Geopolitics

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

Highlights President Biden has called for the US intelligence community to investigate the origins of COVID-19 and one of Biden’s top diplomats has stated the obvious: the era of “engagement” with China is over. This clinches our long-held view that any Democratic president would be a hawk like President Trump. The US-China conflict – and global geopolitical risk – will revive and undermine global risk appetite. China faces a confluence of geopolitical and macroeconomic challenges, suggesting that its equity underperformance will continue. Domestic Chinese investors should stay long government bonds. Foreign investors should sell into the bond rally to reduce exposure to any future sanctions. The impending agreement of a global minimum corporate tax rate has limited concrete implications that are not already known but it symbolizes the return of Big Government in the western world. Our updated GeoRisk Indicators are available in the Appendix, as well as our monthly geopolitical calendar. Feature In our quarterly webcast, “Geopolitics And Bull Markets,” we argued that geopolitical themes matter to investors when they have a demonstrable relationship with the macroeconomic backdrop. When geopolitics and macro are synchronized, a simple yet powerful investment thesis can be discerned. The US war on terror, Russia’s resurgence, the EU debt crisis, and Brexit each provided cases in which a geopolitically informed macro view was both accessible and actionable at an early stage. Investors generally did well if they sold the relevant country’s currency and disfavored its equities on a relative basis. Chart 1China's Decade Of Troubles Of course, the market takeaway is not always so clear. When geopolitics and macroeconomics are desynchronized, the trick is to determine which framework will prevail over the financial markets and for how long. Sometimes the market moves to its own rhythm. The goal is not to trade on geopolitics but rather to invest with geopolitics. One of our key views for this year – headwinds for China – is an example of synchronization. Two weeks ago we discussed China’s macroeconomic challenge. In this report we discuss China’s foreign policy challenge: geopolitical pressure from the US and its allies. In particular we address President Biden’s call for a deeper intelligence dive into the origins of COVID-19. The takeaway is negative for China’s currency and risk assets. The Great Recession dealt a painful blow to the Chinese version of the East Asian economic miracle. By 2015, China’s financial turmoil and currency devaluation should have convinced even bullish investors to keep their distance from Chinese stocks and the renminbi. If investors stuck with this bearish view despite the post-2016 rally, on fear of trade war, they were rewarded in 2018-19. Only with China’s containment of COVID-19 and large economic stimulus in 2020 has CNY-USD threatened to break out (Chart 1). We expect the renminbi to weaken anew, especially once the Fed begins to taper asset purchases. Our cyclical view is still bullish but US-China relations are unstable so we remain tactically defensive. Forget Biden’s China Review, He’s A Hawk Chinese financial markets face a host of challenges this year, despite the positive factors for China’s manufacturing sector amid the global recovery. At home these challenges consist of a structural economic slowdown, a withdrawal of policy stimulus, bearish sentiment among households, and an ongoing government crackdown on systemic risk. Abroad the Democratic Party’s return to power in Washington means that the US will bring more allies to bear in its attempt to curb China’s rise. This combination of factors presents a headwind for Chinese equities and a tailwind for government bonds (Chart 2). This is true at least until the government should hit its pain threshold and re-stimulate. Chart 2Global Investors Still Wary New stimulus may not occur in 2022. The Communist Party’s leadership rotation merely requires economic stability, not rapid growth. While the central government has a record of stimulating when its pain threshold is hit, even under the economically hawkish President Xi Jinping, a financial market riot is usually part of this threshold. This implies near-term downside, particularly for global commodities and metals, which are also facing a Chinese regulatory backlash to deter speculation. In this context, President Biden’s call for a deeper US intelligence investigation into the origin of COVID-19 is an important confirming signal of the US’s hawkish turn toward China. Biden gave 90 days for the intelligence community to report back to him. We will not enter into the debate about COVID-19’s origins. From a geopolitical point of view it is a moot point. The facts of the virus origin may never be established. According to Biden’s statement, at least one US intelligence agency believes the “lab leak theory” is the most likely source of the virus (while two other agencies decided in favor of animal-to-human transmission). Meanwhile Chinese government spokespeople continue to push the theory that the virus originated at the US’s Fort Detrick in Maryland or at a US-affiliated global research center. What is certain is that the first major outbreak of a highly contagious disease occurred in Wuhan. Both sides are demanding greater transparency and will reject each other’s claims based on a lack of transparency. If the US intelligence report concludes that COVID originated from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the Chinese government and media will reject the report. If the report exonerates the Wuhan laboratory, at least half of the US public will disbelieve it and it will not deter Biden from drawing a hard line on more macro-relevant policy disputes with China. The US’s hawkish bipartisan consensus on China took shape before COVID. Biden’s decision to order the fresh report introduces skepticism regarding the World Health Organization’s narrative, which was until now the mainstream media’s narrative. Previously this skepticism was ghettoized in US public discourse: indeed, until Biden’s announcement on May 26, the social media company Facebook suppressed claims that the virus came from a lab accident or human failure. Thus Biden’s action will ensure that a large swathe of the American public will always tend to support this theory regardless of the next report’s findings. At the same time Biden discontinued a State Department effort to prove the lab leak theory, which shows that it is not a foregone conclusion what his administration will decide. The good news is that even if the report concluded in favor of the lab leak, the Biden administration would remain highly unlikely to demand that China pay “reparations,” like the Trump administration demanded in 2020. This demand, if actualized, would be explosive. The bad news is that a future nationalist administration could conceivably use the investigation as a basis to demand reparations. Nationalism is a force to be reckoned with in both countries and the dispute over COVID’s origin will exacerbate it. Traditionally the presidents of both countries would tamp down nationalism or attempt to keep it harnessed. But in the post-Xi, post-Trump era it is harder to control. The death toll of COVID-19 will be a permanent source of popular grievance around the world and a wedge between the US and China (Chart 3). China’s international image suffered dramatically in 2020. So far in 2021 China has not regained any diplomatic ground. Chart 3Death Toll Of COVID-19 The US is repairing its image via a return to multilateralism while the Europeans have put their Comprehensive Agreement on Investment with China on hold due to a spat over sanctions arising from western accusations of genocide (a subject on which China pointedly answered that it did not need to be lectured by Europeans). Notably Biden’s Department of State also endorsed its predecessor’s accusation of genocide in Xinjiang. Any authoritative US intelligence review that solidifies doubts about the WHO’s initial investigation – even if it should not affirm the lab leak theory – would give Biden more ammunition in global opinion to form a democratic alliance to pressure China (for example, in Europe). An important factor that enables the US to remain hawkish on China is fiscal stimulus. While stimulus helps bring about economic recovery, it also lowers the bar to political confrontation (Chart 4). Countries with supercharged domestic demand do not have as much to fear from punitive trade measures. The Biden administration has not taken new punitive measures against China but it is clearly not worried about Chinese retaliation. Chart 4Large Fiscal Stimulus Lowers The Bar To Geopolitical Conflict China’s stimulus is underrated in this chart (which excludes non-fiscal measures) but it is still true that China’s policy has been somewhat restrained and it will need to stimulate its economy again in response to any new punitive measures or any global loss of confidence. At least China is limited in its ability to tighten policy due to the threat of US pressure and western trade protectionism. Simultaneous with Biden’s announcement on COVID-19, his administration’s coordinator for Indo-Pacific affairs, Kurt Campbell, proclaimed in a speech that the era of “engagement” with China is officially over and the new paradigm is one of “competition.” By now Campbell is stating the obvious. But this tone is a change both from his tone while serving in President Obama’s Department of State and from his article in Foreign Affairs last year (when he was basically auditioning for his current role in the Biden administration).1 Campbell even said in his latest remarks that the Trump administration was right about the “direction” of China policy (though not the “execution”), which is candid. Campbell was speaking at Stanford University but his comments were obviously aimed for broader consumption. Investors no longer need to wait for the outcome of the Biden administration’s comprehensive review of policy toward China. The answer is known: the Biden administration’s hawkishness is confirmed. The Department of Defense report on China policy, due in June, is very unlikely to strike a more dovish posture than the president’s health policy. Now investors must worry about how rapidly tensions will escalate and put a drag on global sentiment. Bottom Line: US-China relations are unstable and pose an immediate threat to global risk appetite. The fundamental geopolitical assessment of US-China relations has been confirmed yet again. The US is seeking to constrain China’s rise because China is the only country capable of rivaling the US for supremacy in Asia and the world. Meanwhile China is rejecting liberalization in favor of economic self-sufficiency and maintaining an offensive foreign policy as it is wary of US containment and interference. Presidents Biden and Xi Jinping are still capable of stabilizing relations in the medium term but they are unlikely to substantially de-escalate tensions. And at the moment tensions are escalating. China’s Reaction: The Example Of Australia How will China respond to Biden’s new inquiry into COVID’s origins? Obviously Beijing will react negatively but we would not expect anything concrete to occur until the result of the inquiry is released in 90 days. China will be more constrained in its response to the US than it has been with Australia, which called for an international inquiry early last year, as the US is a superior power. Australia was the first to ban Chinese telecom company Huawei from its 5G network (back in 2018) and it was the first to call for a COVID probe. Relations between China and Australia have deteriorated steadily since then, but macro trends have clearly driven the Aussie dollar. The AUD-JPY exchange rate is a good measure for global risk appetite and it is wavering in recent weeks (Chart 5). Chart 5Australian Dollar Follows Macro Trends, Rallies Amid China Trade Spat Tensions have also escalated due to China’s dependency on Australian commodity exports at a time of spiking commodity prices. This is a recurring theme going back to the Stern Hu affair. The COVID spat led China to impose a series of sanctions against Australian beef, barley, wine, and coal. But because China cannot replace Australian resources (at least, not in the short term), its punitive measures are limited. It faces rising producer prices as a result of its trade restrictions (Chart 6). This dependency is a bigger problem for China today than it was in previous cycles so China will try to diversify. Chart 6Constraints On China's Tarrifs On Australia By contrast, China is not likely to impose sanctions on the US in response to Biden’s investigation, unless Biden attacks first. China’s imports from the US are booming and its currency is appreciating sharply. Despite Beijing’s efforts to keep the Phase One trade deal from collapsing, Biden is maintaining Trump’s tariffs and the US-China trade divorce is proceeding (Chart 7). Bilateral tariff rates are still 16-17 percentage points higher than they were in 2018, with US tariffs on China at 19% (versus 3% on the rest of the world) while Chinese tariffs on the US stand at 21% (versus 6% on the rest of the world). The Biden administration timed this week’s hawkish statements to coincide with the first meeting of US trade negotiators with China, which was a more civil affair. Both countries acknowledged that the relationship is important and trade needs to be continued. However, US Trade Representative Katherine Tai’s comments were not overly optimistic (she told Reuters that the relationship is “very, very challenging”). She has also been explicit about maintaining policy continuity with the Trump administration. We highly doubt that China’s share of US imports will ever surpass its pre-Trump peaks. The Biden administration has also refrained so far from loosening export controls on high-tech trade with China. This has caused a bull market in Taiwan while causing problems for Chinese semiconductor stocks’ relative performance (Chart 8). If Biden’s policy review does not lead to any relaxation of export controls on commercial items then it will mark a further escalation in tensions. Chart 7US Tarrifs Reduce China In Trade Deficit Bottom Line: Until Presidents Biden and Xi stabilize relations at the top, the trade negotiations over implementing the Phase One trade deal – and any new Phase Two talks – cannot bring major positive surprises for financial markets. Chart 8US Export Controls Amid Chip Shortage Congress Is More Hawkish Than Biden Biden’s ability to reduce frictions with China, should he seek to, will also be limited by Congress and public opinion. With the US deeply politically divided, and polarization at historically high levels, China has emerged as one of the few areas of agreement. The hawkish consensus is symbolized by new legislation such as the Strategic Competition Act, which is making its way through the Senate rapidly. Congress is also trying to boost US competitiveness through bills such as the Endless Frontier Act. These bills would subject China to scrutiny and potential punitive measures over a broad range of issues but most of all they would ignite US industrial policy , STEM education, and R&D, and diversify the US’s supply chains. We would highlight three key points with regard to the global impact of this legislation: Global supply chains are shifting regardless: This trend is fairly well established in tech, defense, and pharmaceuticals. It will continue unless we see a major policy reversal from China to try to court western powers and reduce frictions. The EU and India are less enthusiastic than the US and Australia about removing China from supply chains but they are not opposed. The EU Commission has recommended new defensive economic measures that cover supply chains in batteries, cloud services, hydrogen energy, pharmaceuticals, materials, and semiconductors. As mentioned, the EU is also hesitating to ratify the Comprehensive Agreement on Investment with China. Hence the EU is moving in the US’s direction independently of proposed US laws. After all, China’s rise up the tech value chain (and its decision to stop cutting back the size of its manufacturing sector) ultimately threatens the EU’s comparative advantage. The EU is also aligned with the US on democratic values and network security. India has taken a harder stance on China than usual, which marks an important break with the past. India’s decision to exclude Huawei from its 5G network is not final but it is likely to be at least partially implemented. A working group of democracies is forming regardless. The Strategic Competition Act calls for the creation of a working group of democracies but the truth is that this is already happening through more effective forums like the G7 and bilateral summits. Just as the implementation of the act would will ultimately depend on President Biden, so the willingness of other countries to adopt the recommendations of the working group would depend on their own executives. Allies have leeway as Biden will not use punitive measures against them: Any policy change from the EU, UK, India, and Australia will be independent of the US Congress passing the Strategic Competition Act. These countries will be self-directed. The US would have to devote diplomatic energy to maintaining a sustained effort by these states to counter China in the face of economic costs. This will be limited by the fact that the Biden administration will be very reluctant to impose punitive measures on allies to insist on their cooperation. The allies will set the pace of pressure on China rather than the United States. This gives the EU an important position, particularly Germany. And yet the trends in Germany suggest that the government will be more hawkish on China after the federal elections in September. Bottom Line: The Biden administration is unlikely to use punitive measures against allies so new US laws are less important than overall US diplomacy with each of the allies. Some allies will be less compliant with US policies given their need for trade with China. But so far there appears to be a common position taking shape even with the EU that is prejudicial to China’s involvement in key sectors of emerging technologies. If China does not respond by reducing its foreign policy assertiveness, then China’s economic growth will suffer. That drag would have to be offset by new supply chain construction in Southeast Asia and other countries. Investment Takeaways The foregoing highlights the international risks facing China even at a time when its trend growth is slowing (Chart 9) and its ongoing struggle with domestic financial imbalances is intensifying. China’s debt-service costs have risen sharply and Beijing is putting pressure on corporations and local governments to straighten out their finances (Chart 10), resulting in a wave of defaults. This backdrop is worrisome for investors until policymakers reassure them that government support will continue. Chart 9China's Growth Potential Slowing Chart 10China's Leaders Struggle With Debt China’s domestic stability is a key indicator of whether geopolitical risks could spiral out of control. In particular we think aggressive action in the Taiwan Strait is likely to be delayed as long as the Chinese economy and regime are stable. China has rattled sabers over the strait this year in a warning to the United States not to cross its red line (Chart 11). It is not yet clear how Biden’s policy continuity with the Trump administration will affect cross-strait stability. We see no basis yet for changing our view that there is a 60% chance of a market-negative geopolitical incident in 2021-22 and a 5% chance of full-scale war in the short run. Chart 11China PLA Flights Over Taiwan Strait Putting all of the above together, we see substantial support for two key market-relevant geopolitical risks: Chinese domestic politics (including policy tightening) and persistent US-China tensions (including but not limited to the Taiwan Strait). We remain tactically defensive, a stance supported by several recent turns in global markets: The global stock-to-bond ratio has rolled over. China is a negative factor for global risk appetite (Chart 12). Global cyclical equities are no longer outperforming defensives. There is a stark divergence between Chinese cyclicals and global cyclicals stemming from the painful transition in China’s bloated industrial economy (Chart 13). Global large caps are catching a bid relative to small caps (Chart 14). Chart 12Global Stock-To-Bond Ratio Rolled Over Chart 13Global Cyclicals-To-Defensives Pause Chart 14Global Large Caps Catch A Bid Versus Small Caps Cyclically the global economic recovery should continue as the pandemic wanes. China will eventually relax policy to prevent too abrupt of a slowdown. Therefore our strategic portfolio reflects our high-conviction view that the current global economic expansion will continue even as it faces hurdles from the secular rise in geopolitical risk, especially US-China cold war. Measurable geopolitical risk and policy uncertainty are likely to rebound sooner rather than later, with a negative impact on high-beta risk assets. Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Coda: Global Minimum Tax Symbolizes Return Of Big Government On Thursday, the US Treasury Department released a proposal to set the global minimum corporate tax rate at 15%. The plan is to stop what Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has referred to as a global “race to the bottom” and create the basis for a rehabilitation of government budgets damaged by pandemic-era stimulus. Although the newly proposed 15% rate is significantly below President Biden’s bid to raise the US Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income (GILTI) rate to 21% from 10.5%, it is the same rate as his proposed minimum tax on corporate book income. Biden is also raising the headline corporate tax rate from 21% to around 25% (or at highest 28%). Negotiators at the OECD were initially discussing a 12.5% global minimum rate. The finance ministers of both France and Germany – where the corporate income tax rates are 32.0% and 29.9%, respectively – both responded positively to the announcement. However, Ireland, which uses low corporate taxes as an economic development strategy, is obviously more comfortable with a minimum closer to its own 12.5% rate. Discussions are likely to occur when G7 finance ministers meet on June 4-5. Countries are hoping to establish a broad outline for the proposal by the G20 meeting in early July. It is highly likely that the OECD will come to an agreement. However, it is not a truly “global” minimum as there will still be tax havens. Compliance and enforcement will vary across countries. A close look at the domestic political capital of the relevant countries shows that while many countries have the raw parliamentary majorities necessary to raise taxes, most countries have substantial conservative contingents capable of preventing stiff corporate tax hikes (Table 1, in the Appendix). Our Geopolitical strategists highlight that the Biden administration’s compromise on the minimum rate reflects its pragmatism as well as emphasis on multilateralism. Any global deal will be non-binding but the two most important low-tax players are already committed to raising corporate rates well above this level: Biden’s plan is noted above, while the UK’s budget for March includes a jump in the business rate to 25% in April 2023 from the current 19%. Ireland and Hungary are the only outliers but they may eventually be forced to yield to such a large coalition of bigger economies (Chart 15). Chart 15Global Minimum Corporate Tax Impact Is Symbolic Rather Than Concrete Thus a nominal minimum corporate tax rate is likely to be forged but it will not be truly global and it will not change the corporate rate for most countries. The reality of what companies pay will also depend on loopholes, tax havens, and the effective tax rate. Bottom Line: On a structural horizon, the global minimum corporate tax is significant for showing a paradigm shift in global macro policy: western governments are starting to raise taxes and revenue after decades of cutting taxes. The experiment with limited government has ended and Big Government is making a comeback. On a cyclical horizon, the US concession on global minimum tax is that the Biden administration aims to be pragmatic and “get things done.” Biden is also working with Republicans to pass bills covering some bipartisan aspects of his domestic agenda, such as trade, manufacturing, and China. The takeaway from a global point of view is that Biden may prove to be a compromiser rather than an ideologue, unlike his predecessors.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Roukaya Ibrahim Vice President Daily Insights RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Kurt M. Campbell and Jake Sullivan, "Competition Without Catastrophe," Foreign Affairs, September/October 2019, foreignaffairs.com. Section II: Appendix Table 1OECD: Which Countries Are Willing And Able To Raise Corporate Tax Rates? GeoRisk Indicator China Russia UK Germany France Italy Canada Spain Taiwan – Province Of China Korea Turkey Brazil Australia Section III: Geopolitical Calendar

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

Highlights Global stocks are very vulnerable to a correction. But cyclically the Fed is committed to an inflation overshoot and the global economy is recovering. China’s fiscal-and-credit impulse fell sharply, which leaves global cyclical stocks and commodities exposed to a pullback. Beyond the near term, China’s need for political stability should prevent excessive policy tightening. The risk is frontloaded. China’s population census underscores one of our mega-themes: China’s domestic politics are unstable and can bring negative surprises. India’s state elections, held amid a massive COVID-19 wave, suggest that the ruling party is still favored in 2024. This implies policy continuity. Stick with a bullish cyclical bias but be prepared to shift if China commits a policy mistake. Feature Chart 1Inflation Rears Its Head Global markets shuddered this week in the face of a strong core inflation print in the US as well as broader fears as inflation rears its head after a long slumber (Chart 1). Cyclically we still expect investors to rotate away from US stocks into international stocks and for the US dollar to fall as the global economy recovers (Chart 2). However, this view also entails that emerging market stocks should start outperforming their developed market peers, which has not panned out so far this year. Emerging markets are not only technology-heavy and vulnerable to rising US bond yields but also further challenged now by China’s stimulus having peaked. Chart 2Equity Market Trembles Chart 3Global Economy And Sentiment Recovering Chart 4Global Cyclicals Versus Defensives Wavering The one thing we can rely on is that the COVID-19 vaccine rollout will continue to enable a global growth recovery (Chart 3). The US dollar is signaling as much. The greenback bounced in the first quarter on US relative growth outperformance but it has since fallen back. A falling dollar is positive for cyclical stocks relative to defensives, although cyclicals are flagging that the reflation trade is overdone in the near term (Chart 4). China’s growth now becomes the critical focal point. A policy mistake in China would upset the bullish cyclical view. China’s tightening of monetary and fiscal policy is a major global policy risk that we have highlighted this year and it is now materializing. However, we have also highlighted the constraints to tightening. At present China is standing right on the threshold of overtightening according to our benchmarks. If China tightens further, we will take a fundamentally more defensive view. Also in this report we will review the results of China’s population census and the implications of India’s recent state elections in the face of the latest big wave of COVID-19 infections. We are not making any changes to our bullish view on India yet but we are putting it on watch. China: The Overtightening Risk China’s troubles stem from the ongoing change of its economic model from reliance on foreign trade to reliance on domestic demand. This was a strategic decision that the Communist Party made prior to the rise of President Xi Jinping. Xi also has come to embody it and reinforce it through his strategic vision and confrontation with the United States. Beijing’s goal was to manage a smooth and stable transition. The financial turmoil of 2015 and the trade war of 2018-19 jeopardized that goal but policymakers ultimately prevailed. Then COVID-19 broke out and caused the first real economic contraction since the 1970s. While China contained the virus and bounced back with another massive round of stimulus (13.8% of GDP from the onset of the trade war to the 2021 peak), it now faces an even more difficult transition. Chart 5China's Rising Propensity To Save The need to improve quality of life is more urgent given that potential GDP has slowed. The need to contain systemic financial risk is more urgent given the big new increase in debt. And the need to diversify the economy is more urgent given that the US is now creating a coalition of democracies to confront China over a range of policies. The spike in the “marginal propensity to save” among Chinese people and corporations – as measured by the ratio of long-term cash deposits to short-term deposits – is an indication that the country is beset by troubles and animal spirits are depressed (Chart 5). China’s fiscal-and-credit impulse is turning down after the large expansion in 2018-21. Policymakers have signaled since last year that they would withdraw emergency stimulus and now the impact is apparent in the hard data. China’s money, credit, and combined credit-and-fiscal impulses all correlate with economic growth after a six-to-nine-month lag. This is true regardless of which indicators one uses for China’s money and credit cycles and economic activity (Charts 6A and 6B). China’s economic momentum is peaking and will become a headwind for the global economy later this year and in 2022, even though the world is otherwise enjoying the tailwinds of vaccination and economic reopening. Chart 6AChina’s Fiscal-And-Credit Impulse Falls Sharply … Chart 6B… As Do Money-And-Credit Impulses The downshift in the fiscal-and-credit impulse portends a slowdown in demand for commodities, materials, and other goods that China imports, especially for domestic consumption. (Chinese imports of parts and inputs that go into its manufacturing exports to the rest of the world look healthier as the rest of the world recovers.) This shift will make it hard for high-flying metals prices and other China plays, such as Swedish stocks, to continue rising without a correction (Chart 7). Speculative positioning is heavily in favor of commodities at the moment. The divergence between China and the metals markets that it dominates looks untenable in the short run (Chart 8). Chart 7China Reflation Trades Near Peaks Chart 8Money Cycle And Commodity Prices Clash The global shift to green or renewable energy systems (i.e. de-carbonization) is bullish for metals, especially copper, but will not be able to make up for the fall in Chinese demand in the short run, as our Emerging Markets Strategy has shown. China’s domestic uses of copper for construction and industry make up about 56.5% of global copper demand while the green energy race – namely the production of solar panels, windmills, electric cars – makes up only about 3.5% of global demand. This number somewhat understates the green program since re-gearing and retrofitting existing systems and structures is also projected, such as with electricity grids. But the point is that a drop in China’s copper consumption will work against the big increase in American and European consumption – especially given that the US infrastructure program will not kick in until 2022 at the earliest. Hence global copper demand will slow over the next 12 months in response to China even though the rest of the world’s demand is rising. Chinese policymakers have not yet signaled that they are worried about overtightening policy or that they will ease policy anew. The Politburo meeting at the end of April did not contain a major policy change from the Central Economic Work Conference in December or the Government Work Report in March (Table 1). But if there was a significant difference, it lay in reducing last year’s sense of emergency further while projecting some kind of scheme to hold local government officials accountable for hidden debt. The implication is continued tight policy – and hence the risk of overtightening remains substantial. Table 1China’s Recent Macroeconomic Policy Statements: Removing Stimulus Chart 9Benchmarks For China's Policy Tightening True, the tea leaves of the April meeting can be read in various ways. The April statement left out phrases about “maintaining necessary policy support” from the overarching macroeconomic policy guidance, which would imply less support for the economy. But it also left out the goal of keeping money supply (M2) and credit growth (total social financing) in line with nominal GDP growth, which could be seen as enabling a new uptick in credit growth. However, the People’s Bank of China did maintain this credit goal in its first quarter monetary policy report, so one cannot be sure. Notice that according to this rubric, China is right on the threshold of “overtightening” policy that we have utilized to measure the risk (Chart 9). Based on Chinese policymaking over the past two decades, we would expect any major inflection point to be announced at the July Politburo meeting, not the April one. We do not consider April a major change from the preceding meetings – nor does our China Investment Strategy. Therefore excessive policy tightening remains a genuine risk for the Chinese and global economy over the next 12 months. Our checklist for excessive tightening underscores this point (Table 2). Table 2Checklist For Chinese Policy Tightening China’s fiscal-and-credit downshift is occurring in advance of the twentieth national party congress, which will take place throughout 2022 and culminate with the rotation of the top leadership (the Politburo Standing Committee) in the autumn. The economy is sufficiently stimulated for the Communist Party’s hundredth birthday on July 1 of this year, so policymakers are focused on preventing excesses. Financial risk prevention, anti-monopoly regulation, and tamping down on the property bubble are the orders of the day. The increase in corporate and government bond defaults and bankruptcies underscore the leadership’s willingness to push forward with economic restructuring and reform, which is well-attested in recent years (Chart 10). Chart 10Creative Destruction In China Investors cannot assume that the party congress in 2022 is a reason for the leadership to ease policy. The contrary occurred in the lead-up to the 2017 party congress. However, investors also cannot assume that China will overtighten and sink its own economy ahead of such an important event. Stability will be the goal – as was the case in 2017 and previous party congresses – and this means that policy easing will occur at some point if the current round of tightening becomes too painful financially and economically. China-linked assets are vulnerable in the short run until policymakers reach their inflection point. Incidentally, the approach of the twentieth national party congress will be a magnet for political intrigue and shocking events. The top leader normally sacks a prominent rival ahead of a party congress as a show of force in the process of promoting his faction. The government also tightens media controls and cracks down on dissidents, who may speak up or protest around the event. But in 2022 the stakes are higher. President Xi was originally expected to step down in 2022 but now he will not, which will arouse at least some opposition. Moreover, under Xi, China has undertaken three historic policy revolutions: it is adopting a strongman leadership model, to the detriment of the collective leadership model under the two previous presidents; it is emphasizing economic self-sufficiency, at the expense of liberalization and openness; and it is emphasizing great power status, at the expense of cooperation with the United States and its allies. Bottom Line: Global equities, commodities, and “China plays” stand at risk of a substantial correction as a result of China’s policy tightening. Our base case is that China will avoid overtightening but the latest money and credit numbers run up against our threshold for changing that view. Another sharp drop in these indicators will necessitate a change. China’s Disappearing Workforce Ultimately one of the constraints on overtightening policy is the decline in China’s potential GDP growth as a result of its shrinking working-age population. China’s seventh population census came out this week and underscored the deep structural changes affecting the country and its economy. Population growth over the past ten years slowed to 5.4%, the lowest rate since the first census in 1953. The fertility rate fell to 1.3 in 2020, lower than the 2.1 replacement rate and the 1.8 target set when Chinese authorities relaxed the one-child policy in 2016. The fertility rate is also lower than the World Bank’s estimates (1.7 in 2019) and even Japan’s rate. The birthrate (births per 1,000 people) also fell, with the number of newborns in 2020 at the lowest point since 1961, the year of the Great Famine. The birth rate has converged to that of high-income countries, implying that economic development is having the same effect of discouraging childbearing in China, although China is less developed than these countries. Chart 11China’s Working Population Falling Faster Than Japan’s In 1990s The youngest cohort rose from 16.6% to 17.95% of the population, the oldest cohort rose 8.9% in 2010 to 13.5% today, while the working-age cohort fell from 75.3% to 68.6%. The working-age population peaked in 2010 and fell by 6.79 percentage points over the past ten years. By contrast, Japan’s working-age population peaked in 1992 and fell 2.18 percentage points in the subsequent decade (Chart 11). In other words China is experiencing the demographic transition that hit Japan in the early 1990s – but China’s working-age population might fall even faster. The country is experiencing this tectonic socioeconomic shift at a lower level of per capita wealth than Japan had attained. The demographic challenge will put pressure on China’s socioeconomic and political system. The China miracle, like other Asian miracles, was premised on the use of export-manufacturing to generate large piles of savings that could be repurposed for national development. The decline in China’s working-age population coincides with economic development and a likely decline in the saving rate over the long run. This is shown in Chart 12, which shows two different pictures of China’s working population alongside the gross national saving rate. As China’s dependency ratio rises the saving rate will fall and fewer funds will be available for repurposing. The cost of capital will rise and economic restructuring will accelerate. In the case of Japan, the demographic shift coincided with the 1990 financial crisis and then a nationwide shift in economic behavior. The saving rate fell as the economy evolved but the savings that were generated still exceeded investment due to the shortfall in private demand and the pressure of large debt burdens. Companies focused on paying down debt rather than expanding investment and production (Chart 13). All of this occurred when the external environment was benign, whereas China faces a similar demographic challenge in the context of rising economic pressure due to geopolitical tensions. Chart 12Chinese Workers Getting Scarcer Chart 13High Savings Enable Debt Splurge Until Debt Overwhelms China has so far avoided a debilitating financial crisis and collapse in real estate prices that would saddle the country with a traumatizing liquidity trap. The Chinese authorities are painfully aware of the danger of the property bubble and are therefore eager to prevent financial excesses and curb bubble-like activity. This is what makes the risk of overtightening significant. But a mistake in either direction can lead to a slide into deflation. The Xi administration has stimulated the economy whenever activity slowed too much or financial instability threatened to get out of hand, as noted above, but this is a difficult balancing act, which is why we monitor the risk of excessive tightening so closely. A few other notable takeaways from China’s population census include: The two-child policy is not succeeding so far. COVID-19 might have had a negative effect on fertility but it could not have affected births very much due to the timing. So the trends cannot be distorted too much by the pandemic. Rapid urbanization continues, with the rate hitting 64% of the population, up 14 percentage points from 2010. Policy discussions are emphasizing lifting the retirement age; providing financial incentives for having babies; a range of price controls to make it more affordable to have babies, most notably by suppressing the property bubble; and measures to ensure that property prices do not fall too rapidly in smaller cities as migration from the country continues. China’s ethnic minority population, which consists of 9% of the total population, grew much faster (10% rate) over the past decade than the Han majority, which makes up 91% of the population (growing at a 5% rate). Minorities are exempt from the one-child (and two-child) policy. Yet ethnic tensions have arisen, particularly in autonomous regions like Xinjiang, prompting greater international scrutiny of China’s policies toward minorities. China’s demographic challenge is widely known but the latest census reinforces the magnitude of the challenge. China’s potential growth is falling while the rising dependency ratio underscores social changes that will make greater demands of government. Greater fiscal and social spending needs will require difficult economic tradeoffs and unpopular political decisions. Economic change and the movement of people will also deepen regional and wealth disparities. All of these points underscore one of our consistent Geopolitical Strategy mega-themes: China’s domestic political risks are underrated. Bottom Line: China’s 2020 census reinforces the demographic decline that lies at the root of China’s rising socioeconomic and political challenges. While China has a strong central government with power consolidated under a single ruling party, and a track record of managing its various challenges successfully in recent decades, nevertheless the magnitude of the changes happening are overwhelming and will bring negative economic and political surprises. India: State Elections Not A Turning Point Against Modi At the height of the second COVID-19 wave in India, elections were held in five Indian states. Results for the state of West Bengal were most important. West Bengal is a large state, accounting for nearly a-tenth of legislators at India’s national assembly, and the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) of Prime Minister Narendra Modi had declared that it would win nearly 70% of the 294 seats there. In the event West Bengal delivered a landslide victory for the All India Trinamool Congress (AITMC), a regional party. Despite the fact that the AITMC was facing a two term anti-incumbency, the AITMC seat count hit an all-time high. Few had seen this coming as evinced by the fact that AITMC’s performance exceeded forecasts made by most pollsters. What should investors make of the BJP’s loss in this key state? Was it a backlash against Modi’s handling of the pandemic? Does it portend a change of government and national policy in the general elections in 2024? Not really. Here we highlight three key takeaways: Takeaway #1: The BJP’s performance was noteworthy Chart 14India: BJP Gets Foot In Door In West Bengal Whilst the BJP fell short of its goals in West Bengal, the state is not a BJP stronghold. The BJP is known to have natural traction in Hindi-speaking regions of India and West Bengal is a non-Hindi speaking state where the BJP was traditionally seen as an outsider. Also, this state is known to be unusually unwilling to accept change. For instance, before AITMC, the Left was in power for a record spell of 34 years in this state. In such a setting, the BJP’s performance in 2021 in West Bengal is noteworthy: the party increased its seat count to 77 seats, compared to only 3 seats in 2016 (Chart 14). This performance now catapults the BJP into becoming the key opposition party in West Bengal. It also indicates that the BJP may take time but has what it takes to build traction in states that are not traditional strongholds. Given that it achieved this feat in a state where it has little historic strength, its performance is noteworthy as a sign that the BJP remains a force to be reckoned with. Takeaway #2: The BJP’s popularity slipped but it is still favored to retain power in 2024 Whilst discontent against the BJP is rising on account of its poor handling of COVID-19 and the accompanying economic distress, there remains no viable alternative to the BJP at the national level. The recent state elections, not only in West Bengal, confirm that the opposition Indian National Congress (INC) is yet to get its act in order. The Congress party collapsed from 44 seats in Bengal to 0 seats. More importantly, the Congress is yet to resolve two critical issues, i.e. the need to appoint or elect an internal leader with mass appeal, and the need to develop an identifiable policy agenda. The weakness of the Congress means that while the BJP’s seat count could diminish as against its 2019 peak performance, nevertheless our base-case scenario for 2024 remains that of a BJP-led government maintaining power in India. Policy continuity and the chance of some structural reform are still the base case. Takeaway #3: The rise and rise of India’s regional parties The rise of the BJP over the last decade has coincided with losses in seats by both the Congress party and India’s regional parties. However, the most recent round of state elections signals that the BJP cannot compress regional parties’ seat share drastically. For instance, in West Bengal, it managed to win 77 seats by itself but this was not at the expense of the AITMC, which is the dominant player in this state. In another large state where elections were held earlier this month, i.e. Tamil Nadu, control continues to fluctuate between two well-entrenched regional parties. Chart 15India: BJP Peaked In 2019 But Still Favored 2024 The 2019 general elections saw the share of regional parties (defined as all parties excluding the BJP and Congress) fall to 35% from the near 40% levels seen at the general elections of 2014 (Chart 15). The 2024 elections could in fact see regional parties’ seat share move up a notch as the BJP’s peak seat count could diminish from the highs of 2019. The coming rise of India’s regional parties is a trend rooted in a simple dynamic. With the BJP as a two-term incumbent in the 2024 elections, voters could choose to gratify regional parties at the margin, in the absence of any alternative to the BJP at the national level. The BJP remains in a position to be the single largest party in India in 2024 with a seat count in excess of the half-way mark. But could a situation arise where the ruling party pulls in a regional party to stay ahead of the half-way mark with a large buffer? Absolutely. But of course 2024 is a long way away. Managing COVID-19 and its economic fallout will make it harder than otherwise for the BJP to beat its 2019 performance. The next bout of key state elections in India are due in February 2022 and India’s largest state, Uttar Pradesh, will see elections. With the BJP currently in power in this Hindi-speaking state, the February 2022 elections will shed more light on BJP’s ability to mitigate the anti-incumbency effect of the pandemic and economic shock. Bottom-Line: BJP’s popularity in India has been shaken but not dramatically so. The BJP remains firmly in a position to be the single largest party in India with a seat count that should cross the half-way mark in 2024. So government stability is not a concern in this emerging market for now. In light of China’s domestic political risks, and India’s political continuity, we will maintain our India trades for the time being (Charts 16A and 16B). However, we are undertaking a review of India as a whole and will update clients with our conclusions in a forthcoming special report. Chart 16AStay Long Indian Bonds Versus EM Chart 16BStick To Long India / Short China Investment Takeaways Maintain near-term safe-haven trades. Close long natural gas futures for a 19.8% gain. Maintain cyclical (12-month) bullish positioning with a preference for value over growth stocks. Maintain long positions in commodities, including rare earth metals, and emerging markets. But be prepared to cut these trades if China overtightens policy according to our benchmarks. For now, continue to overweight Indian local currency bonds relative to emerging market peers and Indian stocks relative to Chinese stocks. But we are reviewing our bullish stance on India. Chart 17Cyber Security Stocks Perk Up Amid Tech Rout Stay long cyber security stocks – though continue to prefer aerospace and defense over cyber security as a geopolitical “back to work” trade. Cyber security stocks perked up relative to the tech sector during the general tech selloff over the past week. The large-scale Colonial Pipeline ransomware cyber attack in the US temporarily shuttered a major network that supplies about 45% of the East Coast’s fuel (Chart 17). Nevertheless the attack on critical infrastructure highlights that cyber security is a secular theme and investors should maintain exposure. Cyber stocks have outperformed tech in general since the vaccine discovery (Chart 18). Chart 18Cyber Security Is A Secular Theme Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Yushu Ma Research Associate yushu.ma@bcaresearch.com Ritika Mankar, CFA Editor/Strategist Ritika.Mankar@bcaresearch.com

Special Report

Highlights The Scottish parliamentary election does not present a near-term risk of a second referendum on Scottish independence. Independence is possible down the road but very unlikely due to a host of economic and geopolitical challenges still relevant in the twenty-first century. Book gains on long CHF-GBP. Go long FTSE 100 versus developed markets excluding the United States. Feature British equities have underperformed developed markets over the past decade – even if we exclude the market-leading United States (Chart 1). The British equity market is heavily concentrated in cyclical sectors like financials and materials and has a low concentration in information technology and communications services. As such the bourse has sprung to life since the advent of the COVID-19 vaccine and the prospect of a government-stimulated global growth recovery. In keeping with our strategic preference for value over growth we also look constructively at British equities. A potential source of geopolitical and political risk is Britain’s ongoing constitutional crisis, which flared up with the failed Scottish independence referendum in 2014 and the successful referendum to leave the EU in 2016. Tensions within the UK and between the UK and EU are part of the same problem – a loss of popular confidence and trust in the current nation-state and governing institutions in the aftermath of hyper-globalization.1 This constitutional crisis added insult to injury for UK stocks by jacking up policy uncertainty and undermining the attractiveness of domestic-oriented UK companies that suffered from trade disruptions with the European Union. Chart 1UK Referendums Added Insult To Injury Chart 2Post-Brexit Trading Range For GBP-EUR Now the COVID-19 pandemic and its aftermath have changed the global scene entirely and Brexit is no longer Britain’s chief concern. But there is still a lingering question over Scotland’s status. The Scottish question has recently weighed on the British pound and reinforced the new trading range for the GBP-EUR exchange rate in the aftermath of a “hard” exit from the European Union (Chart 2). Scotland voted for a new parliament on May 6 and the preliminary results are coming in as we go to press. The pro-independence Scottish National Party is still the most popular party and even if it falls short of a majority, as online betting markets expect, it has pro-independence allies with which it could form a coalition (Chart 3). Its leader, Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, has promised to pursue a second popular referendum on seceding from the United Kingdom by 2023. Chart 3Betting Markets Doubt Single-Party Majority For SNP British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, backed by a strong Conservative Party parliamentary majority, has vowed not to allow a second referendum, arguing that the 2014 plebiscite was supposed to lay the question to rest for a while. Scottish opinion in favor of secession stands at 43.6% today, right near the 44.7% that nationalists achieved in 2014 (Chart 4). Chart 4Support For Independence Ticks Down, Still Shy Of Majority Our takeaway is to fade the Scottish risk. Book gains on our long CHF-GBP tactical trade. Go long British equities relative to DM-ex-US on the expectation of global economic normalization, which is beneficially for the outwardly oriented British multinationals that dominate the British bourse. Does Scotland Have Grand Strategy? The history of Scotland is marked by internal differences that prevent it from achieving unity and independence. Even in the twenty-first century, when many factors have coalesced to make Scottish independence more likely than at any time since the eighteenth century, the 2014 referendum produced a 10% gap in favor of remaining in the United Kingdom. This majority is all the more compelling when viewed from the perspective of geography because cross-regional support for the union is clear (Map 1). Map 1Scottish Independence Referendum Result, 2014 Why is Scotland always divided? Because it is trapped by the sea and adjacent to a greater power, England. England is usually strong enough to keep Scotland from consolidating power and asserting control over its maritime and land borders. Specifically, Scotland contains a small population (at 5.5 million today) and small economic base (GBP 155 billion in economic output at the end of 2022) dispersed over an inconvenient geography. The low-lying plains around the Firth of Forth that form the historic core of Scotland share a porous border with England. The highlands provide a retreat for Scottish forces during times of conflict, which makes it extremely difficult for southern forces, whether Roman or Anglo-Saxon, to conquer Scotland. But the highlands are equally hard for any standalone Scottish state to rule. Meanwhile the western isles are even more remote from the seat of Scottish power and vulnerable to foreign maritime powers. Since England could never conquer Scotland, its solution was to coopt the Scottish elite, who reciprocated, culminating in a merger of the two monarchies and then the two states in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The British empire provided Scotland with peace, prosperity, and access to the rest of the world. History and geopolitics do not imply that Scottish independence is impossible, i.e. that union with the rest of Britain is inevitable and permanent. The Anglo-Scots union is only 314 or 418 years old, whereas Scotland existed as a recognizable kingdom for roughly six centuries prior to the joining of the crowns in 1603. It is entirely possible for Scotland to secede and break up the union known as Great Britain. The principle of rule by consent and modern democratic ideology make it difficult for London and Westminster to force Scotland into subjection like in the old days. In particular, American hegemony over Europe since WWII and the rise of the European Union have created a pathway for Scottish independence. England is no longer the indispensable gateway to peace and prosperity. Scotland can exist independently under the EU’s economic umbrella and the American security umbrella.   Europe has always played a major role in Scotland’s political fate and has always held the key to independence. Independence usually failed because European powers failed to devote large and steady resources to supporting Scotland militarily and economically. France was Scotland’s greatest patron and would lend its support for Scottish rebellion. But France also consistently failed Scotland (and Ireland) at critical junctures when independence might have been obtained. This is because France’s interests lay in distracting England rather than adopting Scotland. Chart 5Scottish Energy Production In Decline Today’s unified European continent could be a much greater patron than France ever was alone. The EU could assure Scotland of investment and access to markets even in the face of British resistance. However, the EU is still not politically unified: some members fear separatism in their own borders and therefore tend to oppose Scottish accession. It is possible that the EU could overcome this difficulty but only after a series of major events (on which more below). It took an American empire to clear the way for Irish independence. But Ireland has the moat of the Irish Sea – and the United Kingdom still retained Northern Ireland. Today the United States can be expected to keep its distance from quarrels within the UK or between the UK and EU. However, it does not have an interest in Scottish secession or any other disintegration of the UK, whether from a global security point of view (the West’s conflict with Russia) or even from the point of view of US grand strategy relative to Europe (prevention of a European empire that could challenge the US). An independent Scotland would struggle economically. Its declining base of fossil fuel reserves illustrates the problem of generating sufficient revenue to maintain the Scandinavian-style social welfare state that Scotland’s nationalists imagine (Chart 5). Scottish nationalists are keen to embrace renewable energy – and the Scottish Greens are pro-independence – yet Scotland is not a manufacturing powerhouse that will produce its own solar panels and windmills. In the face of economic difficulties, Scotland would become politically divided like it was for most of its history prior to union with England. England would revert to an obstructive or sabotaging role. It is telling that the Scottish voter turnout in the 2014 independence referendum was very strong – much stronger than in other recent elections and plebiscites, including the Brexit referendum in Scotland (Table 1). The implication is that it is much harder for Scotland to strike out on its own than it appears. Opinion polling cited above suggests that neither Brexit nor the COVID-19 pandemic has moved the needle decisively in the direction of independence. If anything it is the opposite. The Scottish National Party has lost momentum since 2014 and is losing momentum in advance of today’s local election, which has been pitched as the opportunity to make a second go at independence (Chart 6). Table 1Scotland: High Turnout In 2014 Independence Referendum Implies Firm Conclusion To Stay In UK Chart 6Scottish National Party Losing Momentum Just Ahead Of Holyrood Election Bottom Line: History suggests that the geopolitical and macroeconomic barriers to a unified and independent Scottish state are higher and stronger than they may appear at any given time, including the inevitable periods of tensions with England like today. The UK’s Saving Graces A fair question is whether the UK’s decision to leave the EU since 2016 has changed Scotland’s calculus. Brexit may also have affected the international context, reducing the EU’s willingness to intervene on the UK’s behalf and discourage Scottish ambitions. However, a handful of factors supports the continuation of the union despite Scotland’s grievances. The UK proved a boon amid COVID-19: While 62% of Scots voted against Brexit, the COVID-19 pandemic and recession have supplanted Brexit as the nation’s chief cause of concern. The UK and Scotland saw a higher rate of deaths during the biggest waves of the pandemic but now the pandemic is effectively over in the UK and Scotland, in stark contrast with the European Union (Chart 7). The UK has provided a net benefit to Scotland by inventing the vaccine and distributing it effectively (Chart 8). Scottish voters would have been worse off had they left the UK in 2014. Of course, Scottish nationalism is apparent in the fact that voters give the credit to Edinburgh while blaming London over its handling of the pandemic (Chart 9). But the underlying material reality – that being part of the UK provided a net benefit – will discourage independence sentiment. The Scottish Conservative Party and Labour Party are both in favor of sustaining the union and have benefited in opinion polling since the pandemic peaked. Chart 7COVID Deaths Collapse In ##br##United Kingdom Chart 8Scotland Benefited From UK Vaccine And Rollout   Chart 9Scots Praise Edinburgh, Blame London On COVID Handling Brexit is a cautionary economic tale: If Brexit is relevant to Scottish voters, it is not the source of grievance that it could have been. Prime Minister Boris Johnson achieved an exit and trade deal at the end of 2019-20 that largely preserves economic ties with the EU. True, the deal has problems that undermine the UK economy and enhance Scottish grievances. But these also serve as a warning to Scots who would attempt to exit the UK, highlighting the economic pitfalls of raising borders and barriers against one’s chief market. The UK’s trade is far more critical to Scotland’s economy than that of the EU (Chart 10).   Chart 10Major Constraint On Scottish Independence Unlike in the case of the UK and EU, Scotland shares the same currency and central bank with the UK. Scotland’s large banking sector stands to suffer drastically if the Bank of England ceases to be a lender of last resort. This would become a major problem at least until Scotland could be assured of admission into the EU and Euro Area. Otherwise redenomination into a national currency would deal an even greater financial and economic blow. Scots  would face a far more painful economic divorce from the UK than the UK faced with the EU. The UK’s fiscal blowout helped Scotland: Since the bank run at Northern Rock in 2007, the UK and Scotland have suffered a series of crises. This instability should discourage risk appetite today when contrasted with the possibility of stimulus-fueled economic recovery. In particular, the UK government is no longer pursuing fiscal austerity – an economic policy that fanned the flames of Scottish secession back in 2012. Indeed, the UK tops the ranks of global fiscal stimulus, according to the change in government net lending and borrowing as reported by the IMF. The UK’s outlier status ensures that Scotland receives more fiscal support than it otherwise would have (Chart 11). A brief comparison with comparable countries – Ireland, Belgium, France, Norway, Portugal – reinforces the point. Chart 11Scotland Benefited From UK Fiscal Blowout The UK’s aggressive policy of monetary and fiscal reflation is not a coincidence. It stems from the past two decades’ constitutional and political struggles – it is an outgrowth of domestic instability and populism. It includes an industrial policy, a green energy policy, and other rebuilding measures to combat the erosion of the state in the wake of hyper-globalization. Essentially the UK, even under a Tory government, is now about debt monetization and nation-building. While Scotland would have trouble bargaining for its share of EU resources, it benefits from the UK’s shift to government largesse and can use the threat of independence to receive greater funds from the United Kingdom. Geopolitics discourages a fledgling Scottish nation. Scotland hosts naval and air bases of considerable value to the UK, US, and broader NATO alliance. Former US President Trump’s punitive measures against the European allies and open doubts about the US’s commitment to NATO’s collective security illustrated the dangers of western divisions in the face of autocratic regimes like Russia and China. The US and EU are now recommitting to their economic and security bonds under the Biden administration. Scottish independence would undermine this recommitment and as such the small country would pit itself against the US, EU, and NATO. While the US and NATO would ultimately admit Scotland into collective security, for fear of cultivating a neutral Scotland that could eventually be exploited by Russia, they would likely discourage independence ahead of time to prevent a historic division within the UK and NATO. Chart 12No Urgency For A Second Referendum As for the EU, the Spanish government has indicated that it would be willing to make an exception for Scottish independence if it were negotiated amicably with the United Kingdom.2 Such statements are doubtful, however, as any successful secession would lend ideological credibility to Spanish secessionism – not only in Catalonia but also in the Basque country and elsewhere. And Spain is not the only country that harbors deep hesitations over Scottish accession to the European Union. Belgium, Slovakia, and Cyprus could also oppose it. It only takes a single veto to halt the whole accession process. Ultimately the EU could accept Scotland, just as would NATO, to avoid the dangers of having a neutral state in a strategic location. But the point is that Scottish voters cannot be certain. For example, Scotland cannot secure EU accession prior to leaving the UK and yet to leave the UK and fail to achieve EU accession would render it a fledgling. This explains why Scottish voters are not eager to hold a new independence referendum (Chart 12). Bottom Line: The UK offers medical, economic, fiscal, and geopolitical advantages to Scotland that independence would revoke. The context of Great Power struggle with Russia and China means that an independent Scotland would probably ultimately be admitted into NATO and the EU – but Scottish voters cannot be certain, a factor that discourages independence at least in the short and medium run. Scottish Hurdles Table 2 highlights the historic results of Scottish elections according to political party, popular vote share, and share of seats in parliament. Early, tentative signs suggest that the Scottish National Party maxed out in 2011. The party has suffered from a leadership schism, offshoot parties, and a distraction of its key message since 2014. The implication is not only that Scottish independence is on ice for now but also that the tumultuous constitutional disagreements are subsiding and voters want to focus on economic recovery. Table 2Scottish National Party Hit High-Water Mark In 2011? If the Scottish National Party manages to form a majority coalition capable of pushing forward a second referendum, it will face several hurdles. It will need a UK Supreme Court ruling on the legality of a referendum. If a referendum is declared legal (as it very likely will be), Scotland will need to forge an agreement with Prime Minister Boris Johnson to hold a referendum. If a referendum eventually is held and passes, an exit will need to be negotiated. In a post-Brexit world, investors cannot assume that any referendum will fail or that a referendum is a domestic political ploy that the ruling party has no serious intention of following through. Nevertheless it is true that the Scottish National Party could use the threat of a referendum to agree to negotiate a greater devolution of power from Westminster. The party could hold up England’s concessions as a victory while retaining the independence threat as leverage for a later date. Devolution in the past has strengthened the independence cause, as in the creation of the Scottish parliament in 1999. After all, a referendum loss would be devastating for the nationalists, whereas the threat of a referendum could yield victories without depriving the nationalists of their reason for being. It is notable that First Minister Nicola Sturgeon promised not to hold a “wildcat” referendum, in which Scotland holds a referendum regardless of what Westminster or the UK Supreme Court say. The implication is that Scottish nationalism is looking for a stable way to exit. But if stability is the hope then there is dubious support for independence in the first place. A wildcat referendum is theoretically still an option but a formal process with popular support is much more likely to result in a successful referendum than an informal process with dubious popular support. Chart 13Scotland’s Chronic Deficits If Scottish independence succeeded in any wildcat referendum, an extreme controversy would follow as Edinburgh tried to translate this result to the formal political and constitutional sphere. If the referendum were not recognized by the UK then Scotland would be forced to secede unilaterally at greater economic cost. Otherwise a third referendum (second formal referendum) would need to be held to confirm the results. Any third referendum would be irrevocable. As with Brexit, the secessionists would have to carry one or more subsequent elections to execute the political will in the event of secession. The point for investors is that volatility would be prolonged as was the case with Brexit. A major complication in Scottish independence remains the problem of public finances. Scotland’s fiscal standing is weak. Scotland ran a 9.4% of GDP budget deficit prior to COVID-19, excluding transfers from the UK, which compensates for a gap of about 6% of GDP (Chart 13).3 The country maintains generous social spending alongside a low-tax regime. There is no sign of correction as all Scottish parties are proposing more expansive social spending in the parliamentary election. The Scottish National Party is even proposing universal basic income. Scotland’s emergency COVID deficits are larger than the UK’s as well and projections over the coming years suggest that they will stay elevated. Historically economic growth keeps closely in line with the rest of the UK and there is no reason to believe independence would boost growth. The implication is that Scotland would have to curtail spending or raise taxes to come into line with UK-sized deficits, which are not small (Chart 14).4 Of course Scotland would not embrace austerity unless financial market pressure forced it to do so. Chart 14Scottish Deficit Projected Larger Than UK Scotland would become a high-debt economy. Its public debt-to-GDP ratio would be about 97%, on a back-of-the-envelope calculation. Back in 2013 estimates ranged around 80% of GDP.5 The Scottish National Party’s Sustainable Growth Commission projected in 2018 – before the pandemic blew an even wider hole in the budget deficit – that deficits would nearly have to be cut in half (i.e. capped at 5% of GDP and falling) to achieve a 50% debt-to-GDP ratio over 10 years.6 This is not going to happen. Scotland would also have to take on a portion of the UK’s national debt if it were to have an amicable divorce from the UK and retain the pound sterling. But then much of its newfound independence would be compromised from the beginning by legacy debt and monetary policy shackles. Similar restrictions would come with EU and euro membership. Any accession process after the pandemic would require conformity to the EU’s growth and stability pact, which limits deficits and debt. Redenomination into a national currency, as noted, would dilute domestic wealth, zap the financial industry, and self-impose austerity. Bottom Line: Even if the Scottish nationalists manage to put together a pro-independence majority in Edinburgh, they face a complex process in setting up a referendum. Its passage is doubtful based on the current evidence. But obviously in the wake of Brexit investors should not assume that a referendum attempt will fail or that a successful referendum will be thwarted by parliament after a “leave” vote. The timeline for a second referendum is not imminent – and Scottish independence is highly unlikely, albeit possible at some future date given that middle-aged Scots lean in favor of independence.   Investment Takeaways We will conclude with two market takeaways: Chart 15UK Stocks Recovering From Referendum Fever Chart 16Hindsight On How To Play A Constitutional Struggle The UK’s referendum fever has compounded political uncertainty and contributed to negative factors for the UK equity market over the past decade. A segmentation of the FTSE 100 according to country shows that Scottish-based companies’ share prices rolled over in the aftermath of the 2014 referendum, while the non-Scottish segment performed better (Chart 15). The implication is not that the referendum caused stocks to fall but that the 2014 independence push was the result of national exuberance supercharged by high commodity prices. Enthusiasm for independence has been flat since that time. What is clear is that financial markets look even less favorably upon Scottish equities than other British equities – another sign of the economic problems that will ultimately discourage Scottish voters from going it alone. In advance of the Scottish election, we went tactically long the Swiss franc relative to the British pound to capitalize on jitters that we expected to hit the currency. This trade was in keeping with the long fall of GBP-CHF over the past decade (Chart 16). But the stronger forces of global stimulus, vaccination, economic normalization, and recovery will soon provide a tailwind for sterling yet again. Therefore we are booking 1% gains and shifting to a more optimistic outlook on the pound. With the Brexit saga and the COVID crisis in the rear view mirror, and the tail risk of Scottish independence unlikely, the pound can resume its upward trajectory – at least relative to the Swiss franc. International equities and cyclicals are also poised to continue rising as the world recovers. We recommend investors go long the FTSE 100 relative to developed markets excluding the United States. Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Jeremy Black, “The Legacy of the Scottish Referendum,” Foreign Policy Research Institute E-Notes, September 22, 2014, fpri.org. 2 See Akash Paun et al, "Scottish Independence: EU Membership And The Anglo-Scottish Border," Institute For Government, March 2021, instituteforgovernment.org.uk. 3 See Eve Hepburn, Michael Keating, and Nicola McEwen, "Scotland’s New Choice: Independence After Brexit," Centre on Constitutional Change, 2021, centreonconstitutionalchange.ac.uk. 4 See David Phillips, "Updated projections of Scotland’s fiscal position – and their implications," Institute for Fiscal Studies, April 29, 2021, ifs.org.uk. 5 Granting that the UK’s general government gross debt stood at GBP 1.88 trillion at the end of 2020, and assuming that Scotland takes on a share of this debt equivalent to Scotland’s share of the UK’s total population and output (roughly 8%), the Scottish debt would stand at GBP 150 billion out of a Scottish GDP at current market prices of GBP 156 billion, or 97% of GDP. For the 2013 estimate of at least 80% of GDP, see David Bell, "Scottish Independence: Debt And Assets," Centre on Constitutional Change, December 3, 2013, centreonconstitutionalchange.ac.uk.  6 Scottish National Party, "Part B: The Framework & Strategy for the Sustainable Public Finances of an Independent Scotland," Sustainable Growth Commission, May 2018, sustainablegrowthcommission.scot. The commission’s debt curbs will have to be revised in the wake of COVID-19. For discussion see Chris Giles and Murie Dickie, "Independent Scotland would face a large hole in its public finances," Financial Times, April 2, 2021, ft.com.  

Biden’s first 100 days can be summed up as the return of Big Government, i.e. “the Leviathan.” But markets are not afraid of one-off corporate tax hikes that only partially reverse the previous administration’s tax cuts amid a brand new stimulus-charged economic cycle. Biden’s approval rating after his first 100 days is comparable to that of Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, suggesting that he can accomplish a major legislative achievement. The $2.3 trillion American Jobs Plan will be watered down in Congress but not to a great extent. Green energy investments and funding for research and development will survive. Thus Biden’s plan will sow the seeds of a productivity mini-boom, if not a structural boom, in the 2020s. Republicans are favored to win the midterm elections in 2022 but investors should not make any decisions based on that expectation. The risk of Democrats keeping the House of Representatives – and therefore having a new chance to surprise with taxes in the second half of Biden’s term – is much greater than the historical pattern suggests. Stick with our long materials versus tech trade. Stick with short health care trades. Go long renewable energy stocks. Feature President Biden passed the 100 day mark at the end of April. The most striking characteristic of his administration is the giant deficit spending. Biden marks the symbolic return of the “leviathan,” i.e. the state, to American political economy. Normally the budget deficit tracks closely with the unemployment rate because rising unemployment causes tax revenue to fall and government spending to rise. The divergence between the deficit and unemployment became pronounced in 2016 and revealed the structural forces – e.g. slow growth, disinflation, high debt, inequality, populism – driving US policymakers to abandon fiscal discipline. But the 2016-20 political cycle combined with the pandemic broke the dam and the divergence is now gigantic (Chart 1). Chart 1Biden's First 100 Days: An Historic Divergence All else equal, the implication is inflationary, though inflation will respond to a range of factors on different time frames. Signs of inflation today may well be under control, as Federal Reserve Chairman Jay Powell and Secretary of Treasury Janet Yellen believe, but over the long run we take the inflation risk seriously as the policy elite has fundamentally shifted to be vigilant about deflation, not inflation. Biden’s Approval Is “Just Enough”  Biden’s popularity is “fair to middling” as his honeymoon comes to an end. His approval rating clocks in right between that of Presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump (Chart 2A). He is not as popular and charismatic as Obama and not as unpopular and controversial as Trump. His approval among Democratic voters is higher than that of Obama, similar to Trump among Republicans, due to the fact that the US has hit historic levels of political polarization (Chart 2A, second panel). His embrace of left-wing policy is keeping him in good standing among Democratic voters but may become a liability during the 2022 midterm election (more on that below). Chart 2ABiden’s Approval Rating: Fair-To-Middling Chart 2BBiden Close To Clinton, Bush At 100 Days American presidential approval ratings have fallen continuously for decades and they typically fall after inauguration. This is true of Biden but he looks more like Presidents Bill Clinton or George W. Bush than Trump. His approval is likely to stay over 50% for the foreseeable future due to a supercharged economic recovery (Chart 2B). Trump stands out conspicuously in this chart for his negative net approval, which implies that on a relative basis Biden will be more capable in conducting policy. And yet Trump got his signature piece of legislation – the Tax Cut and Jobs Act – through Congress, which has some bearing on Biden’s proposals.  Our political capital index (Appendix) shows that Biden will benefit from consumer confidence and wage growth shooting up, business sentiment strengthening, and polarization slightly abating due to a slight rise in Republican approval. While Biden’s Democratic Party has only the narrowest of majorities in the Senate, Biden’s signature legislative proposal – the American Jobs Plan – still has an 80% chance of passing in some form. Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky declared this week that Biden will not get any Republican votes for this package of infrastructure and corporate tax hikes but budget reconciliation is a ready way for the bill to pass on a partisan basis. Biden’s fiscal blowout should be seen as the culmination of a popular shift against fiscal discipline (or “austerity”) that took root in the middle of the last decade and was also expressed by Republican support for the big-spending President Trump. But it is more extravagant than what the Republicans proposed or would have been able to get had Trump been elected. Chart 3 highlights the difference between the Democratic and Republican spending proposals for the early 2021 COVID-19 relief bill and infrastructure plan. Chart 4 highlights the corporate tax increases Biden has proposed in excess of the Trump rate. Chart 3Biden’s Spending In Excess Of Republican Plans Chart 4Biden’s Taxes In Excess Of Republican Plans From an investment point of view, now is the perfect time to raise corporate taxes as the early cyclical surge in economic activity will prevent the one-off hit to earnings, which should be around 5%-8% according to our Global Investment Strategy, from hindering the stock market for long. The output gap, apparent from still relatively low industrial capacity utilization, will rapidly be plugged regardless of the tax hikes, as is evident from the surge in retail sales and core capital goods new orders and the decline in fuel inventories (Chart 5). The hyper-stimulated economy has been a key reason for our argument that Biden will mostly get what he wants, in terms of corporate taxes, since growth will be fine. The public is positively crying out for taxing corporations, as we showed in our April 7 missive and other reports. Chart 5The Output Gap Will Close Quickly Given that Biden’s political capital is only “just enough,” and that it is falling over time, many investors believe that Biden’s major legislative proposals will be watered down beyond recognition. They will be watered down but the reconciliation process ensures that Democrats will pass at least one bill and that it will largely gratify the party’s preferences. And any watering down will affect tax hikes more so than spending, since tax hikes are the most controversial parts of the bill for moderate Senate Democrats. As Table 1 reveals, an infrastructure package with half the revenue increase is a $1.3 trillion addition to the budget deficit over the eight-to-15 year life-cycle of the bill, as opposed to a fictitious $341 billion in the event that all tax hikes pass Congress. Hence the paring back of Biden’s ambitions does not imply fiscal restraint and is not bullish for US Treasuries.  Table 1Watering Down Biden’s Proposals Not Good For Deficit A Productivity Boomlet How can we benchmark the magnitude of the structural transformation taking place in the US as a result of Biden’s Leviathanic spending proposals? From the perspective of government spending as a contributor to economic output, the Leviathan shrank in the decades after President Lyndon B. Johnson’s “Great Society” and Vietnam debacle. But from the perspective of government accounts, Big Government never actually went away (Chart 6), as Reagan used spending to win the Cold War and Clinton only enjoyed the briefest hiatus from deficits in the 1990s. From these charts we can conclude that Biden’s administration will create unprecedented spending and deficits that, taken with an extremely accommodative Fed, will increase the risk of substantially higher inflation over the 2020s.  Chart 6Johnson’s ‘Great Society’ Versus Biden’s ‘Green Society’ Chart 7US Adds To Expansive Social Safety Net Biden is not fighting an economic depression and world war, like Franklin D. Roosevelt, although the US has experienced a Great Recession and is entering a new cold war with China. So the shift should be seen as a generational change in the role of government and not as an ephemeral, four-year trend. This is true notwithstanding the fact that the US already spends a lot on health and education (Chart 7) and not as an ephemeral, four-year trend. The element of international competition is critical to the unique components of Biden’s spending package. Biden jettisoned the health care debates of the Obama era – to our surprise – and instead inaugurated the American foray into the global green energy race. Looking at the OECD’s measure of the “greenness” of global fiscal stimulus – and supplementing it with Biden’s proposed jobs plan – the US compares favorably with the EU and China (Chart 8). Chart 8US Enters The Green Energy Race True, climate policy is more controversial in the US, which means it may well be frozen after Biden’s major bill. The EU and China will spend more on renewable energy and environmental protection because they are net energy importers and manufacturing powers. But the US is highly unlikely to exit the green race in the future, as younger generations care about it more than their elders and it is connected to the US strategic imperative of technological leadership. Biden will have opened up a new field of national policy, regardless of where on the field the players will fight over the ball at any given time. Biden is also pumping federal money into research and development, another area of geopolitical competition (Chart 9).  The takeaway is that Biden’s first year in office – which may be his most consequential year in terms of legislation, particularly if he is a one-term president – is sowing the seeds for a productivity boom, or at least a mini-boom, in the coming years (Chart 10). The pace of productivity growth in the coming years is a matter of speculation and the long term trend is down. But the expected cyclical increase should be supplemented with the knowledge that the US is now aggressively monetizing debt, aggressively pursuing industrial policy and technological advancement, and aggressively competing with geopolitical rivals like China (and even allies like the EU). The likelihood of productivity breakthroughs may go up in such an extraordinary context. We cannot know but we cannot discount the possibility. Chart 9US Doubles Down On Tech Race Chart 10Productivity Will Rise Cyclically But What About Structurally? Vaccines And Immigration Elsewhere Biden’s first 100 days are less specific to his administration. The US is performing very well on the pandemic, both in innovating vaccines and distributing them, but an objective analysis will force Biden to share the credit with the Trump administration (Chart 11). On immigration, by comprehensively weakening enforcement and raising refugee allowances, all in the midst of a surging American economy, Biden will be vulnerable to Republican accusations of encouraging a humanitarian crisis on the border, vitiating rule of law, and making a cynical ploy to expand the Democratic voter base. The number of southwest border encounters by the Customs and Border Protection agency began to skyrocket over the past year – and as such it reflects structural factors that would have troubled a second Trump administration as well. But the election seems to have had an impact based on the inflection point in the data at the end of 2020 (Chart 12). Chart 11COVID-19 Vaccination Campaign On Track Chart 12Immigration: Biden's Fatal Flaw? Regardless, Biden has made the decision to cater to the pro-immigration side of his party and will now own this trend. It will be a unifying force for Republicans, although they remain deeply split over a range of issues and are not any closer to healing their wounds. The market impact is limited in the short run. In the medium run, if unchecked immigration feeds the nativist and populist elements of the Republican Party, then Biden’s decision could have a substantial impact on future US policy by generating a backlash. Our best guess at the moment is that Biden’s actions will reinforce the Republican Party’s embrace of Trump’s policy platform. Since Biden is not making major bipartisan legislative efforts to reform immigration comprehensively, the great immigration debate will return in 2024 or thereafter. Public opinion suggests Republican nativism is out of fashion but a large influx of immigrants could opinion over time as today’s issues fade. Thus Biden’s successes on economic recovery today are sowing the seeds of his party’s biggest vulnerability in domestic policy in future. But admittedly it is too soon to say whether this weakness will be effectively exploited by the opposition. In the meantime investors and corporations will cheer the prospect of cheap and abundant labor. An Overlooked Market Risk From The Midterm Elections This overview of Biden’s honeymoon period naturally refers to the 2022 midterm elections in several places. The Republicans will not be able to repeal Biden’s laws if they take the House of Representatives – or less likely the Senate – in the 2022 vote. But they will be able to grind proposals to a halt. The fate of Biden’s third major legislative proposal, the $1.8 trillion American Families Plan, will hang in the balance, as will green energy subsidies, the child tax credit, and various social initiatives. Much has been made about the 2020 US census and the reapportionment of seats in the House of Representatives according to the population. States that have a single party in control of the governor’s mansion and the legislature can gerrymander or redraw congressional districts as they please to favor their party. Table 2 shows that this partisan process could easily yield two Republican seats on a net basis. This is less than expected but Republicans only need a net of five seats to reclaim the House.  Table 2US Census And Reapportionment Favors Republicans Slightly Redistricting is an important theme because it perpetuates political polarization. But it is not important in determining who will win the House in 2022. The House has changed hands numerous times despite gerrymandered districts. Midterms almost always work against the president’s party. Only in 1934, during the Great Depression, and 2002, immediately after the Twin Towers were attacked, did voters strengthen a first-term president’s hold on Congress. Judging by Biden’s approval rating, Democrats would be lined up for a loss of far more than five seats on a net basis in 2022. They could lose 20 or more (Chart 13). As noted in the previous section, Republicans may find a rallying point on immigration. Chart 13Midterm Elections Dominated By Opposition Party – And Need For Checks And Balances Having said that, investors should not make any decisions based on the midterm election. While Republicans have a 95% chance of winning the House according to the modern historical pattern, they have a lower 73% chance according to the online political betting hub Predictit.org, and we would side with the latter or even lower, at this early stage in the political cycle.  The pandemic and social unrest of 2020, combined with the slow-growth 2010s and trade war, create a context of upheaval that is not entirely dissimilar to the exceptional midterm elections of 1932 and 2002. Biden’s rescue packages and the economic recovery will be a huge boon for the Democratic Party in 2024 and it is possible that they will reap some benefits even in 2022. This is especially the case because Trump and his allies will challenge establishment and elitist Republicans in the primary elections, which could result in Republicans losing five-to-nine seats. If they put up Trumpists in competitive, purple, or suburban districts, voters will swing toward moderate Democrats over populist Republicans in order to preserve the “bread and butter” gains of Biden’s agenda. The bottom line is that Republicans are favored to take the House in 2022 but the 75% odds are much more realistic than the 95% historical probability and possibly even too high. Gridlock would freeze Biden’s spend-and-tax agenda in place but the absence of gridlock would come as a surprise to investors who counted on a Republican victory. Tax hikes on wealthy individuals and capital gains – as projected in the American Families Plan – could still be on the table after the midterm. These tax hikes would still be unlikely to overturn the equity bull market but they could cause investors to reassess the overall policy setting for the worse. The implication would be that the 2020 political change marked a more lasting leftward shift in US policy. For example, taxes could go up beyond what Biden currently projects. Midterm risks should not trouble investors in the near term but they should be on the radar, particularly as the Republican primaries get underway next year and as investors get a better read on inflation in the wake of Biden’s mammoth spending. Investment Takeaways We would draw a few main investment takeaways from Biden’s first 100 days. In the short run, we would call attention to the “buy the rumor, sell the news” behavior exhibited by financial markets during President Trump’s first year in office with full party control of Congress. US equities stood to benefit from tax cuts, especially relative to the rest of the world, which would not receive tax cuts but could face trade tariffs. This expectation played out after Trump’s election but the market sold upon the news of his inauguration. It played out again after Republicans failed to repeal Obamacare, suggesting they might fail to cut taxes. The market correctly bid up US equities on the rumor that the GOP would then turn its full attention to cutting taxes. US equities outperformed until the end of the year when the tax cuts became a fait accompli, at which point the news was sold (Chart 14, top panel). The implication today is that US stocks, especially cyclical stocks and infrastructure-related plays, will continue generally to rally ahead of Biden signing the American Jobs Plan into law, likely around November. Obviously a correction could occur at any time but upon the signing of the law one should not be surprised to see some serious profit-taking. An analogy can also be drawn to renewable energy plays after the Democrats’ “Blue Sweep” in 2020. Markets have largely discounted the surge in renewable energy plays that occurred upon the recession in 2020 and the rising likelihood that Trump would lose reelection (Chart 14, bottom panel). This creates a buying opportunity for a long-term theme. Republicans will not be able to repeal Biden’s green projects and there is some risk that Democrats retain legislative control. And younger generations, even Republicans, are favorable toward the greening of society. Therefore we recommend going long US renewable energy stocks. It also follows that cyclical and value stocks have not yet exhausted their run against defensives and growth stocks. We will therefore hang onto our long materials / short Big Tech trade until we see more substantial signs that near-term disinflationary risks will derail this trade (Chart 15). We will also stick with our short managed health care trade – and our preference for health care equipment and facilities within the health care sector – despite the Democrats’ tentative decision to sideline the health care policies that would have hit the health insurers and Big Pharma. Chart 14Investment Takeaways: Buy The Green Hype (For Now) Chart 15Housekeeping: Stick With Materials Over Tech In the long run, we would point out that the shift away from Reaganism toward Johnsonianism – the return of Leviathan – is a lasting trend that will bring significant change to the US policy setting. These are mostly but not all inflationary. Larger immigration and a productivity boost are not inflationary. But large deficits, tax hikes, and wage pressures are inflationary. Therefore the risk of inflation has gone up in a historic way even though the magnitude of the risk can be overstated in the short term – when there is still slack in the economy – and there are still disinflationary factors that could work against the risk as events unfold. We remain cyclically bullish.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Appendix Table A1USPS Trade Table Table A2Political Risk Matrix Table A3Political Capital Index Table A4APolitical Capital: White House And Congress Chart A4BPolitical Capital: Household And Business Sentiment Table A4CPolitical Capital: The Economy And Markets