy. What the digital yuan does, and other CBDCs will do too, is utilize blockchain technology, which is faster and more secure than traditional payment networks. In the US, the Fed has been studying the viability of a CBDC US dollar. The Fed has stated that it is carefully exploring whether a CBDC will lead to “safer, less expensive, faster, or otherwise more efficient payments.” While the Fed has yet to find a single standout case for a CBDC US Dollar, Fed Chair Jerome Powell said last year that the US has a “competitive payments market” with “fast and cheap services, particularly in comparison to other nations exploring a CBDC.” To date, the Fed’s observation is that many of the challenges that CBDCs hope to address do not apply to the US, including disuse of physical cash, narrow reach or high concentration of banking, and weak infrastructure for payment systems. Rather, the Fed is more focused on developing the FedNow real-time payment system for private banks. This is much the same as in Europe, where physical cash still plays a major role in day-to-day economic activity and where local payment systems are fast and secure. But central banks around the world continue to engage in work centered around CBDCs (Charts 8A and 8B) – and China’s progress will encourage others to move faster. Advanced economies are mostly interested in creating a safer and more efficient payment system, while emerging and developed economies have interest across several areas such as financial stability, monetary policy setting, and inclusiveness of banking, as well as efficiency and safety (Chart 9). CBDCs are especially attractive to emerging market policy makers at targeting those who lack access to traditional banking. Chart 8ACentral Banks Advancing On CBDC Work Chart 8BCentral Banks Advancing On CBDC Work Chart 9Central Banks CBDC Interest Areas In remote areas, access to banking is scarce and expensive. CBDCs can help solve this problem. Individuals would have CBDC accounts directly on a central bank ledger. They could then access their money and transact through a digital wallet application that is linked to the CBDC account. Giving people access to digital currency would allow them to transact quickly, in remote settings, without the need of hard currency. Monetary policy transmission is also better in advanced economies. In emerging markets, there are bottlenecks in local financial markets. Looser central monetary policy does not always translate into cheaper financing across the economy. In remote and poverty stricken areas, monetary policy transmission is sticky, meaning high costs of borrowing can persist even through accommodative policy cycles. This is a smaller issue in advanced economies. Payment systems in advanced economies are due an overhaul in security and efficiency, and CBDCs and blockchain technology will provide this. CBDCs will prove to be just as efficient to transact with as any crypto-currencies available today. CBDCs will also be legal tender and accepted by all vendors. The anonymity factor will be lost but this will not be a problem for most users (whereas legal issues will become a problem for crypto-currencies). The probability of central banks issuing CBDCs in both the short and medium term, both in the retail and wholesale space, is rising. If advanced economies like those of the G7 issue CBDCs soon, policy makers will undoubtedly ensure the use of it over the currently circulating and partially accepted crypto-currencies. The endgame will leave crypto-currencies in the highly speculative asset class, perhaps even in the black market where anonymity is valued for transactions that wish not to be tracked. Investment Takeaways Prices of crypto-currencies may continue to rise given sky-high fiat money creation amid the COVID pandemic and ultra-low interest rates. Digitalization is the natural next step in the evolution of money from precious metals to paper banknotes to electronic coin. But the market leader, Bitcoin, is encountering more headwinds. The primary case for the use of Bitcoin is challenged due to slowing transaction speeds and rising transaction costs. The virtual currency is primarily mined using coal-powered energy, resulting in growing scrutiny from governments and consumers. Government regulation is entering the ring and policymakers will take an increasingly heavy-handed role in trying to ensure that cryptos do not undermine economic sovereignty, financial stability, and law and order. When central banks begin to rollout digital currencies, especially those domiciled in advanced economies, crypto-currencies as medium of exchange will lose much of their allure. Crypto-currencies will remain as anti-fiat currencies and speculative assets. Risks To The View Given the controversy surrounding crypto-currencies, it is only fair to state outright the risks to our view. We would also recommend clients read our colleague Dhaval Joshi’s latest bullish take on Bitcoin. First, scaling up Bitcoin’s network and processing transactions in batches instead of single transactions will resolve transaction time and cost risks, restoring efficiency. This is a clear solution to efficiency concerns. However, scaling and batching transactions are not on the immediate horizon of Bitcoin developers. Bitcoin’s network will still need to undergo another “halving” in order for this risk to subside and for the network to scale. A halving of the network will only occur again in 2024.12 Second, on the environment: Bitcoin mining is not solely dependent on fossil fuel energy that gives it a “dirty” footprint. Renewables already make up some 25% of Bitcoin mining. Increasing the use of renewables in Bitcoin’s energy mix will help lower its environmental impact. However, this is easier said than done. Global renewable energy has yet to scale up to a point where it can consistently out-supply existing fossil-fuel energy. Mining hardware also has its associated carbon footprint that would need to be addressed. And location matters too. Crypto-currency mining farms are large-scale projects. Simply uprooting operations to a country that could lower the carbon footprint of a mining farm or two is not viable due to the costs involved. Hence crypto-currency mining will probably continue to be a “dirty” operation but a rapid shift to renewables would challenge our thesis. Bitcoin’s network is also based off a “proof of work” protocol. Miners must prove that a certain amount of computational effort has been expended for confirming blocks on the network, allowing transactions to be processed. Proof of work is energy intensive. Other crypto-currencies, like Ethereum, will adopt a “proof of stake” protocol. Simply put, transactions are confirmed by users and their stake in the associated crypto-currency. Proof of stake is less energy intensive compared to proof of work. Third, as to government regulation, the longer policymakers take to enact legislation targeting crypto-currencies, the larger their market will grow. Regulation in China and India may set a benchmark for major economies but not all will follow in the Asian giants’ footsteps. Some governments have been slow to study crypto-currencies, meaning legislation aimed at governing or regulating them may still be long in coming. Innovation is a good thing and free economies will not wish to restrain crypto-currencies or blockchain technology unduly, for fear of missing out. Fourth, on CBDCs, some central banks may only adopt them based on their respective economic needs. However, rising crypto-currency populism drives associated economic risks which can force the hands of central banks to adopt CBDCs in lieu of said needs. Each country faces unique challenges. Some central banks may not want to be left behind even if they believe their policy framework is facilitating economic activity efficiently. While the Fed has stated that it will not adopt a CBDC for the primary reason of ensuring payment security since it believes it already has a safe system in place, this view will change. The Fed could justify a move to a CBDC US dollar on the single basis of transitioning to a more sophisticated technology for the future. The Fed will not want to be caught behind the curve considering the PBoC is priming its digital yuan for release soon. Technological leadership is a strategic imperative of the United States and that imperative applies to financial technology as well as other areas.   Guy Russell Research Analyst GuyR@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Muyao Shen, “China Reiterates Crypto Bans From 2013 and 2017”, coindesk, May 18, 2021, coindesk.com. 2 As of May 11, 2021. 3 There are several other reasons or “problems” that crypto-currencies are created for or to solve, but speed and privacy form the basis of crypto-currencies first coming into existence. 4 Not all crypto-currencies transact in less than an hour. But there are many that transact in several minutes and in some cases, mere seconds. As the leading crypto-currency, Bitcoin takes approximately one hour for a transaction to be fully verified over its network. 5 “McKinsey’s Global Banking Annual Review”, McKinsey, Dec. 9, 2020, mckinsey.com. 6 We use Bitcoin as an example to understand the risk and impact of forthcoming government regulation and competition. Because of Bitcoin’s status, any significant risks that threaten the crypto-currency’s standing as the number one currency will threaten the entire market. 7 As of May 20, 2021. Figure varies daily. See www.coinmarketcap.com for more information. 8 Alternative currencies such as Ethereum, Ripple, Binance Coin, Dogecoin, and Cardano have chipped away at Bitcoin’s crypto-market dominance through 2021. 9 According to The Center For Alternative Finance, The University Of Cambridge. 10 According to The Center For Alternative Finance, The University Of Cambridge. 11 Data on the use of crypto-currencies for illicit activitiessays otherwise. Of all crypto-currency transactions, it is estimated that only 2.1% are used for illicit activities. See “2021 Crypto Crime Report”, Chainalysis, chainalysis.com. 12 A Bitcoin halving is when the reward for mining Bitcoin transactions is cut in half. This event also cuts Bitcoin's inflation rate and the rate at which new Bitcoins enter circulation, in half. Bitcoin last halved on May 11, 2020.

Highlights Global oil markets will remain balanced this year with OPEC 2.0's production-management strategy geared toward maintaining the level of supply just below demand.  This will keep inventories on a downward trajectory, despite short-term upticks due to COVID-19-induced demand hits in EM economies and marginal supply additions from Iran and Libya over the near term. Our 2021 oil demand growth is lower – ~ 5.3mm b/d y/y, down ~ 800k from last month's estimate – given persistent weakness in realized consumption.  We have lifted our demand expectation for 2022 and 2023, however, expecting wider global vaccine distribution and increased travel toward year-end. The next few months are critical for OPEC 2.0: The trajectory for EM demand recovery will remain uncertain until vaccines are more widely distributed, and supply from Iran and Libya likely will increase this year.  This will lead to a slight bump in inventories this year, incentivizing KSA and Russia to maintain the status quo on the supply side. We are raising our 2021 Brent forecast back to $63/bbl from $60/bbl, and lifting our 2022 and 2023 forecasts to $75 and $78/bbl, respectively, given our expectation for a wider global recovery (Chart of the Week). Feature A number of evolving fundamental factors on both sides of the oil market – i.e., lingering uncertainty over the return of Iranian and Libyan exports and the strength of the global demand recovery – will test what we believe to be OPEC 2.0's production-management strategy in the next few months. Briefly, our maintained hypothesis views OPEC 2.0 as the dominant supplier in the global oil market. This is due to the low-cost production of its core members (i.e., those states able to attract capital and grow production), and its overwhelming advantage in spare capacity, which we reckon will average in excess of 7mm b/d this year, owing to the massive production cuts undertaken to drain inventories during the COVID-19 pandemic. Formidable storage assets globally – positioned in or near refining centers – and well-developed transportation infrastructures also support this position. We estimate core OPEC 2.0 production will average 26.58mm b/d this year and 29.43mm b/d in 2022 (Chart 2). Chart of the WeekBrent Prices Likely Correct Then Move Higher in 2022-23 Chart 2OPEC 2.0 Will Maintain Status Quo The putative leaders of the OPEC 2.0 coalition – the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia – have distinctly different goals. KSA's preference is for higher prices – ~ $70-$75/bbl (basis Brent) to the end of 2022. Higher prices are needed to fund the Kingdom's diversification away from oil. Russia's goal is to keep prices closer to the marginal cost of the US shale-oil producers, who we characterize as the exemplar of the price-taking cohort outside OPEC 2.0, which produces whatever the market allows. This range is ~ $50-$55/bbl. The sweet spot that accommodates these divergent goals is on either side of $65/bbl for this year. OPEC 2.0 June 1 Meeting Will Maintain Status Quo With Brent trading close to $70/bbl, discussions in the run-up to OPEC 2.0's June 1 meeting likely are focused on the necessity to increase the 2.1mm b/d being returned to the market over the May-July period. At present, we do not believe this will be necessary: Iran likely will be returning to the market beginning in 3Q21, and will top up its production from ~ 2.4mm b/d in April to ~ 3.85mm b/d by year-end, in our estimation. Any volumes returned to the market by core OPEC 2.0 in excess of what's already been agreed going into the June 1 meeting likely will come out of storage on an as-needed basis. Libya will likely lift its current production of ~ 1.3mm b/d close to 1.5mm b/d by year end as well. We are expecting the price-taking cohort ex-OPEC 2.0 to increase production from 53.78mm b/d in April to 53.86mm b/d in December, led by a 860k b/d increase in US output, which will take average Lower 48 output in the US (ex-GOM) to 9.15mm b/d by the end of this year (Chart 3). When we model shale output, our expectation is driven by the level of prompt WTI prices and the shape of the forward curve. The backwardation in the WTI forward curve will limit hedged revenues at the margin, which will limit the volume growth of the marginal producer. We expect global production to slowly increase next year, and the year after that, with supply averaging 101.07mm b/d in 2022 and 103mm b/d in 2023.  Chart 3US Crude Output Recovers, Then Tapers in 2023 Demand Should Lift, But Uncertainties Persist We expect the slowdown in realized DM demand to reverse in 2H21, and for oil demand to continue to recover in 2H21 as the US and EU re-open and travel picks up. This can be seen in our expectation for DM demand, which we proxy with OECD oil consumption (Chart 4). EM demand – proxied by non-OECD oil consumption – is expected to revive over 2022-23 as vaccine distribution globally picks up. As a result, demand growth shifts to EM, while DM levels off. China's refinery throughput in April came within 100k b/d of the record 14.2mm b/d posted in November 2020 (Chart 5). The marginal draw in April stockpiles could also signify that as crude prices have risen higher, the world’s largest oil importer may have hit the brakes on bringing oil in. In the chart, oil stored or drawn is calculated as the difference between what is imported and produced with what is processed in refineries. With refinery maintenance in high gear until the end of this month, we expect product-stock draws to remain strong on the back of domestic and export demand. This will draw inventories while maintenance continues. Chart 4EM Demand Will Recovery Accelerates in 2022-23 Chart 8China Refinery Runs Remain Strong COVID-19-induced demand destruction remains a persistent risk, particularly in India, Brazil and Japan. This is visible in the continued shortfall in realized demand vs our expectation so far this year. We lowered our 2021 oil demand growth estimate to ~ 5.3mm b/d y/y, which is down ~ 800k from last month's estimate, given persistent weakness in realized consumption. Our demand forecast for 2022 and 2023 is higher, however, based on our expectation for stronger GDP growth in EM economies, following the DM's outperformance this year, on the back of wider global vaccine distribution year-end (Table 1). Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) Our supply-demand estimates continue to point to a balanced market this year and into 2022-23 (Chart 6). Given our expectation OPEC 2.0's production-management strategy will remain effective, we expect inventories to continue to draw (Chart 7). Chart 6Markets Remained Balanced Chart 7Inventories Continue To Draw CAPEX Cuts Bite In 2023 In 2023, we are expecting Brent to end the year closer to $80/bbl than not, which will put prices outside the current range we believe OPEC 2.0 is managing its production around (Chart 8). We have noted in the past continued weakness in capex over the 2015-2022 period threatens to leave the global market exposed to higher prices (Chart 9). Over time, a reluctance to invest in oil and gas exploration and production prices in 2024 and beyond could begin to take off as demand – which does not have to grow more than 1% p.a. – continues to expand and supply remains flat or declines. Chart 8By 2023 Brent Trades to /bbl Chart 9Low Capex Likely Results In Higher Prices After 2023 Bottom Line: We are raising our 2021 forecast back to an average of $63/bbl, and our forecasts for 2022 and 2023 to $75 and $78/bbl. We expect DM demand to lead the recovery this year, and for EM to take over next year, and resume its role as the growth engine for oil demand. Longer term, parsimonious capex allocations likely result in tighter supply meeting slowly growing demand. At present, markets appear to be placing a large bet on the buildout of renewable electricity generation and electric vehicles (EVs). If this does not occur along the trajectory of rapid expansion apparently being priced by markets – i.e., the demand for oil continues to expand, however slowly – oil prices likely would push through $80/bbl in 2024 and beyond.   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 Colonial Pipeline outage pushed average retail gasoline prices in the US to $3.03/gal earlier this week, according to the EIA. This was the highest level for regular-grade gasoline in the US since 27 October 2014. According to reuters.com, the cyberattack that shut down the 5,500-mile pipeline was the most disruptive on record, shutting down thousands of retail service stations in the US southeast. Millions of barrels of refined products – gasoline, diesel and jet fuel – were unable to flow between the US Gulf and the NY Harbor because of the attack, which was launched 7 May 2021 (Chart 10). While most of the system is up and running, problems with the pipeline's scheduling system earlier this week prevented a return to full operation. Base Metals: Bullish Spot copper prices remained on either side of $4.55/lb (~ $10,000/MT) by mid-week following a dip from the $4.80/lb level (Chart 11). We remain bullish copper, particularly as political risk in Chile rises going into a constitutional convention. According to press reports, the country's constitution will be re-written, a process that likely will pave the way for higher taxes and royalties on copper producers.1 In addition, unions in BHP mines rejected a proposed labor agreement, with close to 100% of members voting to strike. In Peru, a socialist presidential candidate is campaigning on a platform to raise taxes and royalties. Precious Metals: Bullish According to the World Platinum Investment Council, platinum is expected to run a deficit for the third consecutive year in 2021, which will amount to 158k oz, on the back of strong demand. Refined production is projected to increase this year, with South Africa driving this growth as mines return to full operational capacity after COVID-19 related shutdowns. Automotive demand is leading the charge in higher metal consumption, as car makers switch out more expensive palladium for platinum to make autocatalysts in internal-combustion vehicles. Ags/Softs: Neutral Corn prices continued to be better-offered following last week's WASDE report, which contained the department's first look at the 2021-22 crop year. Corn production is expected to be up close to 6% over the 2020-21 crop year, at just under 15 billion bushels. On the week, corn prices are down ~ 15.3%. Chart 10 Chart 11     Footnotes 1     Please see Copper price rises as Chile fuels long-term supply concerns published 18 May 2021 by mining.com. Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2021 Summary of Closed Trades

Special Report

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

Special Report

The BCA Research Global Asset Allocation (GAA) Forum will take place online on May 18th. We have put together a great lineup of speakers to discuss issues of importance to CIOs and asset allocators. These include the latest thinking on portfolio construction, factor investing, alternatives, and ESG. Our keynote speaker will be Keith Ambachtsheer, founder of KPA Advisory and author of many books on investment management including "The Future of Pension Management: Integrating Design, Governance and Investing" (2016). His presentation will be followed by a panel discussion of top CIOs including Maxime Aucoin of CDPQ, James Davis of OPTrust, and Catherine Ulozas of the Drexel University Endowment. The event is complimentary for all GAA subscribers, who can see a full agenda and register here. Others can sign up here. We hope you can join us on May 18th for what should be a stimulating and informative day of ideas and discussion. Highlights Investors’ hunt for yield over the past few years led them to view leveraged loans as an attractive investment. Characterized by low volatility and attractive risk-adjusted returns, leveraged loans can add value to a portfolio. Leveraged loans tend to outperform their fixed-rate counterparts (for example, high-yield bonds) in an environment of rising rates and an attractive valuation starting point. Only the former criterion is true currently. Risks do exist, however. The increasing share of covenant-lite issues, and rising leverage in the corporate sector are of particular concern. Over the next 6-to-12 months, we do not expect rates to rise substantially, making the asset class somewhat unappealing in the short term. The longer-term outlook is attractive nevertheless, since rates are likely to rise as inflation picks up over the coming years. Feature In today’s environment of ultra-accommodative monetary policy, including low interest rates, and unattractive valuations for fixed-income risk assets, investors have no option but to look beyond conventional fixed-income instruments and dial up their risk appetite. In this Special Report, we run through the mechanics of the leveraged loan market. We analyze historical risk-return characteristics and compare leveraged loans to other assets. We also assess their performance during periods of financial-market stress as well as periods of rising rates and inflation. Finally, we discuss the risks associated with owning leveraged loans. What Are Leveraged Loans? Leveraged loans are a type of syndicated loan made to sub-investment-grade companies. Generally, these firms are highly indebted, with low credit ratings. A syndicated loan is structured, arranged, and administered by one or several commercial or investment banks.1 The majority of these loans are senior secured loans and are based on a floating rate, mostly LIBOR plus a premium (more than 150-200 bps) to account for their riskiness as well as to attract non-bank institutional investors. The interest rates on these loans adjust at regular intervals to reflect changes in short-term interest rates; this constitutes a benefit for investors worried about rising rates. Definitions vary when it comes to categorizing leveraged loans. Some group them based on the borrower’s riskiness and their credit rating. Others consider leverage metrics such as debt-to-capital and debt-to-EBITDA. Other classifications look at the spread at issuance or the purpose of the fund raising, which can include funding mergers and acquisitions (M&A), leveraged buyouts (LBOs), refinancing existing debt, or general funding. Over the past five years, approximately 50% of US leveraged loans issued were for refinancing purposes (Chart 1, panel 1). Within the three categories, LBO financing is deemed the riskiest, and this is reflected in its higher spread (Chart 1, panel 2). The leveraged-loan market became particularly popular in the mid-1980s as M&A activity was soaring (Chart 2). Chart 1Uses Of Leveraged Loans Chart 2The Boom In Corporate Activity In The 1980s Fueled Leveraged Loan Growth There are two common types of financing facilities:2 Term loans: An agreement to borrow a sum of money that is paid back over a certain payment schedule. These loans are mainly provided by non-bank entities. Revolving facilities: A type of loan that can be repeatedly drawn upon and repaid. These loans are mostly originated and held by banks. Estimates for the size of the leveraged-loan market vary depending on which criteria and definitions are used. The size of the leveraged-loan market, following rapid growth since the beginning of the past decade, is estimated to be over $1.2 trillion as of Q2 2020.3 While this represents only a small portion of overall corporate debt (it is only 15% the size of the corporate bond market), the interconnections between key market participants and the role of banks in the market has caught the attention of several regulators such as US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, debt investors such as Howard Marks, and international institutions such as the Bank For International Settlements (BIS). The focus of their concerns has been on the declining credit standards for leveraged loans – particularly, the increase in issuance of “covenant-lite” (cov-lite) loans, inconsistent definitions of EBITDA in loan agreements, the growth in use of “EBITDA add backs”,4 and the accuracy of leveraged-loan ratings.5 We discuss some of those concerns in the Risks section. Table 1Risky Loans Are Mainly Held By Non-Bank Entities… Over the past several decades, the role of banks in providing capital to the leveraged loan market has shrunk and has been replaced by non-bank lenders such as mutual funds, hedge funds, insurance companies, and asset managers.6 Data by the Shared National Credit (SNC) program7 shows that non-bank entities in the US now hold close to 83% of all non-investment-grade term loans (Table 1). Moreover, estimates by the Bank of England8 (BoE) show that a quarter of the global stock of leveraged loans (which it estimates at close to $3.4 trillion) is held through collateralized loan obligations (CLOs)9 and approximately half is owned by non-bank institutions. In turn, those non-bank institutions hold a significant portion of CLOs – particularly the riskier tranches. This is not to say that banks are not exposed to leveraged loans. But banks predominantly invest in the highest, AAA, tranche of CLOs, and investment-grade loans.10 Riskier-rated loans are held by CLOs, mutual funds, and other lenders such as hedge funds (Chart 3).11 Chart 3…Particularly Those Rated Below BB Historical Risk And Return Chart 4Leveraged Loans' Relative Performance Moves With Interest Rates Since 1997, leveraged loans12 have returned an annualized 4.9%, 25 basis points higher than US Treasurys and approximately 100 and 200 basis points less than US investment-grade and high-yield bonds, respectively. They have underperformed US equities by an annualized 400 basis points over the same period. Declining rates over the past two decades are the most likely reason leveraged loans have underperformed their fixed-rate counterparts. The relative performance of leveraged loans to investment-grade bonds has closely tracked the trajectory of Treasury yields (Chart 4). While the case is not as clear for relative performance against high-yield bonds, the trend is similar. However, on a risk-adjusted return basis, due to reduced volatility, leveraged loans did outperform both equities and high-yield corporate bonds (Table 2). We nevertheless think that volatility is likely understated given the elevated kurtosis. The larger negative skew and excess kurtosis could indicate higher probabilities of large negative returns (Chart 5).   Table 2Historical Risk-Return Characteristics Chart 5Leveraged Loans' Returns Exhibit High Kurtosis And Negative Skewness Why Should Investors Consider Leveraged Loans? Chart 6Rising Rates Support Higher Return From Leveraged Loans... Our US bond strategists have showed that the odds of leveraged loans outperforming fixed-rate high-yield bonds increase when certain criteria are in place – particularly when valuations are tilted in loans’ favor, and Treasury yields are rising.13 Only the latter criterion is true currently. Year-to-date, leveraged loans have returned 2.2%, higher than the -3.2%, -3.4%, 1.6%, and -3.4% from US Treasurys, investment-grade bonds, high-yield bonds, and emerging markets sovereign debt, respectively (Chart 6). During the same period, Treasury yields rose by 65 basis points. We find that periods of rising Treasury yields are associated with increased flows into the asset class (Chart 7). More interestingly, leveraged loans outperform junk bonds when Treasury yields rise faster than what is discounted in the forwards curve over the following 12 months (Chart 8). Chart 7...As Well As Increased Fund Flows Chart 8Leveraged Loans Will Benefit If Interest Rates Rise By More Than What Is Discounted In The Forward Curve     This does not seem to be the case today, however, with the 5-year, 1-year forward about 40 basis points higher than the current 5-year Treasury yield. This is in line with our view that rates are unlikely to rise substantially over the next 6-to-12 months. Inflation, beyond a temporary spike over the next few months, should remain subdued, at least until employment is back to a level which would put upward pressure on wages. This is unlikely before 2023. It is also important to consider the potential trajectory of monetary policy as well as changes in long-term yields. The Fed, through its dot plot, is signaling no increase in the Fed Funds Rate before 2024, but the market is becoming worried about inflationary pressures and pricing in an earlier Fed hike. We believe it unlikely that the Fed will raise rates ahead of what the market expects, unless the labor market returns to “maximum employment” over the next 12 months. The yield on leveraged loans has been lower than on high-yield bonds for most of the period we have data for, except early 2020. Given leveraged loans’ senior position in a firm’s capital structure, it makes sense that their yields are lower. Additionally, the sector composition of the two markets plays a role: Leveraged loans are more exposed to the Technology and Communications sectors and have a limited allocation (averaging 1% over the past seven years) to the Energy sector, unlike high-yield, fixed-rate bonds (where the weight of Energy has averaged 13%) (Chart 9). This was mostly evident when the yield differential collapsed to below -3% during the 2014/2015 oil crash (Chart 10). Chart 9Leveraged Loans’ Sector Weightings Chart 10Loan Spreads Are Not Looking Attractive Chart 11Recent Investor Demand Pushed Up Leveraged Loan Prices The yield differential has, however, been trending upwards since then, and at current prices, upside may be limited. The recent surge in investor demand has pushed down yields on newly issued leveraged loans, moving the average bid price of leveraged loans above its pre-pandemic high (Chart 11). In the next section, we analyze how leveraged loans have behaved during recessions and other periods of financial market stress.   Financial Market Stress Performance In Crises Given the index’s short history, we are able to cover only the past three recessions (the dot-com bubble bust, the Global Financial Crisis (GFC), and the COVID-19 recession). We also look at the 2013 Taper Tantrum and the 2014/2015 oil price shock. In all cases, leveraged loans fell and subsequently recovered along with other fixed-income asset classes. The Taper Tantrum was the most favorable for leveraged loans: 10-year Treasury yields rose by 100 basis points over four months (Chart 12). Table 3 shows that periods of rising rates are a better environment for leveraged loans than those of declining rates. We also looked at a period of Fed tightening and easing cycles – although the timing of easing cycles overlaps with, recessions, dragging down the performance of leveraged loans. We also assess the impact of inflation on leveraged loans using the framework from our Special Report on inflation hedging,14 which decomposed inflation into four quartiles/regimes: Inflation levels below 2.3%, between 2.3% and 3.3%, between 3.3% and 4.9%, and above 4.9%. We add periods of decreasing inflation to our analysis. We note, however, that there was only one period where inflation was over the 4.9% threshold. Chart 12Leveraged Loans Fared Well In Periods Of Credit- And Sector-Specific Distress   Table 3Leveraged Loans’ Performance During Different Rate Cycles… Table 4…And Inflation Regimes During periods in the first and second inflation quartiles, leveraged loans, in absolute terms, had the highest average annualized returns, 8.1% and 10% respectively. This makes sense since in those regimes, policy rates are low and bond yields begin to rise given robust growth. Leveraged loans, however, underperformed fixed-rate bonds during those periods. Inflation above 3.3% represents an environment in which the economy begins to overheat and growth to falter. This regime saw leveraged loans outperform high-yield bonds by an annualized 1.5%. Periods of declining inflation also showed moderately positive annualized returns for leveraged loans (Table 4).   Risks Chart 13Corporate Health Has Worsened... The growth of the leveraged loans market reflects multiple trends but, most importantly, a broad increase in corporate leverage, driven by a decline in interest rates and increasing availability of cheap financing. The debt-to-asset ratio of nonfinancial businesses, a gauge of corporate leverage, is at a 20-year high (Chart 13, panel 1). This raises concerns about the overall health of the corporate sector – particularly firms’ ability to service their debt – since the median interest coverage ratio is near a level last seen during the GFC. This measure is even negative for companies within the 25th percentile, meaning companies in that bucket lack funds to maintain their interest payments (Chart 13, panel 2). Trends in the leveraged loan market paint a similar picture. The share of newly issued loans by the most highly levered firms – those with a debt-to-EBITDA ratio of 6x or higher – has reached new highs, hitting 37% of new loans in Q3 2020 (Chart 14). Chart 14…Even For Leveraged Lending Chart 15Cov-Lite Issuances Make Up Almost 80% Of New Issuances The providers of capital are partly to blame. Even with credit standards deteriorating, firms looking for capital were mostly able to find it. The share of cov-lite structures – loans that lack the protective covenants found in traditional loans – continues to grow and now comprises almost 80% of new issuance (Chart 15). Cov-lite loans typically do not have any maintenance covenants, requirements to maintain certain ratios such as leverage or interest-coverage ratios.15 Instead, they feature incurrence covenants which have to be met only if the issuer wants to take particular actions, such as taking on more debt.16 This loosening of credit terms is mostly a function of increased demand, particularly by CLO buyers and other non-bank institutional investors, in an environment of low yields. Some have even warned that vulnerabilities in the leveraged-loan market could cause disturbance to the overall financial system. Particularly, memories of the GFC and worries about the “originate-to-distribute” model – whereby banks originate loans but retain only a fraction on their balance sheets – have led some observers to suggest this could all lead to a risky expansion of credit, and trigger a new financial crisis. Chart 16Leveraged Loans Have Higher Average Credit Ratings… We do not share this skepticism. Banks’ exposure to leveraged loans is mainly via the highest tranches of CLOs. Banks’ liquidity requirements have increased since the GFC, and therefore contagion should be minimal in the event of problems in the loan market. A recent report by the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) did not find evidence that leveraged lending presented a significant threat to financial stability.17 Additionally, almost all leveraged loans are first lien, they have a senior secured position in the capital structure, higher average credit ratings than high-yield bonds (Chart 16), and lower default rates (Chart 17). Moreover, their five-year average recovery rate of 63% tops the 40% of senior unsecured bonds (Chart 18). Chart 17...Lower Default Rates... Chart 18...And Higher Recovery Rates Than High-Yield Bonds   Conclusion In a period of ultra-low interest rates and stretched valuations for risk assets, leveraged loans have emerged as an interesting asset class for investors. Due to lower volatility, leveraged loans have historically produced higher risk-adjusted returns than fixed-rate high-yield bonds. However, volatility is likely understated given elevated levels of kurtosis. Historically, rising Treasury yields and an attractive valuation starting-point provided a signal for leveraged loans’ outperformance. Only one of those two criteria are currently in place. In the next 6-to-12 months, we do not believe rates will rise substantially, making this asset class somewhat unattractive in the short term. The longer-run outlook for leveraged loans, however, is attractive. As inflation, and therefore rates, rise over the next two-to-three years, a moderate allocation to leveraged loans might be a useful hedge for investors.   Amr Hanafy Senior Analyst amrh@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Please see “LCD Loan Primer – Syndicated Loans: The Market and the Mechanics,” S&P Global Market Intelligence. 2 Please see “Leverage Lending FAQ & Fact Sheet,” SIFMA, February 2019. 3 Please see “Federal Reserve Financial Stability Report,” November 2020. 4 “EBITDA add backs” add back expenses and cost savings to earnings and could inflate the projected capacity of the borrowers to repay their loans. 5 Please see Todd Vermilyea, “Perspectives On Leveraged Lending,” The Loan Syndications and Trading Association 23rd Annual Conference, New York, October 24, 2018. 6 Please see “Global Financial Stability Report: Vulnerabilities in a Maturing Credit Cycle, Chapter 1,” IMF, April 2019. 7 The SNC Program is an interagency program designed to review and assess risk in the largest and most complex credits shared by multiple financial institutions. The SNC Program is governed by an interagency agreement among the three federal bank regulatory agencies - the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FRB), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and the Office Of the Comptroller Of The Currency (OCC). 8 Please see “Financial Stability Report,” Bank of England, August 2020. 9 CLOs are asset-backed securities issued by a special purpose vehicle which acquire a portfolio of leveraged loans. 10 Please see “Turns Out Leveraged Loans Aren’t a Systemic Risk After All,” Bank Policy Institute, February 8, 2020. 11 Please see Seung Jung Lee, Dan Li, Ralf R. Meisenzahl, and Martin J. Sicilian, “The U.S. Syndicated Term Loan Market: Who holds what and when?”, November 25, 2019. 12 For the purpose of this report, we use the S&P/LSTA Leveraged Loan Index, which tracks the market-weighted performance of US dollar-denominated institutional leveraged loan portfolios. 13 Please see US Bond Strategy Report, “The Price Of Safety,” dated January 27, 2015. 14 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, “Investors’ Guide To Inflation Hedging: How To Invest When Inflation Rises,” dated May 22, 2019. 15 Please see Eric Goodison And Margot Wagner, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison Llp, “Covenant-Lite Loans: Overview,” August 2019. 16 Please see Scott Essexx, Alexander Ott, Partners Group, “The Current State Of The Leveraged Loan Market: Are There Echoes Of The 2008 Subprime Market?”, March 2019. 17 Please see “Financial Stability: Agencies Have Not Found Leveraged Lending To Significantly Threaten Stability But Remain Cautious Amid Pandemic,” United States Government Accountability Office, December 2020.

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