BCA Indicators/Model

Dear Client, We will be presenting our quarterly webcast next week, and, as a result, will not be publishing on 29 July 2021.  We will cover our major calls for the quarter and provide a look-ahead.  I look forward to the Q+A, and am hopeful you will tune in. Bob Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist   Highlights Chart Of The WeekOPEC 2.0's Hand Strengthened By Production Agreement The deal crafted by OPEC 2.0 over the weekend to add 400k b/d of oil every month from August preserves the coalition, and sends a credible signal of its ability to raise output after its 5.8mm b/d of spare capacity is returned to market next year.1 KSA and Russia will remain primi inter pares, but the position of OPEC 2.0's core producers – not just the UAE, which negotiated an immediate baseline increase – was enhanced for future negotiations. This deal explicitly recognizes they are the only ones capable of increasing output over an extended period. We assume the revised production baselines for core OPEC 2.0 effective May 2022 reflect the coalition's demand expectations from 2H22 onward. Our modeling indicates core OPEC 2.0's output will almost converge on the revised baseline production of 34.3mm b/d by 2H23, when we expect these producers to be at ~ 33.4mm b/d. Holding our demand estimates constant from last week, our revised supply expectations prompt us to move our forecast closer to our June forecast. We expect Brent to average $70/bbl in 2H21, with 2022 and 2023 averaging $74 and $80/bbl (Chart of the Week). Feature The deal concluded by OPEC 2.0 over the weekend will do more than add 400k b/d of spare capacity to the market every month beginning next month. It also does more than preserve the producer coalition's successful production-management strategy.  The big take-away from the deal is the clear message being sent by the coalition's core members – KSA, Russia, Iraq, UAE and Kuwait – that they are able to significantly increase output after their 5.8mm b/d of spare capacity has been returned to the market over the next year or so. It does so by raising the baselines of the core producers starting in May 2022, clearly indicating the capacity and willingness to raise output and keep it there (Table 1). Table 1Baseline Increases For Core OPEC 2.0 What OPEC 2.0's Deal Signals Internally, the deal is meant to recognize the investment made by the UAE in particular, which was not being accounted for in its current baseline. Externally – i.e., to competitors outside the coalition – the deal signals OPEC 2.0's successful production management strategy will continue, by raising the likelihood the coalition will remain intact. This has kept the level of supply below demand over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic (Chart 2), and is responsible for the global decline in inventories (Chart 3). Chart 2OPEC 2.0 Durability Increases Chart 3Inventories Will Remain Under Control Specifically, the massive spare capacity still to be returned to the market between now and 2H22 can be accomplished with minimal risk of a market-share war breaking out among the core OPEC 2.0 members seeking to monetize their off-the-market production before the other members of the coalition. Most importantly, the revised benchmark production levels that becomes effective May 2022 signal the coalition members with the capacity to increase production can do so. Longer-Term Forward Guidance We assume the revised production baselines for core OPEC 2.0 effective May 2022 reflect the coalition's demand expectations from 2H22 onward. Our modeling indicates core OPEC 2.0's output will approach the revised baseline reference levels of 34.3mm b/d, hitting 33.4mm b/d for crude and liquids output by 2H23 (Table 2).  Table 2BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) To Dec23 This implies the core group expects to be able to cover production declines within the coalition and to meet demand increases going forward. The estimates are far enough into the future to prepare ahead of time to increase production. Our estimates for core OPEC 2.0 production reflects our assumption the revised baseline levels do reflect demand expectations of the coalition. In estimating the coalition's production, we rely on historical data from the US EIA, which allows us to estimate future production using regressors we consider reliable (e.g., GDP estimates from the IMF and World Bank).  Non-OPEC 2.0 Production We use EIA historical data for non-OPEC 2.0 production as well. In last week’s balances, we substituted the EIA's estimates for non-OPEC 2.0 producers ex-US for our estimates, which resulted in lower supply numbers throughout our forecast sample.  This threw off our balances estimates in particular, as we did not balance the decrease in supply from this group using the new data set with an increase from another group. We corrected this oversight this week: We will continue to use EIA estimates for non-OPEC 2.0 ex-US countries, but will balance the decrease in oil production from this cohort with increased supply from other countries. Chart 4US Shales Are The Marginal Barrel For US oil production, we will continue to estimate it as a function of WTI price levels, the forward curve and financial variables – chiefly high-yield rates, which serve as a good proxy for borrowing costs for the marginal US shale producer, which we view as the quintessential marginal producer in the global price-taking cohort (Chart 4). Our research indicates US shale producers – like all producers, for that matter – are prioritizing shareholder interests first and foremost. This means they will focus on profitability and margins. While we have observed this tendency for some time, it appears it is gaining speed, as oil and gas producers are now considering whether they want to retain their existing exposure to their hydrocarbon assets.2   There appears to be a reluctance among resource producers generally – this is true in copper, as we have noted – to substantially increase capex. This could be the result of covid uncertainty, demand uncertainty, monetary-policy uncertainty or a real attempt to provide competitive returns. We think it is a combination of all of these, but the picture is clouded by the difficulty in separating all of these uncertainties. Income Drives Oil Demand Chart 5Income Drives Oil Demand Our demand estimates will continue to be driven by estimates of GDP from the IMF and the World Bank. We have found the level of oil consumption is highly correlated with GDP, particularly for EM states (Chart 5). Holding our demand estimates constant from last week, our revised supply expectations prompt us to move our forecast closer to our June forecast.  This week, we also will adjust our inventory calculations, which will rely less on EIA estimates of OECD stocks. In the recent past, these estimates played a sizeable role in our forecasts. From this month on, they will play a smaller part. This is why, even though our supply estimates have risen from last week, there is not a significant change to our inventory levels. Investment Implications Holding our demand estimates constant from last week, our revised supply expectations prompt us to move our forecast closer to our June forecast. We expect Brent to average $70/bbl in 2H21, with 2022 and 2023 averaging $74 and $80/bbl. We remain bullish commodities in general, given the continued tightness in these markets. We expect this to persist, as capex remains elusive in oil, gas and metals markets. This underpins our long S&P GSCI and COMT ETF commodity recommendations, and our long MSCI Global Metals & Mining Producers ETF (PICK) recommendation.   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 US natural gas exports via pipeline to Mexico averaged just under 7 bcf/d in June, according to the EIA. Exports hit a record high of 7.4 bcf/d on 24 June 2021. The record high for the month was 7.4 Bcf/d on June 24. The EIA attributes the higher exports to increases in industrial and power demand, and high temperatures, which are driving air-conditioning demand south of the US border. Close to 5 bcf/d of the imported gas is used to generate power, according to the EIA. This was up close to 20% y/y. Increases in gas-pipeline infrastructure are allowing more gas to flow to Mexico from the US. Base Metals: Bullish China reportedly will be selling additional copper from its strategic stockpiles later this month, in an effort to cool the market. According to reuters.com, market participants expect China to auction 20k MT of Copper on 29 July 2021. This will bring total sales via auction to 50k MT, as the government earlier this month sold 30k MT at $10,500/MT (~ $4.76/lb). Prior to and since that first auction, copper has been trading on either side of $4.30/lb (Chart 6). Market participants expected a higher volume than the numbers being discussed as we went to press. In addition to auctioning copper, the government reportedly will auction other base metals. Precious Metals: Bullish Interest rates on 10-year inflation-linked bonds remain below -1%, as U.S. CPI inflation rises. US 10-year treasury yields have rebounded since sinking to a five-month low at the beginning of this week. The positive effect of negative real interest rates on gold is being balanced by a rising USD (Chart 7). Safe-haven demand for the greenback is being supported by uncertainty caused by COVID-19’s Delta variant. Gold prices are still volatile after the Fed’s ‘dot shock’ in mid-June.3 This volatility is reducing safe-haven demand for the yellow metal despite rising economic and policy uncertainty. Ags/Softs: Neutral Hot, dry weather is expected over most of the grain-growing regions of the US for the balance of July, which will continue to support prices, according to Farm Futures. Chart 6Copper Prices Going Down Chart 7Weaker USD Supports Gold   Footnotes 1Please see 19th "OPEC and non-OPEC Ministerial Meeting concludes" published by OPEC 18 July 2021. 2Please see "BHP said to seek an exit from its petroleum business" published by worldoil.com July 20, 2021.  3Please refer to ‘“Dot Shock” Continues To Roil Gold; Oil…Not So Much’, which we published on  July 1, 2021 for additional discussion. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed In 2021 Summary of Trades Closed

Weekly Performance Update For the week ending Thu Jul 15, 2021 The Market Monitor displays the trailing 1-quarter performance of strategies based around the BCA Score. For each region, we construct an equal-weighted, monthly rebalanced portfolio consisting of the top 3 stocks per sector and compare it with the regional benchmark. For each portfolio, we show the weekly performance of individual holdings in the Top Contributors/Detractors table. In addition, the Top Prospects table shows the holdings that currently have the highest BCA Score within the portfolio. For more details, click the region headers below to be redirected to the full historical backtest for the strategy. BCA US Portfolio Total Weekly Return BCA US Portfolio S&P500 TRI 0.73% 0.92% Top Contributors   TX:US ESGR:US AN:US ANAT:US PSB:US Weekly Return 31 bps 27 bps 17 bps 13 bps 7 bps Top Detractors   DELL:US ET:US SIG:US LPX:US ENBL:US Weekly Return -16 bps -16 bps -14 bps -14 bps -13 bps Top Prospects   ESGR:US MPLX:US ANAT:US BRK.A:US TX:US BCA Score 98.82% 95.52% 95.26% 94.88% 94.47% BCA Canada Portfolio Total Weekly Return BCA Canada Portfolio S&P/TSX TRI -0.92% 0.61% Top Contributors   CS:CA RUS:CA GIB.A:CA NWH.UN:CA CSU:CA Weekly Return 18 bps 10 bps 7 bps 5 bps 5 bps Top Detractors   CFP:CA IFP:CA BB:CA WEED:CA CRON:CA Weekly Return -34 bps -30 bps -23 bps -17 bps -14 bps Top Prospects   LNF:CA IFP:CA CFP:CA CS:CA LNR:CA BCA Score 99.21% 99.11% 97.65% 96.46% 95.82% BCA UK Portfolio Total Weekly Return BCA UK Portfolio FTSE 100 TRI 0.42% -0.27% Top Contributors   TUNE:GB SVST:GB NLMK:GB AGRO:GB MNOD:GB Weekly Return 34 bps 26 bps 22 bps 20 bps 18 bps Top Detractors   HFD:GB FDEV:GB DEC:GB PZC:GB NVTK:GB Weekly Return -25 bps -18 bps -16 bps -14 bps -12 bps Top Prospects   SVST:GB NLMK:GB GLTR:GB ROSN:GB GROW:GB BCA Score 98.36% 97.66% 95.92% 95.79% 93.68% BCA Eurozone Portfolio Total Weekly Return BCA EMU Portfolio MSCI EMU TRI -0.27% 1.28% Top Contributors   APAM:NL POST:AT ATS:AT SOLV:BE US:IT Weekly Return 18 bps 11 bps 7 bps 6 bps 6 bps Top Detractors   CNV:FR ROTH:FR PHA:FR GTT:FR REY:IT Weekly Return -33 bps -11 bps -9 bps -8 bps -8 bps Top Prospects   STR:AT FDJ:FR ROTH:FR SOLV:BE TESB:BE BCA Score 99.81% 98.29% 97.59% 97.45% 97.16% BCA Japan Portfolio Total Weekly Return BCA Japan Portfolio TOPIX TRI 1.70% 1.00% Top Contributors   7994:JP 9543:JP 6960:JP 8133:JP 8630:JP Weekly Return 20 bps 19 bps 17 bps 13 bps 12 bps Top Detractors   8117:JP 8979:JP 3468:JP 3539:JP 4326:JP Weekly Return -17 bps -4 bps -3 bps -2 bps -0 bps Top Prospects   4966:JP 8117:JP 6960:JP 9436:JP 8133:JP BCA Score 99.95% 98.90% 98.70% 98.13% 97.70% BCA Hong Kong Portfolio Total Weekly Return BCA Hong Kong Portfolio Hang Seng TRI 1.03% 3.11% Top Contributors   2877:HK 3600:HK 1898:HK 323:HK 148:HK Weekly Return 64 bps 54 bps 31 bps 25 bps 24 bps Top Detractors   1919:HK 316:HK 329:HK 43:HK 990:HK Weekly Return -56 bps -51 bps -40 bps -29 bps -25 bps Top Prospects   1277:HK 98:HK 857:HK 1606:HK 990:HK BCA Score 99.86% 99.31% 99.04% 98.80% 98.67% BCA Australia Portfolio Total Weekly Return BCA Australia Portfolio S&P/ASX All Ord. TRI 0.42% 0.02% Top Contributors   GRR:AU RUL:AU JLG:AU AST:AU SDG:AU Weekly Return 50 bps 22 bps 18 bps 10 bps 8 bps Top Detractors   TLX:AU NEW:AU PSQ:AU CVW:AU SGF:AU Weekly Return -22 bps -18 bps -17 bps -16 bps -13 bps Top Prospects   BSE:AU BFG:AU GRR:AU AGI:AU SGF:AU BCA Score 98.77% 98.47% 98.41% 98.34% 97.32%

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

Weekly Performance Update For the week ending Thu Jul 08, 2021 The Market Monitor displays the trailing 1-quarter performance of strategies based around the BCA Score. For each region, we construct an equal-weighted, monthly rebalanced portfolio consisting of the top 3 stocks per sector and compare it with the regional benchmark. For each portfolio, we show the weekly performance of individual holdings in the Top Contributors/Detractors table. In addition, the Top Prospects table shows the holdings that currently have the highest BCA Score within the portfolio. For more details, click the region headers below to be redirected to the full historical backtest for the strategy. BCA US Portfolio Total Weekly Return BCA US Portfolio S&P500 TRI -1.33% 0.06% Top Contributors   TX:US IT:US PSA:US TGT:US GOOG.L:US Weekly Return 15 bps 7 bps 7 bps 6 bps 6 bps Top Detractors   SIG:US WES:US MTZ:US SEM:US LPX:US Weekly Return -22 bps -16 bps -15 bps -14 bps -13 bps Top Prospects   ESGR:US MPLX:US ANAT:US TX:US BRK.A:US BCA Score 98.48% 97.38% 96.24% 94.71% 94.62% BCA Canada Portfolio Total Weekly Return BCA Canada Portfolio S&P/TSX TRI -0.62% -0.43% Top Contributors   WIR.UN:CA EMP.A:CA SMU.UN:CA NWC:CA H:CA Weekly Return 8 bps 8 bps 8 bps 7 bps 5 bps Top Detractors   WEED:CA CRON:CA IMO:CA LNR:CA BB:CA Weekly Return -26 bps -17 bps -17 bps -13 bps -13 bps Top Prospects   LNF:CA CS:CA IFP:CA RUS:CA NWC:CA BCA Score 99.30% 99.18% 98.93% 98.46% 96.93% BCA UK Portfolio Total Weekly Return BCA UK Portfolio FTSE 100 TRI -0.37% -1.25% Top Contributors   PZC:GB OXIG:GB SRE:GB BYG:GB FDM:GB Weekly Return 22 bps 16 bps 16 bps 14 bps 9 bps Top Detractors   SPI:GB HFD:GB DEC:GB NFC:GB NVTK:GB Weekly Return -28 bps -26 bps -11 bps -10 bps -9 bps Top Prospects   SVST:GB NLMK:GB GROW:GB GLTR:GB MNOD:GB BCA Score 99.78% 99.55% 98.11% 98.07% 95.26% BCA Eurozone Portfolio Total Weekly Return BCA EMU Portfolio MSCI EMU TRI -0.37% -1.66% Top Contributors   ALTA:FR MONT:BE ATS:AT PHA:FR LOUP:FR Weekly Return 27 bps 20 bps 12 bps 5 bps 4 bps Top Detractors   OMV:AT BB:FR US:IT TESB:BE CNV:FR Weekly Return -17 bps -16 bps -15 bps -12 bps -10 bps Top Prospects   STR:AT SOLV:BE FDJ:FR TESB:BE ROTH:FR BCA Score 99.79% 98.01% 97.87% 97.25% 96.82% BCA Japan Portfolio Total Weekly Return BCA Japan Portfolio TOPIX TRI -0.31% -0.97% Top Contributors   6960:JP 8979:JP 9543:JP 4694:JP 3468:JP Weekly Return 17 bps 10 bps 9 bps 8 bps 7 bps Top Detractors   8595:JP 3291:JP 3539:JP 7593:JP 4966:JP Weekly Return -33 bps -15 bps -9 bps -8 bps -8 bps Top Prospects   4966:JP 8133:JP 3291:JP 6960:JP 8117:JP BCA Score 99.91% 99.20% 98.35% 97.57% 97.49% BCA Hong Kong Portfolio Total Weekly Return BCA Hong Kong Portfolio Hang Seng TRI -2.28% -5.43% Top Contributors   990:HK 856:HK 215:HK 43:HK 2380:HK Weekly Return 33 bps 26 bps 18 bps 7 bps 4 bps Top Detractors   3600:HK 6100:HK 329:HK 857:HK 468:HK Weekly Return -29 bps -27 bps -24 bps -22 bps -22 bps Top Prospects   1277:HK 1839:HK 98:HK 2232:HK 857:HK BCA Score 99.98% 99.35% 99.32% 99.19% 98.85% BCA Australia Portfolio Total Weekly Return BCA Australia Portfolio S&P/ASX All Ord. TRI 0.12% 0.98% Top Contributors   GRR:AU ZIM:AU YAL:AU NHC:AU PSQ:AU Weekly Return 72 bps 23 bps 22 bps 11 bps 10 bps Top Detractors   FLN:AU NEC:AU BLX:AU RIC:AU TLX:AU Weekly Return -38 bps -27 bps -23 bps -17 bps -15 bps Top Prospects   BFG:AU AGI:AU BSE:AU ZIM:AU JLG:AU BCA Score 99.07% 99.04% 98.90% 97.03% 97.01%

Special Report

Highlights Complementing the US Political Strategy Quantitative Presidential Election Model, we introduce our revised Quantitative Senate Election Model. Our senate election model measures the probability of the incumbent party (Democratic Party) to retain the Senate in the 2022 midterm election. The model predicts that Democrats are slightly favored to retain control of the Senate, though it is too early to call, which in combination with the high likelihood that the GOP will retake the House, points to a US political gridlock from 2023 to 2025. The “Blue Sweep” policy setting will end as early as the end of the year as Democrats pass Biden’s signature legislation. Post-midterm gridlock implies that taxes unlikely to rise further from 2023 while spending will not be subjected to cuts. While markets will not be alarmed if growth keeps up, near term surprises from potential tax hikes, rate hikes, and China’s slowdown warrants a more defensive positioning. Feature 2020 was not only the year of a highly contested US Presidential election, but also a close-knit battle for control of the US Senate, which had 351 seats up for reelection. The Republican party initially retained control of the Senate at the start of 2021 and the 117th congress, but this was short-lived. The Democrats secured victories in both run-off triggered Senate races in the state of Georgia, putting them at an even 50-50 hold with Republicans in the Senate. The inauguration of Vice President Kamala Harris who too became the Senate President, was the tie breaker the Democrats needed to take control of the Senate, and ultimately secure a “blue sweep” of holding the House of Representatives, the Senate and the White House. We recently introduced BCA US Political Strategy readers to our quantitative presidential election model. If you have not yet read it, you can access it here. In this week’s report we introduce our US Political Strategy Senate election model. We acknowledged that it was still early days in the presidential election cycle when we published our presidential election model but there were however some interesting takeaways from an early model forecast. For control of the Senate, however, the cycle is much shorter, with voting of one third of the Senate taking place every two years. The mid-term elections of 2022 are not that far-out, and with 34 seats up for reelection, we believe that introducing our readers to our Senate election model now will start to provide valuable insight going forward. Like our presidential election model, our Senate election model is a state-by-state model that uses both economic and political variables to predict the number of seats the incumbent party will win in the 2022 Senate election. Our Senate model covers a large sample size, consisting of 19 Senate elections (1984 to 2020), across 50 states, amounting to 950 observations. The Six Variables Our Senate model is based off a Probit regression that produces a probability that each state will remain under the control of the incumbent party. The dependent variable (classified as “elected”) is stated as follows: 1 = Incumbent party wins the Senate election in each state; or 0 = Incumbent party did not win the Senate election in each state. This method allows us to measure the probability that a state with certain characteristics will fall into one of two categories above. We can then predict the probability of the incumbent party winning all the Senate seat/s in each of the 50 states (although this is only relevant to one-third of the states that have a Senate seat up for election in 2022). State economic health. Specifically, we use the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia State Coincident Index for each of the 50 states. The coincident index combines four of a given state’s economic indicators to summarize current economic conditions in a single statistic. The four indicators are nonfarm payroll employment; average hours worked in manufacturing by production workers; the unemployment rate; and wage and salary disbursements plus proprietors' income deflated by the consumer price index (US city average). In other words, it captures job growth, manufacturing wages, joblessness, and real household income. The incumbent party’s margin of victory in previous Senate elections in each state Senate race. This is measured as the incumbent party’s share of the popular vote minus the non-incumbent party’s share. If the incumbent party failed to secure a solid win in each state in the previous Senate election, the probability of securing a solid win in the current election becomes smaller. Moreover, the larger the margin of victory in a previous Senate election race, the more likely that incumbent party will win re-election in said state. Net average approval level of the incumbent president in a Senate election year. This is the difference between the incumbent president’s approval and disapproval level in a Senate election year, from the start of the year up until the end of October of that year – taken as an average. Generic congressional ballot (net support rate). The generic congressional ballot asks people which party they are likely to vote for in Congress. We take the average net support rate in a Senate election year (that being whichever party leads the other in congressional ballot polling). Democrats are usually favored in congressional generic ballot voting, so the net rate is more predictive than the gross rate Dummy variable for congressional ballot. A dummy variable is assigned to variable number four. For example, dummy takes the value of 1 when Democrats have a positive net support rate in generic congressional ballot voting, and 0 when Republicans have a net positive support rate. We assign only one dummy variable to avoid a dummy variable trap.2 A “time for change” variable, a categorical variable indicating whether the incumbent party has controlled the Senate for three or more terms (six or more years). If the Senate has been controlled for three or more terms, the model will “punish” the incumbent party, as we would expect to see a change in control of the Senate the longer one incumbent party controls it. Democrats Retain Control Of The Senate As it stands, our election model predicts that Democrats will retain control of the Senate in 2022 (Chart 1). The Democrats are predicted to win 49 seats, a gain of one seat over the 2020 Senate election outcome,3 and when coupled with the two seats of Independent Senators, give them a majority of 51 seats. Chart 1Quant Model Gives Democrats 54% Chance Of Retaining The Senate The additional seat for Democrats stems from our model allocating both North Carolina and Pennsylvania (which are currently occupied by Republicans) to the Democrats (+ two seats) and allocating one of Georgia’s seats occupied by Raphael Warnock4 back to Republican control. The Democrats overall probability of retaining control of the Senate is 54%, three percentage points higher than early market predictions (Chart 2). The market implied odds highlight another close battle between Democrats and Republicans to control the Senate in 2022. Chart 2Market Narrowly In Favor Of Democratic Senate Control North Carolina is the only toss-up state,5 with a 51% chance of a Democratic victory. Pennsylvania will switch to Democrats and Georgia to Republicans. Note that North Carolina and Pennsylvania are both currently under Republican control. Both incumbents have decided not to run again. While both Georgia Senate run-off races were won by Democrats earlier this year, the sum of first-round voting in November 2020 was higher for Republican candidates than for Democrats. There was also extra-ordinary voter turnout in favor of Democrats for both run-offs, which ultimately played a big role in Democrats securing victory. Voter turnout was largely spurred on by voting against Republicans, and ultimately Donald Trump. This may not be the case come 2022, if turnout for Democrats is unmatched to 2020/2021. Our model’s prediction will evolve over time as new data become available, which could produce more toss-up states, or swing the prediction in favor of the opposing party. For now, the model provides us with a preliminary prediction as we draw nearer to the 2022 midterm elections. Senate Races Of Interest Comparing our model’s prediction to online betting markets, we group nine races into a category of “interest”. All nine races have varying degrees of probability for a Democratic win, ranging from approximately 30% to 60%. Five races are overestimated, and four races are underestimated by consensus (Chart 3). The remaining 25 races are decidedly in favor of either Democrat or Republican control, according to our model, so are therefore excluded from this analysis. Betting markets are overestimating Nevada, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Wisconsin, while underestimating New Hampshire, North Carolina, Florida and Ohio. Chart 3Senate Odds Compared With The Bookies All nine of these races are precariously balanced, even at this stage of the mid-term election cycle. Small or local factors could ultimately decide the outcome. This is an important limitation on our macro model, highlighting our ultimate emphasis on qualitative analysis. For example, it is not at all clear that Democrats will win Georgia. Our model gives Democrats a 43% chance of victory. Betting markets are a lot more optimistic, penning a 55% chance of a Democratic win. But even by our model’s standard, Georgia remains a toss-up. Georgia may not be as close of a race as it was in 2020/2021, if voters are not as motivated as they were to vote Democrat. Will turnout be as large in 2022? That remains to be seen. One or two races with unique makeup can contribute to maintaining or shifting the balance of power in the Senate come 2022. Back Testing Our Model Our Senate model performs at an acceptable level during in-sample and out-sample back testing. For in-sample testing, we test our model over our entire sample period (1984 – 2020) and find that 74% of Senate elections (control of the Senate) are correctly predicted, with the model predicting the outcome of the last five Senate elections correctly (Chart 4). Chart 4In-Sample Back Testing Results During out-sample back testing, we look at a sample period of 2000 – 2020, comprising of 11 Senate elections, where our model correctly predicts 73% of actual outcomes. The previous five Senate elections are predicted correctly too (Chart 5). Chart 5Out-Sample Back Testing Results In comparison to our presidential election model, prediction accuracy of our Senate model is lower across its sample period. Predicting control of the Senate can sometimes be more uncertain than that of the White House. Both statistical and event based (Senate elections) reasons give way to a lower accuracy rate in this case. For example, there could be several idiosyncratic state-level variables not captured by our model, which could have played a leading role in determining any one state’s Senate election outcome over our sample period, and ultimately, control of the Senate. Where To From Here? In comparison to the presidential election cycle, we are a lot closer to election day. That means that Senate races will begin to heat up as we move closer toward November 8, 2022 – the date of the midterm elections. For now, our model ratifies the current control of the Senate, that is, Democratic. Our Model also suggests that come 2022, the Democrats will retain control of the Senate. But this is all but an early forecast. If any long-standing conclusion can be drawn right now, it is that the battle for control of the Senate in 2022 will be highly contested. From a qualitative point of view, our model may be overestimating the Democrats’ odds in 2022 as things stand today. Midterm elections have historically seen the sitting president’s party lose seats in the Senate and House of Representatives. We already expect Republicans to retake the House after a poor showing by Democrats in 2020. This narrative may play into the Republicans taking the Senate too – and is plausible given how closely the battle for the Senate is wound. But congressional approval has ticked higher lately under a Democratic run congress (Chart 6). Most likely, the American public have largely approved of COVID-19 government relief, and the Democrats will pass at least one more major piece of legislation covering infrastructure. Republicans are deeply divided, so there is some chance that they underperform in 2022. Nevertheless, the historical pattern clearly favors the opposition. The takeaway is to expect the GOP to retake the house but to monitor the Senate closely with both quantitative and qualitative tools. Chart 6US Public Approving Of Congress ?!? Lastly, and importantly, we should note that in both the case of the presidential and Senate models, a probability between 50% and 55% for the incumbent party retaining control of the White House or Senate is indicative of an outcome “too close to call.” Both models are touting Democratic wins, but high conviction views about either the 2024 presidential election or 2022 Senate election are not warranted at this time. Investment Takeaway Unless 2022 is one of the rare cases of an incumbent party legislative victory after a national shock, like 1934 and 2002, Republicans will take the House at least. This is likely notwithstanding our model’s slight tilt in favor of Democrats in the Senate. This means that the “Blue Sweep” policy setting will cease as early as 2023, but de facto it would cease as early as the end of this year when Biden’s signature legislation is passed, since Congress will get little done in 2022. Our model suggests Republicans are slightly disfavored in the Senate. The truth is that as long as they gain one chamber of the legislature then US fiscal stimulus will virtually freeze. Taxes will no longer be able to rise from 2023 but spending will not be subject to cuts. Gridlock is reinforced by our presidential quant election model’s slightly higher odds of Democrats retaining the White House, which we think is underestimated at present. Hence Biden will retain veto power even if Democrats squander the Senate and House in 2022. Gridlock is thus looming from 2023 until at least 2025. The financial markets will not be alarmed by this forecast as long as growth keeps up. In the very near term, however, the clouds on the horizon of tax hikes, Fed rate hikes, and China’s tight-fisted economic policy pose rising headwinds to US equities in 2022 — and hence markets should respond negatively sooner than later. We are tactically growing more defensive.   Guy Russell Research Analyst GuyR@bcaresearch.com   Statistical Appendix Some clients may be curious as to how our US Political Strategy Senate election model differs from our Geopolitical Strategy model used in the 2020 elections, and where it has made improvements in its predictive accuracy. We discuss these improvements herein. Changes To The Geopolitical Strategy Senate Election Model A notable property in our dependent variable data requires a brief discussion. Our dependent variable classified as “elected” takes the form of a binary outcome. This data, however, is what’s called “unbalanced,” since incumbent Senators are re-elected approximately 80% of the time. This means that most outcomes in our dependent variable are coded as “1,” with fewer “0’s” because of the strong incumbency effect in Senate races. There are many data sets that exhibit this type of property, such as events like wars, vetoes, cases of political activism, or epidemiological infections, where non-events occur rarely. To alleviate this statistical property in the data, we estimate our model using a weighted maximum likelihood estimate as opposed to the ordinary maximum likelihood estimate usually used in a Probit regression.6 This method assigns more weighting to the unbalanced data, or what is known theoretically as “rare event” data, to aid the Probit regression in assigning higher probabilities to “0” outcomes. Through this process, we effectively deal with our unbalanced dependent variable data. The last update to the BCA Geopolitical Strategy Senate election model was published on January 6, 2021. Our model suggested that Republican’s would retain control of the Senate. Our model was limited in dealing with a unique twin Georgia run-off race that ultimately swung Senate control into the hands of the Democrats. The Geopolitical Strategy, which we will refer to as the 2020 model, only missed the Republican victory in Maine, but correctly predicted losses in Arizona and Colorado. The model missed both Georgia races, signaling they would remain red states – this was proven otherwise. Also, our model has become a better predictor in terms of in and out-sample forecasting (compared to our 2020 model). The 2022 version correctly predicts 74% (vs 72%) of in-sample and 73% (vs 70%) of out-sample outcomes. Methodology And Variables Our Senate model retains the methodology and suite of economic and political variables used in the model we first introduced in 2020. For long-time clients and those who are new to the US Political Strategy and Geopolitical Strategy service, the first version of our model can be found here. The one and only economic variable is now transformed by a six-month change to each state’s coincident index, capturing the improvement or deterioration of the state’s economy. The six-month change results in the best statistical fit for the overall model this time round. In the 2020 model, we transformed the variable by a three-month change. A fast-changing economic environment coupled with a then-higher statistical impact in our model led us to this decision. We still weight the transformation of our economic variable in the same manner as we did in last year’s updated model. We take a weighted average of the six-month change of all the monthly state coincident indices in the term preceding a Senate election. Later months are weighted heavier than earlier months as the most recent context will have a greater impact on voter opinion in the election. In terms of our political variables, they all remain the same as the 2020 model. Model Performance Classification The 2022 model correctly classifies predicted outcomes at a rate of exactly 81%. That is, when the model makes a prediction of a certain state’s Senate election outcome from 1984-2020, it is correct 81% of the time. This level of classification is higher than our 2020 model, which classified outcomes at a rate of 79% (Table 1). Table 1New Model Classifies Outcomes At A Higher Rate … Sensitivity And Specificity – Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve A Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve is a performance measurement for classification problems of binary modelled outcomes, among others. An ROC curve tells us how much the model is capable of distinguishing between classes. In our case, we have two classes: the dependent variable (classified as “elected”) is stated as 1 = Incumbent party wins the Senate election in each state; or 0 = Incumbent party did not win the Senate election in each state. The higher the area under the curve (AUC), the better our model is at predicting 0 classes as 0 and 1 classes as 1. A robust model has an AUC near to one. A poor model has an AUC near to zero, which means it has the worst measure of classifying classes correctly, labelling zeros as ones and vice versa. In fact, at a level of zero AUC, the model is reciprocating incorrect classes by predicting zeros as ones and ones as zeros. Statistically, more AUC means that the model is identifying more true positives while minimizing the number/percent of false positives. Chart 7Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve Of 2022 Model Table 2… Is A Better Fit … The ROC curve for our 2022 model has an AUC of 0.9609 (Chart 7), a higher AUC than our 2020 model (Table 2). This means that the true positive rate for classifying outcomes is high and the false positive rate is low, improving on our model’s robustness. F1 Scores A final grading of the 2022 model is by means of the F1 score. The F1 score is a measurement that considers both precision (specificity in the above ROC curve) and recall (sensitivity in the above ROC curve) to compute the score. The F1 score can be interpreted as a weighted average of the precision and recall values, where an F1 score reaches its best value at 1 and worst value at 0. The 2022 model produces a higher F1 score compared to our 2020 model (Table 3). Table 3… And Is More Accurate Than The 2020 Model Considering the improvement in forecast accuracy and overall better model specification over our 2020 model, we accept our 2022 model as our new base case Senate election model, premised on its improvement in accuracy at predicting election outcomes in the past, as well as its ability to correctly classify outcomes as they were realized. Appendix Tables Table A1USPS Trade Table Table A2Political Risk Matrix Chart A1Presidential Election Model Table A3APolitical Capital: White House And Congress Table A3BPolitical Capital: Household And Business Sentiment Table A3CPolitical Capital: The Economy And MarketsTable A4Political Capital Index Footnotes 1     Two of which were open Senate seats for the state of Georgia. 2     A dummy variable trap is a scenario in which the independent variables are multicollinear — a scenario in which two or more variables are highly correlated; or, in simple terms, in which one variable can be predicted from the others. To avoid such a trap, we must exclude one of the categorical variables. Since there are two categorical variables that can be represented here (Republican or Democrat), we use k-1 (where k = the number of categorical variables). 3    In reference to the Senate election outcome after the Georgia run-off races which concluded in early January 2021. 4    This seat formed part of the 2020 special Senate election race which was decided by a run-off election between Raphael Warnock and Kelly Loeffler. The seat was always up for reelection in 2022 no matter which party won it in the 2020 special election. 5    Toss-ups are defined as having a probability between 45% and 55% according to our model. 6    Weighted maximum likelihood estimation is a reasonable approach in dealing with dependent variables that show significant imbalance in their data set. See: King, G. and Zeng, L., 2001. Logistic regression in rare events data. Political analysis, 9(2), pp.137-163.  

Weekly Performance Update For the week ending Thu Jul 01, 2021 The Market Monitor displays the trailing 1-quarter performance of strategies based around the BCA Score. For each region, we construct an equal-weighted, monthly rebalanced portfolio consisting of the top 3 stocks per sector and compare it with the regional benchmark. For each portfolio, we show the weekly performance of individual holdings in the Top Contributors/Detractors table. In addition, the Top Prospects table shows the holdings that currently have the highest BCA Score within the portfolio. For more details, click the region headers below to be redirected to the full historical backtest for the strategy. BCA US Portfolio Total Weekly Return BCA US Portfolio S&P500 TRI 1.13% 1.27% Top Contributors   TX:US AN:US UHAL:US LH:US IT:US Weekly Return 24 bps 18 bps 16 bps 15 bps 13 bps Top Detractors   ENBL:US JLL:US PSB:US ET:US ESGR:US Weekly Return -7 bps -7 bps -6 bps -6 bps -5 bps Top Prospects   ESGR:US ANAT:US MPLX:US BRK.A:US TX:US BCA Score 97.67% 97.62% 97.18% 96.50% 95.46% BCA Canada Portfolio Total Weekly Return BCA Canada Portfolio S&P/TSX TRI -0.24% -0.13% Top Contributors   TOU:CA CCA:CA CS:CA CFP:CA QBR.A:CA Weekly Return 21 bps 19 bps 12 bps 8 bps 6 bps Top Detractors   IMO:CA CRON:CA LNR:CA BB:CA LNF:CA Weekly Return -17 bps -12 bps -10 bps -10 bps -7 bps Top Prospects   LNF:CA CS:CA RUS:CA IFP:CA NWC:CA BCA Score 99.30% 99.16% 98.35% 98.15% 97.74% BCA UK Portfolio Total Weekly Return BCA UK Portfolio FTSE 100 TRI 0.87% 0.23% Top Contributors   NVTK:GB DEC:GB NFC:GB CMCX:GB TUNE:GB Weekly Return 28 bps 21 bps 17 bps 17 bps 16 bps Top Detractors   NLMK:GB FDEV:GB SVST:GB RMG:GB GROW:GB Weekly Return -14 bps -11 bps -7 bps -6 bps -5 bps Top Prospects   SVST:GB NLMK:GB GLTR:GB GROW:GB N91:GB BCA Score 99.74% 99.62% 98.33% 97.69% 95.88% BCA Eurozone Portfolio Total Weekly Return BCA EMU Portfolio MSCI EMU TRI 0.52% -0.67% Top Contributors   TL5:ES STR:AT ROVI:ES TESB:BE CNV:FR Weekly Return 17 bps 13 bps 12 bps 10 bps 9 bps Top Detractors   FDJ:FR FLUX:BE IPN:FR MONT:BE LOUP:FR Weekly Return -14 bps -9 bps -6 bps -6 bps -6 bps Top Prospects   STR:AT CNV:FR FDJ:FR POST:AT LOUP:FR BCA Score 99.56% 98.38% 97.45% 97.13% 96.28% BCA Japan Portfolio Total Weekly Return BCA Japan Portfolio TOPIX TRI 0.80% -0.29% Top Contributors   3468:JP 9543:JP 8595:JP 8979:JP 4326:JP Weekly Return 16 bps 16 bps 12 bps 11 bps 10 bps Top Detractors   3291:JP 9532:JP 5122:JP 4966:JP 6345:JP Weekly Return -11 bps -6 bps -5 bps -5 bps -3 bps Top Prospects   4966:JP 8133:JP 3291:JP 8117:JP 6960:JP BCA Score 99.28% 99.12% 98.82% 98.25% 97.84% BCA Hong Kong Portfolio Total Weekly Return BCA Hong Kong Portfolio Hang Seng TRI 0.08% 0.01% Top Contributors   316:HK 2380:HK 28:HK 1606:HK 2877:HK Weekly Return 41 bps 13 bps 11 bps 10 bps 10 bps Top Detractors   468:HK 1898:HK 3600:HK 1277:HK 98:HK Weekly Return -25 bps -22 bps -11 bps -10 bps -10 bps Top Prospects   1277:HK 98:HK 1839:HK 2232:HK 857:HK BCA Score 99.98% 99.06% 98.97% 98.49% 98.28% BCA Australia Portfolio Total Weekly Return BCA Australia Portfolio S&P/ASX All Ord. TRI 1.10% 0.17% Top Contributors   GRR:AU JLG:AU FLN:AU HVN:AU CAJ:AU Weekly Return 28 bps 27 bps 20 bps 18 bps 17 bps Top Detractors   NEW:AU PSQ:AU ORG:AU NEC:AU NHC:AU Weekly Return -17 bps -12 bps -12 bps -10 bps -9 bps Top Prospects   ZIM:AU BSE:AU AGI:AU BFG:AU PIC:AU BCA Score 98.58% 97.70% 97.27% 96.91% 96.82%

Highlights Gold is – and always will be – exquisitely sensitive to Fed policy and forward guidance, as last month's "Dot Shock" showed (Chart of the Week). Its price will continue to twitch – sometimes violently – as the widening dispersion of views evident in the Fed dots keeps markets on edge and pushes forward rate expectations in different directions. Fed policy is important but will remain secondary to fundamentals in oil markets. Increasingly inelastic supply will force refiners to draw down inventories, which will keep forward curves backwardated. OPEC 2.0's production-management policy is the key driver here, followed closely by shale-oil's capital discipline. Between these market bookends are base metals, which will remain sensitive to Fed policy, but increasingly will be more responsive to tightening supply-demand fundamentals, as the pace of the global renewables and EV buildout challenges supply. The one thing these markets will share going forward is increasing volatility. Gold volatility will remain elevated as markets are forced to parse sometimes-cacophonous Fed forward guidance; oil volatility will increase with steeper backwardation; and base metals volatility will rise as fundamentals continue to tighten. We remain long commodity-index exposure (S&P GSCI and COMT ETF) and equity exposure (PICK ETF). Feature Gold markets still are processing last month's "Dot Shock" – occasioned by the mid-June move of three more Fed bankers' dots into the raise-rates-in-2022 camp at the Fed – and the sometimes-cacophonous forward guidance of post-FOMC meetings accompanying these projections. Following last month's meeting, seven of the 18 central bankers at the June meeting now favor an earlier rate hike. This dot dispersion fuels policy uncertainty. When policy uncertainty is stoked, demand for the USD typically rises, which generally – but not always – contributes to liquidation of dollar-sensitive positions in assets like commodities. This typically leads to higher price volatility.1 This is most apparent in gold, which is and always will be exquisitely sensitive to Fed guidance and the slightest hint of a change in course (or momentum building internally for such a change). This is what markets got immediately after the June meeting. When this guidance reflects a wide dispersion of views inside the Fed, it should come as no surprise that price volatility increases among assets that are most responsive to monetary policy. This dispersion of market expectations – as a matter of course – is intensified by discordant central-bank forward guidance.2 Fundamentals Reduce Oil's Sensitivity To Fed Policy Fed policy will always be important for the evolution of the USD through time, which makes it extremely important for commodities, since the most widely traded commodities are priced in USD. All else equal, an increase in the value of the USD raises the cost of commodities ex-US, and vice versa. Chart of the WeekGold Still Processing Dot Shock Chart 2Oil Market Remains Tight... The USD's impact is dampened when markets are fundamentally tight – e.g., when the level of demand exceeds supply, as is the case presently for oil (Chart 2).3 When this occurs, refiner inventories have to be drawn down to make up for supply deficits (Chart 3). This leads to a backwardation in the oil forward curves – i.e., prices of prompt-delivery oil are higher than deferred-delivery oil – reflecting the fact that the supply curve is becoming increasingly inelastic (Chart 4). This backwardation benefits OPEC 2.0 member states, as most of them have long-term supply contracts with customers indexed to spot prices, and investors who are long commodity-index exposure, as it is the source of the roll yield for these products.4 Chart 3Forcing Inventories To Draw... Chart 4...And Backwardating Forward Curves Copper's Sensitivity To Fed Policy Declining Supply-demand fundamentals in base metals – particularly in the bellwether copper market – are tightening, which, as the oil market illustrates, will make prices in these markets less sensitive to USD pressures going forward (Chart 5). We expect the copper forward curve to remain backwardated for an extended period (Chart 6), which will distance the evolution of copper prices from Fed policy variables (e.g., interest rates and the USD). Chart 5Copper USD Sensitivity Will Diminish As Balances Tighten Chart 6Expect Persistent Backwardation In Copper Indeed, our modeling suggests this already is occurring in the metals markets, as can be seen from the resilience of copper prices during 1H21, when China's fiscal and monetary stimulus was waning and, recently, during the USD's recent rally, which was an unexpected headwind generated by the Fed's June meeting. If, as appears likely, China re-engages in fiscal and monetary stimulus in 2H21, the global demand resurgence for metals, copper in particular, will receive an additional fillip. Like oil, copper inventories will have to be drawn down over the next two years to make up for physical deficits, which have been a persistent problem for years (Chart 7). Capex in copper markets has yet to be incentivized by higher prices, which means these physical deficits likely will widen as the world gears up for expanded renewables generation and the grids required to support them, not to mention higher electric vehicle (EV) demand. If, as we expect, copper miners do not invest in new greenfield mine projects – choosing instead to stay with their brownfield expansion strategies – the market will tighten significantly as the world ramps up its demand for renewable energy. This means copper's supply curve will, like oil's, become increasingly inelastic. At the limit – i.e., if new mining capex is not incentivized – price will be forced to allocate limited supply, and may even have to get to the point of destroying demand to accommodate the renewables buildout. Chart 7Supply-Demand Balance Tightening In Copper A Word On Spec Positioning We revisited our modeling of speculative influence on these markets over the past couple of weeks, in anticipation of the volatility we expect and the almost-certain outcry from public officials that will ensue. Our modeling continues to support our earlier work, which found fundamentals are determinant to the evolution of industrial commodity prices. Using Granger-Causality and econometric analysis, we find prices mostly explain spec positioning in oil and copper, and not the other way around.5 We do find spec positioning – via Working's T Index – to be important to the evolution of volatility in WTI crude oil options, along with other key variables (Chart 8).6 That said, other variables are equally important to this evolution, including the St. Louis Fed's Financial Stress Index, EM equity volatility, VIX volatility and USD volatility. These variables are not useful in modeling copper volatility, where it appears fundamental and financial variables are driving the evolution of prices and, by extension, price volatility. We will continue to research this issue, and will continue to subject our results to repeated trials in an attempt to disprove them, as any researcher would do. Chart 8Oil Volatility Drivers Investment Implications Gold will remain hostage to Fed policy, but oil and base metals increasingly will be charting a path that is independent of policy-related variables, chiefly the USD. There is no escaping the fact that gold volatility will increasingly be in the thrall of US monetary policy – particularly during the next two years as the Fed attempts to guide markets toward something resembling normalization of that policy.7 However, as the events of the most recent FOMC meeting illustrate, gold price volatility will remain elevated as markets are forced to parse oftentimes-cacophonous Fed forward guidance. This would argue in favor of using low-volatility episodes as buying opportunities in gold options – particularly calls, as we continue to expect gold prices to end the year at $2,000/oz. We also favor silver exposure via calls, expecting price to go to $30/oz this year. In oil and base metals, we continue to expect supply-demand fundamentals in these markets to tighten, which predisposes us to favor commodity index products. For this reason, we remain long commodity-index exposure – specifically the S&P GSCI index, which is up 6.8% since inception, and the COMT ETF, which is up 8.7% since inception. We expect the base metals markets to remain very well bid going forward, and remain long equity exposure in these markets via the PICK ETF, which we re-entered after a trailing stop was elected that left us with a 24% gain since inception at the end of last year.   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 US crude oil stocks (ex SPR) fell 6.7mm barrels in the week ended 25 June 2021, according to the US EIA. Total crude and product stocks were down 4.6mm barrels. Domestic crude oil production was unchanged at 11.1mm b/d over the reporting week. Total refined-product demand surpassed the comparable 2019 reporting period, led by higher distillate consumption (4.2mm b/d vs 3.8mm b/d). Gasoline consumption remains a laggard (9.2mm b/d vs 9.5mm b/d), as does jet fuel (1.4mm b/d vs 1.9mm b/d). Propane and propylene demand surged over the period, likely on the back of petchem demand (993k b/d vs 863k b/d). Base Metals: Bullish Base metals prices are moving higher in anticipation of tariffs being imposed by Russia to discourage exports beyond the Eurasian Economic Union, according to argusmedia.com. In addition to export tariffs on copper, aluminum and nickel, steel exports also will face levies to discourage material from leaving the EAEU (Chart 9). The tariffs are expected to remain in place from August through December 2021. Separately, premiums paid for high-quality iron ore in China (65% Fe) reached record highs earlier this week, as steelmakers scramble for supply, according to reuters.com. The premium iron ore traded close to $36/MT over benchmark material (62% Fe) this week. Precious Metals: Bullish Gold prices continue to move lower following the FOMC meeting on June 16. The yellow metal was down 0.6% y-o-y at $1762.80/oz as of Tuesday’s close after being up a little more than 13% y-o-y before the FOMC meeting earlier this month (Chart 10). We believe the USD rally, which, based on earlier research we have done, could be benefitting from safe-haven demand arising from global concern over the so-called Delta variant of COVID-19, which has spread to at least 85 countries. Public-health officials are fearful this could cause a resurgence in COVID-19 cases and additional mutations in the virus if vaccine distribution in EM states is not increased. Ags/Softs: Neutral Widely disparate weather conditions in the US west and east crop regions – drought vs cooler and wetter weather – appear to be on track to produce average crop yields for corn and beans this year, according to agriculture.com's Successful Farming. In regions where hard red spring wheat is grown, states experiencing low rainfall likely will have poor crops this year. Chart 9 Chart 10   Footnotes 1     We model gold prices as a function of financial variables sensitive to Fed policy – e.g., real rates and the broad trade-weighted USD – and uncertainty, which is conveyed via the Global Economic Policy Uncertainty (GEPU) index published by Baker, Bloom & Davis.  2     Please see Lustenberger, Thomas and Enzo Rossib (2017), "Does Central Bank Transparency and Communication Affect Financial and Macroeconomic Forecasts?" SNB Working Papers, 12/2017. The Swiss central bank researchers find "… the verdict about the frequency of central bank communication is unambiguous. More communication produces forecast errors and increases their dispersion. … Stated differently, a central bank that speaks with a cacophony of voices may, in effect, have no voice at all. Thus, speaking less may be beneficial for central banks that want to raise predictability and homogeneity among financial and macroeconomic forecasts. We provide some evidence that this may be particularly true for central banks whose transparency level is already high." (p. 26) 3    Please see OPEC 2.0 Vs. The Fed, published on February 8, 2018, for additional discussion. 4    Please see The Case For A Strategic Allocation To Commodities As An Asset Class, a Special Report we published on March 11, 2021 on commodity-index investing.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 5    The one outlier we found was Brent prices, for which non-commercial short positioning does Granger-Cause price.  Otherwise, price was found to Granger-Cause spec positioning on the long and short sides of the market. 6   Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Specs Back Up The Truck For Oil," published on April 26, 2018, in which we introduce Holbrook Working's "T Index," a measure of speculative concentration in futures and options markets. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Briefly, Working's T Index shows how much speculative positioning exceeds the net demand for hedging from commercial participants in the market. 7     Please see How To Re-Shape The Yield Curve Without Really Trying published by our US Bond Strategy group on June 22 for a deeper discussion of the outlook for Fed policy.   Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2021 Summary of Closed Trades

Weekly Performance Update For the week ending Thu Jun 24, 2021 The Market Monitor displays the trailing 1-quarter performance of strategies based around the BCA Score. For each region, we construct an equal-weighted, monthly rebalanced portfolio consisting of the top 3 stocks per sector and compare it with the regional benchmark. For each portfolio, we show the weekly performance of individual holdings in the Top Contributors/Detractors table. In addition, the Top Prospects table shows the holdings that currently have the highest BCA Score within the portfolio. For more details, click the region headers below to be redirected to the full historical backtest for the strategy. BCA US Portfolio Total Weekly Return BCA US Portfolio S&P500 TRI 1.19% 1.08% Top Contributors   TX:US SCCO:US DE:US UHAL:US TGT:US Weekly Return 28 bps 19 bps 19 bps 17 bps 12 bps Top Detractors   MPLX:US HE:US PEG:US STX:US FLO:US Weekly Return -10 bps -10 bps -9 bps -8 bps -7 bps Top Prospects   BRK.A:US ANAT:US ESGR:US TX:US MPLX:US BCA Score 98.55% 98.15% 97.91% 97.86% 93.55% BCA Canada Portfolio Total Weekly Return BCA Canada Portfolio S&P/TSX TRI 2.34% 0.38% Top Contributors   TOY:CA AUP:CA CS:CA TOU:CA IFP:CA Weekly Return 43 bps 38 bps 36 bps 19 bps 16 bps Top Detractors   EMP.A:CA TCL.A:CA CCA:CA QBR.A:CA ELF:CA Weekly Return -23 bps -7 bps -7 bps -5 bps -3 bps Top Prospects   CS:CA IFP:CA RUS:CA CFP:CA LNF:CA BCA Score 99.28% 98.50% 98.21% 97.43% 97.22% BCA UK Portfolio Total Weekly Return BCA UK Portfolio FTSE 100 TRI 0.23% -0.53% Top Contributors   ROSN:GB CVSG:GB KNOS:GB BIFF:GB NFC:GB Weekly Return 20 bps 14 bps 14 bps 14 bps 14 bps Top Detractors   NLMK:GB DEC:GB BAKK:GB TEP:GB LXI:GB Weekly Return -19 bps -15 bps -15 bps -12 bps -11 bps Top Prospects   SVST:GB NLMK:GB GLTR:GB BPCR:GB RMG:GB BCA Score 99.67% 98.62% 98.47% 95.23% 95.08% BCA Eurozone Portfolio Total Weekly Return BCA EMU Portfolio MSCI EMU TRI -0.86% -0.52% Top Contributors   MMT:FR WUW:DE FSKRS:FI MS:IT UN01:DE Weekly Return 13 bps 13 bps 11 bps 10 bps 9 bps Top Detractors   CNV:FR GTT:FR ADL:DE PHA:FR US:IT Weekly Return -53 bps -19 bps -16 bps -10 bps -8 bps Top Prospects   STR:AT POST:AT CNV:FR SOLV:BE HLAG:DE BCA Score 99.42% 98.85% 98.74% 97.65% 96.86% BCA Japan Portfolio Total Weekly Return BCA Japan Portfolio TOPIX TRI -0.58% -0.84% Top Contributors   7860:JP 6676:JP 7958:JP 8117:JP 5930:JP Weekly Return 13 bps 12 bps 12 bps 9 bps 7 bps Top Detractors   9543:JP 8595:JP 7994:JP 3132:JP 8922:JP Weekly Return -17 bps -17 bps -13 bps -10 bps -8 bps Top Prospects   4966:JP 6345:JP 8133:JP 9543:JP 7994:JP BCA Score 99.33% 98.60% 98.49% 98.45% 98.11% BCA Hong Kong Portfolio Total Weekly Return BCA Hong Kong Portfolio Hang Seng TRI 0.47% 1.23% Top Contributors   990:HK 316:HK 1798:HK 857:HK 1258:HK Weekly Return 121 bps 36 bps 23 bps 21 bps 14 bps Top Detractors   3600:HK 1919:HK 43:HK 743:HK 323:HK Weekly Return -73 bps -28 bps -20 bps -18 bps -12 bps Top Prospects   990:HK 2232:HK 811:HK 1606:HK 323:HK BCA Score 99.11% 98.28% 97.72% 97.55% 97.08% BCA Australia Portfolio Total Weekly Return BCA Australia Portfolio S&P/ASX All Ord. TRI 1.52% -0.80% Top Contributors   AGI:AU GRR:AU RUL:AU CAJ:AU PDN:AU Weekly Return 85 bps 18 bps 16 bps 13 bps 12 bps Top Detractors   STX:AU AST:AU SDG:AU SGF:AU EVT:AU Weekly Return -27 bps -15 bps -15 bps -6 bps -6 bps Top Prospects   PIC:AU GRR:AU AGI:AU SGF:AU BFG:AU BCA Score 98.36% 98.09% 97.54% 96.84% 96.80%

Highlights Entering 2H21, oil and metals' price volatility will rise as inventories are drawn down to cover physical supply deficits brought about by the re-opening of major economies ex-China. As demand increases and oil and metals supply become more inelastic, forward curves will backwardate further.  This will weaken commodity-price correlations with the USD and boost commodity-index returns. Going into next week's OPEC 2.0 meeting, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia likely will hold off on further production increases, until greater clarity around US-Iran negotiations and the return of Iran as a bona fide exporter is available. Chinese authorities will release 100k MT of copper, aluminum and zinc into tight domestic markets in July.  A two-day rally followed the news. Since bottoming in March 2020, the XOP and XME ETFs covering oil and gas producers and metals miners are up ~ 218% and ~ 196%, respectively, following the ~ 230% move in crude oil and the ~ 100% rise copper prices.  Higher volatility will present buying opportunities for these ETFs  (Chart of the Week). We remain long commodity index exposure – S&P GSCI and COMT ETF – expecting steeper backwardations. We will go long the PICK ETF at tonight's close again, after being stopped out last week with a 23.9% return. Feature Heading into 2H21, industrial commodity markets will continue to tighten.  In the case of oil, this is caused by OPEC 2.0's production-management strategy – i.e., keeping supply below demand – and capital discipline among producers in the price-taking cohort.1 Base metals, on the other hand, are tightening because demand is recovering much faster than supply.2 Re-opening of major economies will boost refined-product demand in oil markets – e.g., gasoline and jet fuel – which will leave refiners little choice but to continue drawing on inventories to cover supply shortfalls in the near term (Chart 2). Chart of the WeekResources ETFs Follow Prices Higher Chart 2Refiners Will Continue Drawing Crude Investments Base metals – particularly copper and aluminum – will remain well bid in the face of constrained supply and higher consumption ex-China.  Despite China's widely anticipated decision to release strategic stockpiles of copper, aluminum and zinc next month into a tight domestic market – which we flagged last month – continued inventory draws will be required to cover physical deficits in these markets, particularly in copper (Chart 3).3 Chart 3Copper Inventories Will Draw As Demand Ex-China Rises Chart 4Steeper Backwardation, Higher Volatility Higher Vol On The Way As demand for industrial commodities increases and inventories continue to draw, forward curves will become more backwardated – i.e., material delivered promptly (next day or next week) will command a higher price than commodities delivered next month or next year: Consumers value current supply above deferred supply, and producers and merchants have to charge more to cover inventory replacement costs, which increase when prompt demand outstrips supply. The steepening of forward curves for industrial commodities will lead to higher price volatility in oil and metals markets, particularly copper: Demand will confront increasingly inelastic supply.  In this evolution, prices will be forced to allocate inelastic supply as demand increases.  Sometimes-sharp changes in price are required to equilibrate available supply with demand when this happens.  This can be seen clearly in oil markets, but it holds true for all storable commodities (Chart 4).4 Investment Implications Industrial commodity markets are entering a more volatile phase, which will be characterized by sharp price movements up and down over the short term, as demand continues to outpace supply. Our analysis suggests this is the beginning of a more volatile phase in industrial commodity markets.  The balance of risk in industrial commodity prices will remain to the upside as volatility increases. In the short term, fundamental imbalances can be addressed over a relatively short months-long horizon – i.e., OPEC 2.0 can release spare capacity over a 3-4 month interval to accommodate rising demand – so that price increases do not destroy demand as oil-exporters are rebuilding their fiscal balance sheets. Base metals markets will have a tougher time in the short run finding the supply to meet surging demand, but it can be done over the next year or so without prices getting to the point where demand-destruction sets in. Over the medium to long term, investor-owned oil and gas producers literally are being directed by policymakers, shareholders and courts toward an extended wind-down of production and investment in future production.  Markets have been pricing through just such a situation in the post-COVID-19 world, with OPEC 2.0 managing supply against falling demand and still managing to reduce inventories significantly.  If the world follows the IEA's pathway to a decarbonized future – in which no investment in new oil or gas production is required after 2025 – this will become the status quo for these markets going forward.5 Metals producers, on the other hand, are being encouraged to increase marketable supply at a rapid pace to accommodate demand driven by the build-out of renewable energy – chiefly wind and solar – and the grids that will be required to move this energy. Producers, however, remain reluctant to do so, fearing their capex investment to build out supply will produce physical surpluses that depress returns, similar to the last China-led commodity super-cycle. Supplying the necessary base metals to make this happen will be difficult at best, according to Ivan Glasenberg, CEO at Glencore.  At this week's Qatar Economic Forum, he said copper supply will have to double between now and 2050 to meet expected demand for this critical metal.  “Today, the world consumes 30 million tonnes of copper per year and by the year 2050, following this trajectory, we’ve got to produce 60 million tonnes of copper per year,” he said.  “If you look at the historical past 10 years, we’ve only added 500,000 tonnes per year … Do we have the projects? I don’t think so. I think it will be extremely difficult.”6 The volatility we are expecting in oil, gas and base metals prices, will present buy-the-dip opportunities in related equities vehicles.  Since bottoming in March 2020, the XOP and XME ETFs covering oil and gas producers and metals miners are up ~ 218% and ~ 196%, respectively, matching the ~ 230% move in crude oil and the ~ 100% rise in copper prices.  We remain long commodity index exposure – S&P GSCI, which is up 5.9% and the COMT ETF, which is up 7.6% – expecting steeper backwardations.  The trailing stop on our MSCI Global Metals & Mining Producers ETF (PICK) position recommended 10 December 2020 was elected, which stopped us out with a gain of 23.9%.  We are getting long the PICK again at tonight's close.   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 Commercial crude oil stocks in the US (ex-SPR barrels) fell 7.6mm barrels w/w in the week ended 18 June 2021, according to the US EIA. Including products, US crude and product inventories were down 5.8mm barrels. US domestic crude oil production was down 100k b/d, ending the week at 11.1mm b/d. Overall product supplied, the EIA's proxy for refined-product demand, was up 180k b/d at 20.75mm b/d, which is 129k b/d below 2019 demand for the same period. At 9.44mm b/d, gasoline demand was just below comparable 2019 consumption of 9.47mm b/d, while jet-fuel demand remains severely depressed vs. comparable 2019 consumption at 1.58mm b/d (vs. 1.92mm b/d).  Distillate demand (e.g., diesel fuel) for the week ended 18 June 2021 was 3.95mm b/d vs. 3.97mm b/d for the comparable 2019 period. Base Metals: Bullish Benchmark spot iron ore (62% Fe) prices are holding above $210/MT in trading this week, as demand for the steel input remains strong in China (Chart 5). The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) increased its level of intervention in the iron ore market this week, launching investigations into “malicious speculation,” vowing to “severely punish” anyone found to be engaged in such behavior, according to ft.com.7 Benchmark iron ore prices hit $230/MT in May. We continue to expect exports from Brazil to pick up in 2H21, which will push prices lower in 2H21. Precious Metals: Bullish In the aftermath of last Wednesday’s FOMC meeting gold prices lost nearly $86/oz (Chart 6). Our colleagues at BCA Research's USBS believe markets are paying too much attention to the Fed’s dot plots, and not to the central bank’s verbal guidance.8 Originally, the Fed stated that it will only start raising interest rates once a checklist of three conditions have been met. This checklist includes guidance on actual and expected inflation rates and the labor market. Gold prices did not react to Chair Powell's testimony before the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis. Ags/Softs: Neutral US spring wheat prices are rallying on the back of dry weather in the northern Plains, while forecasts for benign crop weather in the Midwest pressured soybeans lower this week, according to successfulfarming.com. Chart 5 Chart 6     Footnotes 1     Please see our most recent oil price forecasts published last week in Balance Of Risks Tilts To Higher Oil Prices.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2     Please see A Perfect Energy Storm On The Way published on June 3, 2021 for further discussion. 3    Please see Less Metal, More Jawboning published on May 27, 2021, which flagged China's likely decision to release strategic stockpiles of base metals. 4    Chart 4 shows implied volatility as a function of the slope of the forward curve, i.e., the difference between the 1st- and 13th-nearby futures divided by the 1st-nearby future vs implied volatilities for Brent and WTI options.  This modeling extends Kogan et al (2009), mapping realized volatilities calculated using historical settlements of crude oil futures against the slope of crude oil futures conditioned on 6th- vs. 3rd-nearby futures returns (in %). Please see Kogan, L., Livdan, D., & Yaron, A. (2009), "Oil Futures Prices in a Production Economy With Investment Constraints." The Journal of Finance, 64:3, pp. 1345-1375. 5    Please see fn 2's discussion of the IEA's Net Zero by 2050, A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector beginning on p. 5 under The Case For A Carbon Tax. 6    Please see Copper supply needs to double by 2050, Glencore CEO says published on June 23, 2021 by reuters.com.  Of course, being a copper producer with large-scale base-metals projects due to come on line in the next year or so, Mr. Glasenberg could be talking his book, but as Chart 3 shows, copper has been and likely will be in physical deficits for years. 7     Please see China cracks down on iron ore market, published by ft.com on June 21, 2021. 8    Please see How To Re-Shape The Yield Curve Without Really Trying, published on June 22, 2021.   Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2021 Summary of Closed Trades

Special Report

Feature This week, we present the BCA Central Bank Monitor Chartbook, detailing our set of proprietary indicators measuring the cyclical forces influencing future monetary policy decisions in developed market countries. The surging Monitors are all sending a similar message: tighter global monetary policy is necessary because of above-trend economic growth, intensifying inflation pressur­­es and booming financial markets (Charts 1A & 1B). Chart 1ATightening Pressures … Chart 1B… Everywhere The Monitors are pointing to a continuation of the cyclical rise in global bond yields seen since mid-2020, justifying our recommended below-benchmark stance on overall duration exposure in global bond portfolios. The driver of the next leg upward in yields, however, is shifting from growth and inflation expectations to monetary policy expectations. The Fed is starting to slowly prepare markets for the next US tightening cycle, which is already putting flattening pressure on the US Treasury curve and creating more two-way risk for the US dollar over the next 6-12 months. The timing and pace of rate hikes discounted by markets varies across countries, however, creating interesting opportunities for currency pairs, via changing interest rate differentials, away from the US dollar crosses. An Overview Of The BCA Research Central Bank Monitors The BCA Research Central Bank Monitors are composite indicators that include data which have historically been correlated to changes in monetary policy. The economic data series used to construct the Monitors are not the same for every country, but the list of indicators generally measure similar things (i.e. manufacturing cycles, domestic demand strength, commodity prices, labor market conditions, financial conditions). The data series are standardized and combined to form the Monitors. We have constructed Monitors for ten developed market countries: the US, the euro area, the UK, Japan, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, Switzerland and Norway. A rising trend for each Monitor indicates growing pressures for central banks to tighten policy, and vice versa. Within each country, we have aggregated the various data series within the Monitors into sub-groupings covering economic, inflation and financial conditions indicators (equity prices, corporate credit spreads, etc). The latter is critical as policymakers have increasingly realized the importance of financial conditions as a key transmission mechanism of monetary policy to the real economy. The weightings of each bucket vary by country, based on the strength of historical correlations of the Monitors to actual changes in policy interest rates. Disaggregating the Monitors this way offers an additional layer of analysis by helping describe central bank reaction functions (i.e. some central banks respond more strongly to economic growth, others to inflation or financial conditions). Through the nexus between growth, inflation, and market expectations of future interest rate changes, the Monitors do exhibit broad correlations to government bond yields in the major developed markets (Charts 2A & 2B). The Monitors do also exhibit steady correlations to currencies, although not in the same consistent fashion as with bond yields. For example, the Fed Monitor is typically negatively correlated to the US dollar, while the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) Monitor is positively correlated to the Australian dollar. We present charts showing the links between the Monitors and bond yields (and foreign exchange rates) in the individual country sections of this Chartbook. Chart 2AThe Surging CB Monitors …. Chart 2B… Suggest More Upside For Bond Yields In each edition of the Central Bank Monitor Chartbook, we include a “non-standard” chart that shows an interesting correlation between the Monitors and a financial market variable. In this latest report, we show how the relationship between the Monitors and our 24-Month Discounters, which measure that amount of rate hikes/cuts discounted in overnight index swap (OIS) forward curves over the next two years. We have also added a new Appendix Table that shows the so-called “liftoff dates” (the date when a first full rate hike is discounted in OIS curves), the cumulative amount of rate hikes expected to the end of 2024, and the valuation of each country’s currency on a purchasing power parity (PPP) basis. We’ve ranked the countries in the table by liftoff dates, thus providing a handy reference to see how markets are judging the order with which central banks will begin the next monetary policy tightening cycle. Fed Monitor: A Clear Signal Our Fed Monitor has been climbing steadily, uninterrupted, for 13 consecutive months, driven by the combination of strong US growth, sharply higher inflation and booming financial markets (Chart 3A). The message from the highly elevated level of the indicator is clear – the Fed should begin the process of unwinding the massive monetary policy accomodation put in place because of the COVID-19 pandemic. At this week’s FOMC meeting, the Fed delivered a mildly hawkish surprise by pulling forward the projected timing of “liftoff” (the first fed funds rate hike) from 2024 to 2023. The timing and pace of future Fed tapering of asset purchases and rate hikes will be determined by how rapidly the US economy approaches the Fed’s definition of “maximum employment”. We see that happening by the end of 2022, which is a bit ahead of the Fed’s own projections for the unemployment rate. The US OIS curve now discounts liftoff near the end of 2022 (see Appendix Table 1), which is now more in line with our own view that the Fed will begin tapering next January and begin rate hikes in December 20221. US economic growth momentum has likely peaked in Q2, but will remain solid in the latter half of 2021. Most of the nation has lifted the remaining pandemic restrictions on activity after a succesful vaccination program, and fiscal policy is still providing a boost to growth. The Fed’s updated economic projections call for real GDP growth to reach 7% this year, 3.4% in 2022 and 2.4% in 2023. The Fed’s assumption is trend GDP growth is still only 1.8%, thus the central bank now expects three consecutive years of above-trend growth. Unsurprisingly, the Fed is forecasting headline PCE inflation to stay above the Fed’s 2% target for all three years (Chart 3B). Chart 3AUS: Fed Monitor Chart 3BIs This Really 'Transitory' Inflation? The recovery in the Fed Monitor has been led primarily by the growth component, although the inflation and financial components have also risen significantly (Chart 3C). The Fed Monitor has typically been negatively correlated to the momentum of the US dollar, which has always been more of a counter-cyclical currency that weakens in good economic times. A more hawkish path for US interest rates could eventually give a sustainable lift to the greenback, but for now, the currency will be caught in a tug of war between shifting Fed expectations and robust global growth over the next 6-12 months. Chart 3CBooming Growth Supporting USD Weakness We continue to recommend an underweight strategic allocation to US Treasuries within global government bond portfolios, with markets still pricing in a pace of Fed tightening that appears too conservative (Chart 3D). Chart 3DNot Enough Fed Rate Hikes Priced The Fed’s mildly hawkish surprise this week generated a signficant flattening of the US Treasury curve, with the spread between 5-year and 30-year US yields narrowing by a whopping 20bps. We are closing our two recommeded yield curve trades in the BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy tactical trade portfolio, which were positioned more to earn near-term carry in a stable curve environment that has now changed with the Fed injecting volatility back into the bond market. BoE Monitor: More Hawkish Surprises Coming Our Bank of England (BoE) Monitor has spiked higher, fueled by a rapid recovery of UK growth alongside a pickup in inflation pressures (Chart 4A). The BoE has already responded by slowing the pace of its asset purchases in May, and we expect more tapering announcements over the next 6-12 months. The most recent set of BoE economic forecasts calls for headline UK CPI inflation to rise to 2.3% in 2022 before settling down to 2% in 2023 and 1.9% in 2024 (Chart 4B). This would be a mild inflation outcome by recent UK standards during what will certainly be a period of strong post-pandemic growth over the next 12-18 months. Longer-term inflation expectations, both survey-based and extracted from CPI swaps and inflation-linked Gilts, are priced for a bigger inflation upturn above 3%. Chart 4AUK: BoE Monitor Chart 4BUpside UK Inflation Surprises Ahead? The recent decision by the UK government to delay “Freedom Day”, when all remaining COVID-19 restrictions would be lifted, into July because of the spread of the Delta virus variant represents a potential near-term setback to UK growth momentum. The bigger picture, however, still points to an economy benefitting far more from the earlier success of the vaccination program. Consumer confidence remains resilient, while business confidence – and investment intentions – has taken a notable turn higher as well. The housing market has also started to heat up, with house price inflation accelerating. The backdrop still remains one of above-potential UK growth over the next 12-24 months. Within the BoE Monitor sub-components, the economic and financial elements stand out as having the biggest moves over the past year (Chart 4C). Momentum in the British pound is positively correlated to our BoE Monitor. As the central bank moves incrementally moves towards more tapering and eventual rate hikes, the currency, which remains moderately undervalued on a PPP basis (see Appendix Table 1), should be well supported. Chart 4CAll BoE Monitor Components Are Rising The UK OIS curve currently discounts BoE liftoff in May 2023, with 57bps of cumulative rate hikes expected by the end of 2024. We see risks of the central bank moving sooner than the market on liftoff, with a rate hike in the 3rd or 4th quarter of 2022 more likely. The Gilt market is vulnerable to any hawkish shift by the BoE with so few rate hikes discounted (Chart 4D). For now, we are maintaining a neutral stance on UK Gilts, given the BoE’s history of talking hawkishly but failing to deliver, but we do have them on “downgrade watch.” Chart 4DBoE Monitor Suggests Continued Downward Pressure On Gilt Yields ECB Monitor: Growth? Yes. Inflation? No. Our European Central Bank (ECB) Monitor has moved sharply higher as more of the euro area has emerged from pandemic restrictions (Chart 5A). Yet the central bank is not sending any of the kinds of moderately hawkish signals coming from the Fed and other central banks. The ECB is still a long way from such a move. While growth has clearly recovered strongly, the overall euro area unemployment rate remains high at 8% and wage growth remains anemic in most countries. There is the potential for upside growth surprises coming from fiscal policy, with the Next Generation EU (NGEU) funds set to be disributed by the EU later this year. Yet even with this fiscal boost, most of the euro area is likely to remain far enough away from full employment allowing the ECB to stay dovish for longer. While headine euro area inflation reached the ECB’s 2% target in May, core inflaton remained subdued at a mere 0.9% (Chart 5B). Market based measures of inflation expectations are also well below the ECB target, with the 5-year/5-year forward CPI swap rate only at 1.6%. Such “boring” inflation readings – even after a surge in commodity price fueled inflation in many other countries – proves that there remains ample spare capacity in the euro area economy and labor markets. The ECB is under no pressure to turn less dovish anytime soon. Chart 5AEuro Area: ECB Monitor Chart 5BStill Lots Of Spare Capacity In Europe The lack of an immediate inflation threat can also be seen in the sub-components of our ECB Monitor, where the inflation elements have clearly lagged the growth upturn (Chart 5C). From a currency perspective, a growth fueled surge in the ECB Monitor is usually enough to provide a boost to the euro. Yet, without an inflation trigger, the likelihood of the ECB dialing back bond purchases, let alone raising interest rates, is low. This suggests any rally in the euro from current levels will be a slow adjustment towards fair value. Chart 5CInflation Components Lagging Currently, the European OIS curve is discounting an initial ECB rate hike in October 2023, with only 27bps of rate hikes expected by the end of 2024 - one of the most dovish pricings in the G10 (see Appendix Table 1). Even though our ECB Monitor suggests that European bond markets should be pricing in more rate hikes (Chart 5D), that is unlikely to happen with the ECB messaging a dovish stance and with the central bank set to release a review of its inflation strategy later this year. We continue to recommend an overweight stance on European government bonds within global fixed income portfolios. Chart 5DMarkets Hear The ECB's Dovish Message BoJ Monitor: Deflation Is Still A Threat Our Bank of Japan (BoJ) Monitor has recovered from deeply depressed pandemic lows to just above the zero line (Chart 6A). This is welcome news for the BoJ, that kept interest rates and asset purchases unchanged at yesterday's meeting, but recognized the need for additional stimulus via "green" loans.The reading from the central bank monitor is also consistent with a Japanese economy that requires more accommodative monetary policy vis-à-vis the rest of the G10. The Japanese economy remains under siege from the pandemic. The number of new COVID-19 cases remains at the highest level per capita in developed Asia. Meanwhile, the manufacturing PMI is the lowest in the developed world and a third wave of infections has also crippled the services sector. This pins the Japanese recovery well behind that of other G10 countries. The IMF expects the output gap in Japan to close sometime in 2023, but it is worth noting that there are few signs of inflationary pressures that would signal such an outcome. Both core and headline Japanese prices are deflating in a world where the risks are tilted towards an inflation overshoot (Chart 6B). The unemployment rate has rolled over, but still remains a ways from pre-pandemic lows. Savings in Japan are also surging, short-circuiting the sort of positive feedback loop that will generate genuine inflation. Chart 6AThe BoJ Monitor Chart 6BDeflation Is Still A Threat In Japan The individual elements of the BoJ Monitor suggest that the growth component has seen steady improvement over the last few months, while the financial component has rolled over (Chart 6C). The latter reflects the underperformance of Japanese equities in recent months, after a spectacular rally late last year. However, weakness in the yen has also allowed financial conditions to remain relatively easy. The yen is a safe-haven currency, making the relationship with the central bank monitor less intuitive. When the central bank monitor is improving (both in Japan and globally), traders tend to use the yen to fund carry trades elsewhere, which weakens the currency. When risk aversion sets in, these trades are unwound, and the yen rallies. This year, the yen has weakened in sympathy with improving global growth, suggesting this playbook remains very much relevant. Chart 6CModest Improvement In The Growth And Inflation Components The strength of our BoJ Monitor indicates that Japanese Government Bond (JGB) yields should rise towards the upper bound of the -25bps to +25bps band. However, the BoJ will stand firm in maintaining easy monetary policy, as expected by market participants (Chart 6D). This policy-induced stability makes JGBs a defensive bond market when US Treasury yields are rising, a key reason for our overweight stance on JGBs. Chart 6DNo Change In Policy Expected BoC Monitor: Strong Growth = Early Tightening Our Bank of Canada (BoC) Monitor has shown an impressive rebound and currently displays the highest figure among our Central Bank Monitors (Chart 7A). With a growing number of central banks contemplating a less dovish turn, Canada will be in the group of developed countries that hikes policy rates first. The Canadian economy started the year gaining significant positive momentum, with Q1 GDP growing by +5.6% (annualized quarter-on-quarter rate of change). The Q2 picture is a bit more mixed because of another wave of COVID-19 lockdowns. However, thanks to the rapid improvement in the pace of vaccinations after a botched initial rollout, Canadian household consumption and confidence have notably accelerated. Business confidence and investment intentions have also picked up solidly according the BoC’s most recent Business Outlook Survey. The job market also gained significant momentum, and as the lockdown measures gradually ease, workers who have been laid off during the pandemic will return to work. Therefore, the improvement in labor market will continue. A rapidly closing output gap means that the current surge in inflation may endure after the base effect comparisons to 2020 fade (Chart 7B). Chart 7ACanada: BoC Monitor Chart 7BCanadian Inflation Pressures Intensifying Looking at the components of our BoC Monitor, all three factors have clearly rebounded but the growth factor has shown the most impressive move (Chart 7C). Amid the broad economic factors that have improved, booming house prices – a primary cause for the BoC’s decision to taper its asset purchases back in April - have caused the growth factor to rebound quickly. Chart 7CA Positive Story For The CAD The Canadian OIS curve is pricing in BoC liftoff in August 2022 (Appendix Table 1), with a sooner liftoff only expected in Norway and New Zealand. We see risks that the BoC moves much sooner than that next year. A quicker liftoff which will put additional upward pressure on the Canadian dollar, both against the US dollar and on a trade-weighted basis, particularly if Canadian export demand remains solid and oil prices continue to climb, as our commodity strategists expect. Our PPP model suggests that the Loonie is close to fair value, so valuation is not yet an impediment to additional strength in the Canadian dollar. Looking at the longer-term horizon, the OIS curve is discounting four BoC rate hikes within the next 24 months, and it is not clear that will be enough to cool off the red-hot Canadian housing market – currently the biggest threat to inflation stability in Canada (Chart 7D). Given that relatively hawkish view, the more optimistic growth outlook, and the high-beta status of Canadian government bonds, we continue to recommend an underweight position on Canadian government bonds within a global fixed income portfolio. Chart 7DCanadian Rate Expectations Look Fairly Priced RBA Monitor: Waiting For Inflation Our Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) Monitor has continued its strong rebound since the trough in 2020 and is now at all-time highs, suggesting heightened pressure on the RBA to tighten policy (Chart 8A). This rebound comes amid dovish messaging from an RBA that is waiting on signs of an inflation turnaround. The RBA’s patience makes sense when you consider measures of slack in the economy, such as output and unemployment gaps (Chart 8B). While the IMF does expect the output gap to tighten up significantly in 2021, it does not expect it to be closed even by 2022. Looking to capacity in the labor market, the unemployment rate has just returned to pre-COVID levels. However, the labor market will need to run “hot” for a sustained period of time to push up wage inflation, which remains deep in the doldrums according to the RBA’s wage price index. Chart 8AAustralia: RBA Monitor Chart 8BMuted Inflationary Pressures Down Under A look at the components of our RBA Monitor explains the RBA’s dovishness in the face of the tightening pressure indicated by the “headline” figure (Chart 8C). The rebound in the Monitor can be attributed almost entirely to the growth and financial components, which are driven in turn by improving confidence and an expanding RBA balance sheet. However, the inflation component, which has barely budged off its 2020 low, best captures the metrics that the RBA is watching. Importantly, the RBA will need to see sustainable domestically-generated inflation before it can begin to tolerate a stronger AUD which would otherwise imperil tradable goods inflation. With the AUD only slightly expensive on our PPP models, the RBA does not have much of a “valuation cushion” to play with in terms of delivering a hawkish surprise (Appendix Table 1). ​​​​​​ Chart 8CGrowth Factors Are Driving the RBA Monitor Chart 8D shows that market pricing for hikes over the next two years has remained mostly flat in 2021 in the face of persistently dovish messaging from the RBA. Our view, as expressed in a recent update of our “RBA checklist”2, is that fundamental factors will force the RBA to remain dovish, making Australian government debt an attractive overweight within global government bond portfolios. Chart 8DMarkets Are (Rightly) Looking Through Tightening Pressures In Australia RBNZ Monitor: Heating Up Our Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) Monitor has rebounded to levels last seen in 2017, largely on the back of improving growth (Chart 9A). Success at containing the virus has allowed the New Zealand economy to beat growth expectations for Q1/2021, effectively pulling forward future policy tightening. Measures of capacity utilization in New Zealand will likely respond accordingly to improved growth prospects, with the output gap likely to close even faster than projected by the IMF (Chart 9B). Measures of core and headline inflation remain within the RBNZ’s 1-3% target range, with the Bank expecting headline inflation to shoot up to 2.6% in Q2/2021 before settling around the midpoint of the range. Chart 9ANew Zealand: RBNZ Monitor Chart 9BThe New Zealand Economy Is Quickly Working Off Slack Looking at the individual components of our RBNZ Monitor, the rebound in the overall indicator is clearly a growth story (Chart 9C). This component of our Monitor also captures the effect of accelerating house prices, which have become a direct concern for RBNZ policy. According to the bank’s own projections, house prices will post a whopping 29% growth rate in the second quarter. With issues of housing affordability at the forefront, and political pressure mounting, the RBNZ will likely be forced to turn less dovish soon, even if it comes with unwanted strength in the NZD. However, the currency is among the most expensive on our PPP models (Appendix Table 1), which means that a reversion to fair value could counteract upward pressure from a hawkish RBNZ. Chart 9CThe RBNZ Will Do Whatever It Takes To Stabilize House Prices Historically, our RBNZ Monitor has correlated well with market pricing embedded in the OIS curve (Chart 9D). In 2021, however, market expectations have far outstripped the signal from our central bank monitor, meaning that markets believe the RBNZ is more focused on growth factors rather than the overall picture, a view that we largely agree with. Chart 9DMarkets Expect A Hawkish RBNZ Even after the Fed’s hawkish surprise at this week’s meeting, we still believe that the RBNZ will be among the first to taper its balance sheet and move towards normalizing policy. Stay underweight New Zealand sovereign debt. Riksbank Monitor: Watch For An Upside Surprise Our Riksbank Monitor has posted a strong rebound, reaching all-time highs (Chart 10A). This rebound has come on the back of a robust economic recovery. Meanwhile, monetary policy has been accommodative with the Riksbank holding the repo rate at 0% while expanding the size of its balance sheet. Capacity utilization, which in Sweden did not fall nearly as much as in other developed economies, is looking set to recover in the coming years (Chart 10B). Although headline CPI shot past the 2% target, driven by fuel and food prices, underlying core inflation remains stable. The Riksbank expects inflation to fall due to less favorable year-over-year base effects, and only sustainably climb to the 2% level by mid-2024. Chart 10ASweden: Riksbank Monitor Chart 10BThe Rise In Swedish Inflation Is 'Transitory'... Breaking down the rise in the Riksbank Monitor, we can see that it is driven overwhelmingly by the growth component (Chart 10C). This, in turn, has been driven by surging PMIs and soaring business and consumer confidence. Our colleagues at BCA Research European Investment Strategy have pointed out that the small export-sensitive economy will be poised to benefit from an upturn in the global industrial cycle3. While Sweden did arguably botch its COVID-19 response last year, it is catching up, with 42% of Swedes having already received their first dose of the vaccine. The case for the SEK is strong, given that the currency is a high-beta play on global growth and is also quite undervalued according to our PPP models (Appendix Table 1). Market expectations are that the Riksbank will lag others in normalizing policy, putting off a hike until September 2023. The Riksbank baseline is a flat repo rate out to Q2/2024 but an earlier rate hike is well within the “uncertainty bands” of the Riksbank’s forecast. Such a scenario may manifest if growth and inflation surprise to the upside. Chart 10C...But The Riksbank Cannot Ignore Explosive Growth Given the positive economic backdrop and the financial stability risks posed by rising house prices and household indebtedness, we believe market pricing is too dovish relative to the actual pressure on the Riksbank to tighten policy (Chart 10D). This makes Swedish sovereign debt an attractive underweight candidate in global government bond portfolios. Chart 10DThe OIS Curve Is Pricing In Too Much Dovishness From The Riksbank Norges Bank Monitor: The First To Hike Our Norges Bank Monitor has risen sharply from the pandemic lows and now signals that emergency monetary settings are no longer appropriate for the Norwegian economy (Chart 11A). Consistent with this message, Norges Bank governor, Øystein Olsen, suggested this week that a rate hike will occur in September, with possibly another hike by December of this year. Norway has handled the pandemic successfully. Since the onset of the COVID-19 crisis, it has registered the lowest rate of infections per capita, in part aided by its early decision to close its borders. Fiscal stimulus was also prompt and finely tailored to the sectors most in need of emergency funds. Moreover, monetary policy was highly accommodative, with the Norges Bank cutting interest rates to zero for the first time since its founding in 1816. Fiscal stimulus will remain relatively accommodative, as Norway will register one of the smallest fiscal drags in the G10 for the remainder of 2021 and 2022. Rapid improvement in the labor market also continues. After peaking at 9.5% in March 2020, the headline unemployment rate has fallen to 3.3%. On the energy front, the new Johan Sverdrup oil and gas discovery marks a major turnaround in capital spending for Norway. According to the Norges Bank, real petroleum investment will increase from approximately NOK 175bn in 2021 to NOK 198bn by 2024. These developments have set the Norwegian economy on a sustainable recovery path. This positive economic outlook suggests that Norwegian inflation will remain above the central bank’s target of 2%. Already, headline CPI stands at 3% (Chart 11B). Meanwhile, while core inflation at 2% is decelerating, the slowdown should be temporary. According to a Norges Bank survey, both long-term and near-term inflation expectations among economists, business leaders, and households are rising, which indicates that a deflationary mindset has not taken root in Norway. Chart 11AThe Norges Bank Monitor Chart 11BInflation Is Well Anchored In Norway The biggest improvement in our Norges Bank Monitor comes from its growth and inflation components, the former surging to its highest level in two decades. This improvement surpasses those that followed the global financial crisis and the bursting of the dot-com bubble (Chart 11C). In essence, the growth component of the Monitor signals that the Norwegian economy has achieved escape velocity. The Monitor shows a very tight correlation with the trade-weighted currency, suggesting the exchange rate is an important valve for adjusting financial conditions. As an oil-producing economy, the drop in the NOK cushioned the crash in oil prices last year. This year, a recovery has benefitted the krone. The Norwegian krone also remains undervalued according to our PPP models. Chart 11CThe Norges Bank Should Hike Rates A positive correlation also exists between the Monitor and expected rate hikes by the Norges bank (Chart 11D). This suggest yields in Norway should either coincide or lead the improvement in global bond yields. From a portfolio perspective, our default stance is neutral, as the market is thinly traded. Chart 11DThe Norges Bank Should Hike Rates SNB Monitor: Green Shoots Our Swiss National Bank (SNB) Monitor has recovered smartly, and is at the highest level in over a decade (Chart 12A). This is a marked turnaround for a country that has had negative interest rates since 2015. It also raises the prospect that Switzerland may be finally able to escape its liquidity trap, allowing the SNB to modestly adjust monetary policy upward. The Swiss economy has recovered swiftly. As of May, the manufacturing PMI was at 69.9, the highest reading since the start of the series. If past manufacturing sentiment is prologue, the Swiss economy is about to experience its biggest rebound in decades. This will quell any deflationary fears about domestic conditions in Switzerland and begin to re-anchor inflation expectations upwards. This will also be a very welcome development for the SNB. Inflation dynamics in Switzerland will be particularly beholden to improvements in private sector demand. The unemployment rate in Switzerland has rolled over, which should begin to provide an anchor to wage growth. Both core and headline inflation are also recovering, albeit at a slow pace (Chart 12B). Import prices in Switzerland will also rise, driven by the relative weakness of the currency. This is important because for a small, open economy like Switzerland, the exchange rate often dictates the trend in domestic inflation. Chart 12AThe SNB Monitor Chart 12BSwiss Inflation Not Out Of The Woods Looking at the components of our SNB Monitor, the growth component has been in the driver’s seat (Chart 12C). But encouragingly, both the inflation and financial component have also been grinding higher. This improvement suggests that the weakness in the franc, especially amidst global dollar weakness, has been a welcome jolt to the economy. Like the yen, the CHF is a safe-haven currency, making the relationship with the central bank monitor less intuitive. Most of the time, the relationship with the monitor is inverse, corresponding to investors using the Swiss franc for carry trades when global conditions improve. Similar to the yen this year, the CHF has also weakened in sympathy with improving global growth. Should global growth see a setback in the near term, the franc will benefit. Chart 12CGrowth Indicators Are Surging In Switzerland The SNB Monitor is more accurate at capturing expected policy changes by the SNB. This means that yields in Switzerland could see more meaningful upside (Chart 12D). That said, our default stance on Swiss bonds is neutral in a global portfolio, given low liquidity. Chart 12DCould The SNB Finally Lift Rates? Appendix Table 1 Table 1Appendix Table 1 Footnotes 1 See BCA Research US Bond Strategy/Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “A Central Bank Timeline For The Next Two Years”, dated June 1, 2021, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Report, "A Summer Nap For Global Bond Yields", dated June 9, 2021, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research European Investment Strategy Report, "Take A Chance On Sweden", dated May 3, 2021, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Limit Orders Closed Trades