Financial Markets

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

Highlights The August 1 deadline for Congress to raise the debt ceiling will come and go but the looming debt showdown will not replay the 2011-13 crisis. It is not a major risk to the bull market.  The Biden administration still has the political capital to pass a signature piece of legislation via budget reconciliation by end of year.  The tax component of the plan may bring a negative surprise but the market is likely to be more concerned over inflation expectations, eventual Fed rate hikes, and the 2022 fiscal cliff.  The Delta variant of COVID-19 is spreading rapidly in Republican-leaning states but the existence of effective vaccines presents an immediate solution. Any substantial new jitters over the pandemic will increase monetary and fiscal stimulus.  Stay long value over growth stocks despite near term risks and setbacks. Reassess if technical support is broken. Feature The Democratic Party is attempting to achieve two major things before Congress goes on recess in early August. The first is a $1.2 trillion bipartisan infrastructure package – which will take longer than that and may never pass. The second is a $2-$6 trillion budget resolution that will contain reconciliation instructions to enable the Senate to pass President Joe Biden’s proposed $2.5-$4.1 trillion American Jobs and Families Plan with 51 votes. Democrats may very well achieve this resolution before going on recess but that is the very problem when it comes to negotiations with Republicans. Even though divisions within Republican ranks make bipartisanship more likely to succeed than usual, investors should not bet on it. A partisan reconciliation process virtually guarantees both that Democrats pass their next spending bill without major disappointments for the market and that the debt ceiling is not a substantial risk to the bull market. The real risk for investors is that the markets have mostly priced the Democrats’ stimulus spending and will increasingly turn to tax hikes and especially Fed rate hikes. While we expect dovish surprises from the Fed, the strong 4.5% year-on-year growth in core consumer prices, in the context of booming consumer sentiment (Chart 1), suggests the opposite. Chart 1Consumer Confidence Still Rebounding The Debt Ceiling Is Not A Significant Risk To The Bull Market Investors are increasingly concerned about the US debt ceiling, or statutory limit on the national debt, which comes due on August 1. But the debt ceiling does not pose a significant risk to the bull market this time around. The US is not in the same political context as it was in 2011-13 when debt showdowns roiled markets. Investors’ concerns are understandable, of course. In the wake of the Great Recession, congressional Democrats and Republicans quarreled over the debt ceiling, resulting in notable disinflationary episodes in which stocks fell while Treasuries and the dollar rallied (Chart 2). A close look at the debt showdowns of summer 2011 and winter 2012-13 reveals that the “risk off” phase occurred immediately in the first case and over the succeeding month in the second case (Chart 3). The implication is that the whole period from September to December of 2021 could be at risk from any new debt showdown. To understand why risk is not substantial this year one needs to understand what the debt ceiling is. Chart 2ABiden Will Fare Better Than Obama On Debt Ceiling Chart 2BBiden Will Fare Better Than Obama On Debt Ceiling Chart 3A Close Look At Debt Ceiling Showdowns, 2011-13 The debt ceiling is a legislative instrument intended to constrain the US’s public debt. Congress must authorize a higher debt limit to enable the Treasury Department to make debt payments. Legislating a higher debt ceiling is not the same as legislating government spending. Congress spends money through the annual appropriations process. Government spending amidst recurring budget deficits requires new debt issuance to provide the funds to be spent. But debt in excess of the statutory limit must be authorized by raising the limit. The last time Congress expanded the debt ceiling was in August 2019, leaving August 1, 2021 as the next deadline. Theoretically it is unpopular for congressmen to increase the allowance for their own profligate policies and as such the debt ceiling acts a curb on deficits and debt. In reality the two political parties usually pull together the 60 votes needed in the Senate to raise or suspend the limit and prevent the federal government from defaulting on debt payments that come due. The reason is that, if the debt limit were not raised, the government would default on debt payments and be forced to halt social security payments, civil servant wages, and other essential payments. A failure to write checks to seniors and military veterans would be extremely unpopular and both the president’s party and the opposition party would suffer for it (Chart 4). Chart 4ABoth President And Congress To Suffer From Any Debt Showdown Chart 4BBoth President And Congress To Suffer From Any Debt Showdown This does not mean that 10 Senate Republicans can easily be found to join 50 Democrats, thus reaching 60 votes in the Senate to raise the debt limit. The battle is likely to extend well into the fall, pushing up against Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen’s warning that the Treasury could run out of funds before Congress returns in mid-September. The battle will likely extend into October and create fears of a default.  Getting 10 Republicans is difficult. It will not occur as part of a compromise infrastructure package, even though this package already has 11 Republicans supporting it. First, the bipartisan infrastructure deal may fail anyway because Republicans know that Democratic leadership, whether they admit it or not, will tie the deal to the passage of their larger budget reconciliation bill later this fall. Since Republicans oppose the reconciliation bill they may not be able to save face if they vote for an infrastructure deal that enables it. And Democrats do not have any reason to compromise on a bipartisan deal if they think it will destroy their larger reconciliation ambitions. Second, if a bipartisan infrastructure deal comes together, Republicans will insist that the debt ceiling is kept separate. They will not want to link themselves and their infrastructure spending with the bulging national debt. Rather they will want to force the Democrats to link their massive social spending with the national debt. Democrats may accept this trade off since the Biden administration wants a bipartisan deal – as long as they are given guarantees from moderate Senate Democrats that the latter  will support the reconciliation bill. Public opinion is not generally distressed when it comes to federal budget deficits and the national debt. Only 3% of Americans cite these as the most important problem facing the country today – obviously people are more concerned with the general economic recovery and unemployment (Chart 5). However, voters clearly believe debt is one of the country’s problems, with 43% saying they are “very concerned” about debt growth, including 45% of independents. Republicans are under significant pressure on these issues, which is why only moderates would conceivably vote to raise the debt limit and even then would only raise it if forced to choose between doing so and triggering a national default (Chart 6). Brinkmanship is to be expected. Chart 5Voters Say Recovery More Important Than Debt Chart 6Yet Concern About Debt Is Not Negligible While public opinion generally favors infrastructure spending, support for infrastructure falls when it is explicitly linked to increases in national debt. Only 39% of voters, and 30% of independents, think it is acceptable to increase the debt to pay for infrastructure, according to a recent Ipsos/Reuters poll (Chart 7). About 60% of Democrats agree with this statement and 22% of Republicans. The implication – as we have long argued – is that investors should not bet on a bipartisan deal. They should bet on the partisan reconciliation process. Chart 7Democrats Support More Debt For Infrastructure … Others Do Not Support for extreme deficit spending is likely to wane as the economy recovers and the sense of crisis abates. Support for emergency COVID-19 fiscal relief was very high early this year (Chart 8). Yet even at the height of the lockdowns there was a non-negligible group of voters who claimed to care about deficits (Chart 9). Fortunately for the Biden administration, the window of opportunity has not yet closed. The rise in the Delta variant of COVID-19 is generating higher hospitalization rates and renewed concerns about the pandemic, which will help support additional stimulus measures (Table 1). There is still time to pass a major spending bill on infrastructure and/or social welfare before the end of the year. Chart 8Support For COVID Relief Was Very High Chart 9Yet Voters Showed Some Concern About Deficits Even At Height Of Crisis Table 12022 Swing States Struggling With COVID-19 Ultimately Democrats control both chambers of Congress and will be able to vote with party discipline on raising the debt ceiling. They can raise the debt ceiling with a simple majority vote if they include it in their upcoming budget reconciliation bill. This is the main reason why investors should look through any financial market jitters: there is a clear escape hatch if Republicans obstruct. The only reason we do not exclude the possibility of Republican cooperation entirely is that Republicans are in such desperate need of a lifeline following President Trump’s defeat and the post-election riot on Capitol Hill. Indeed, the last time Republicans saw anywhere near such low levels of partisan identification was in 2013, after House Republicans brought the US to the brink of defaulting on its debt (Chart 10). The Senate Republicans are divided, not unified in willingness to trigger a default, and we can count at least 10 Senate Republicans who will capitulate if necessary to prevent a default. Chart 10Republicans Need A Lifeline … Infrastructure May Be It Of course, Senate Republicans could refuse to raise the debt ceiling anyway. But the crucial difference is that Congress is not gridlocked. Democrats, as the ruling party, would suffer in the event of a default and they have the reconciliation process to prevent that from happening. (We have also maintained that they will eventually water down or abolish the Senate filibuster, which would open another way to lift the debt ceiling, although so far they have not succeeded in doing so.) Bottom Line: There are reasons for investors to be increasingly risk averse – tax hikes, eventual Fed rate hikes, the 2022 fiscal cliff, global growth sputters – but the debt ceiling is not one of them. Any major stock market jitters that emerge because of the debt ceiling should be ignored if they are not attended by more significant risks. Biden’s Political Capital Still Sufficient For One More Big Bill All year we have maintained that President Biden will get at least one signature bill passed in addition to the huge COVID-19 relief bill, the American Rescue Plan, passed at the beginning of the year. This view is based in our reading of his political support and capability, as evinced in our Political Capital Index, which we update weekly in the Appendix. This view is on track and we maintain high conviction. Nevertheless readers should be aware that Biden’s support will wobble over the coming months and US economic policy uncertainty will rebound from post-pandemic lows. This week’s update of the Political Capital Index shows some chinks in Biden’s armor that will likely get wider over the coming months, though we do not expect them to prevent the bill from passing. First, while political polarization has subsided from recent peaks in 2020, our polarization indicators are starting to rebound from post-election lows. Our polarization proxy (the gap in partisan approval of the president) will eventually find a floor considering the historically high structural polarization in the country. Meanwhile economic sentiment polarization and the Philly Fed Partisan Conflict Index climbed from their respective lows in the first half of the year, as Congress bickered over Biden’s next reconciliation bill (Chart 11). The upcoming partisan battles over infrastructure, the debt ceiling, budget appropriations, voting rights, guns, the Hyde amendment (abortion), a possible government shutdown, and the midterm elections will revive polarization even if it does not surpass 2020 peaks. Partisanship will ensure the passage of a reconciliation bill but then it will reduce Biden’s ability to pass legislation afterwards.    Chart 11Polarization Still Historically Elevated Second, Biden’s approval rating is rebounding a bit in July from its low point in June but the legislative process – as well as looming foreign policy challenges and other negative surprises – will weigh on his approval, at least until his infrastructure bill passes (Chart 12). Over the medium term, strong consumer sentiment and a recovering economy will prevent Biden’s approval rating from falling to President Trump’s levels, at least until a major mistake or negative shock occurs. Nevertheless presidents tend to have low approval ratings in the modern era due to partisanship and so far Biden is no exception. Chart 12ABiden Approval Will Suffer Till Infrastructure Passes Chart 12BBiden Approval Will Suffer Till Infrastructure Passes Third, while small business continues to be more concerned with wages and inflation than with Biden’s legislative agenda, concerns about higher taxes are gradually emerging. The business community may finally be internalizing Biden’s American Jobs Plan, which will include a corporate tax hike and possibly also individual tax hikes (Chart 13). The stock market is unlikely to ignore Biden’s corporate tax hikes forever, even if they only cause a one-off hit to earnings of 8%-10%. We expect negative tax surprises from the reconciliation process. The small business community’s opposition to Biden’s agenda is well known, and limited in impact, but it will increasingly detract from his political capital on the margin. Fourth, the economy is beginning to decelerate albeit from a very high rate of growth. The manufacturing PMI and its employment component have fallen from their highs in the first half of the year while the ratio of new orders to inventories was flat in June. The non-manufacturing sector showed the same trend with non-manufacturing business activity and new orders-to-inventories coming down from earlier heights. Non-manufacturing employment ticked down though it will likely rebound soon as enhanced federal unemployment benefits expire (Chart 14). Capex intentions softened a bit. Chart 13Small Biz Wakes Up To Inflation, Tax Hikes Chart 14Economy To Decelerate From Highs Still, the unemployment rate continued its decline in June and household and business balance sheets are strong as the economic recovery continues. Biden’s ability to pass his spending plans will ensure that the government contribution to growth remains robust in the coming years, after a soft patch in 2022 as the infrastructure plan is gradually rolled out. Most of these indicators show improvement relative to November, which gives Biden a store of political capital.  Bottom Line: Polarization and policy uncertainty are likely to rebound as the economy decelerates, albeit from rapid growth. Ultimately Biden is likely to pass a signature government spending plan by the end of the year, which will give his approval rating a boost. But given thin margins in Congress, and the looming 2022 midterm elections, Biden’s political capital will largely be exhausted after the second half of this year. Fiscal policy will likely be frozen in place for several years after that. Investment Takeaways The debt ceiling is not a major risk to the bull market, though congressional brinkmanship is inevitable. We are prepared for more volatility and near-term equity setbacks but jitters arising solely from the debt ceiling should be looked through.. Investors should stay focused on the high likelihood that Biden and the Democrats will pass a reconciliation bill that will add about $1.3-$2.5 trillion to the budget deficit over eight years. Disappointments in the bill (higher taxes, lower spending) pose a greater risk to the stock market than the debt ceiling. This bill will solidify the economic recovery but also exact a one-off toll on corporate earnings and hasten concerns over rising inflation expectations and Fed rate hikes. Furthermore a fiscal cliff looms in 2022 as budget deficits normalize from extreme levels. Until new stimulus is secured, this fiscal cliff poses a much greater risk than debt ceilings or a possible government shutdown. The Delta variant of the COVID-19 virus is threatening to clog hospitals and thus poses a risk of forcing authorities to tighten social restrictions, especially in Republican-leaning states where vaccination rates are lower (Chart 15). However, we expect vaccinations to rise – and meanwhile highly vaccinated areas will remain free to conduct business. As long as vaccines remain effective, any scare over variants of the virus will be limited. A selloff is possible but would trigger new bouts of monetary and fiscal stimulus. Chart 15Red States Will Have To Increase Vaccination We will maintain our cyclical orientation of favoring value stocks over growth stocks, although this trade faces an immediate and critical test that could trigger a revaluation (Chart 16). Tactically it should be clear from this report that rising policy uncertainty and other near-term risks are abounding. Chart 16A Test For Value Versus Growth   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri Associate Editor jesse.Kuri@bcaresearch.com Appendix Table A1USPS Trade Table Table A2Political Risk Matrix Chart A1Presidential Election Model Chart A2Senate Election Model Table A3Political Capital Index Table A4APolitical Capital: White House And Congress Table A4BPolitical Capital: Household And Business Sentiment Table A4CPolitical Capital: The Economy And Markets Footnotes  

Highlights Duration: The recent decline in Treasury yields is overdone. Economic growth is no longer accelerating, but it hasn’t slowed enough to justify the strength in bonds. Stronger employment data will pressure bond yields higher this fall, once labor supply constraints ebb. Ultimately, we expect the 10-year Treasury yield to reach a range of 2% to 2.25% by the end of 2022 when the Fed is ready to lift rates. Maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. Employment: The static unemployment rate and sub-50 readings from ISM employment indexes will prove to be short-lived phenomena driven by labor supply constraints. These constraints will vanish in the fall when schools re-open and expanded unemployment benefits lapse. Yield Curve: Remain positioned in yield curve flatteners. We specifically like shorting the 5-year bullet versus a duration-matched 2/10 barbell. We expect that the next significant move in Treasury yields will be a bear-flattening of the curve prompted by strong employment data this fall. Feature Last week was another dramatic one in the bond market. Bond yields fell sharply as doubts emerged about the pace of economic recovery and the economy’s progress back to full employment. The 10-year Treasury yield started the week at 1.44% before hitting an intra-day low of 1.25% on Thursday. It then rebounded somewhat to end the week at 1.36%. One catalyst for the move was Tuesday morning’s ISM Non-Manufacturing report that printed at 60.1, below consensus expectations of 63.5. But in truth, economic momentum had already been slowing for several months before that release. The 10-year Treasury yield peaked at 1.74% on March 31st, right around the same time that the New York Fed’s Weekly Economic Index and both the ISM Manufacturing and Non-Manufacturing indexes leveled-off (Chart 1). Last week simply saw the “slowing growth” narrative pick up steam. One noteworthy feature of last week’s market action is that the Treasury curve flattened as yields fell. While the 10-year yield is now at its lowest since February, the 2-year yield remains higher than it was just prior to the June FOMC meeting (Chart 2). This suggests that part of the drop in long-maturity bond yields is due to a fear that the Fed will over-tighten in the face of slowing growth. This fear likely stems from the Fed’s apparent hawkish pivot at the June FOMC meeting.1 Chart 1"Peak Growth" Hits The Bond Market Chart 2A Flatter Curve Since March   It’s also worth mentioning that the bulk of last week’s drop in yields was concentrated in long-maturity real yields (Chart 2, bottom 2 panels). TIPS breakeven inflation rates have fallen somewhat since the end of March. But, at 2.3% and 2.23% respectively, the 10-year and 30-year TIPS breakeven inflation rates are not that far below the Fed’s 2.3% - 2.5% target range. Chart 3Bond Rally Not Confirmed By Commodities Finally, many have suggested that “technical factors” are responsible for last week’s bond market strength. That is, factors related to the supply and demand for bonds but unrelated to economic fundamentals conspired to push yields lower. This is a difficult thesis to prove or disprove, but we will point out that the 10-year Treasury yield has diverged significantly from the CRB Raw Industrials / Gold ratio (Chart 3). The 10-year yield and the CRB/Gold ratio tend to track each other very closely but, in contrast to yields, the CRB/Gold ratio has actually increased since March 31st. This lends some credence to the argument that last week’s drop in yields is not purely a reflection of economic weakness, and it could be an overreaction to weaker-than-expected data that was exacerbated by extreme short positioning in the market (Chart 3, bottom panel). Three Reasons Why The Decline In Treasury Yields Is Overdone We do in fact think that the recent decline in Treasury yields is overdone, and we continue to see the 10-year Treasury yield reaching a range of 2% - 2.25% by the end of next year when the Fed is ready to lift rates. We present three reasons why the recent drop in Treasury yields is overdone. First, the bond market is making too much of the “slowing growth” narrative. Yes, it’s certainly true that the economic indicators shown in Chart 1 are no longer accelerating, but in level terms they remain consistent with a robust economic recovery where GDP growth is well above trend. This sort of growth environment is consistent with a falling unemployment rate that will eventually bring Fed rate hikes into play. Bond yields will move higher as this tightening cycle approaches. Second, it is not just the pace of economic growth that matters for bond yields. The output gap matters as well.2 That is, the same rate of economic growth will coincide with higher bond yields when the unemployment rate is 5% than it will when the unemployment rate is 10%. With that in mind, we observe that the output gap has closed significantly during the past year. The prime-age employment-to-population ratio is 77%, up from a 2020 low of 70%. Similarly, capacity utilization is 75%, up from a 2020 low of 64% (Chart 4). Unless we expect economic growth to slow enough for progress on these two fronts to reverse, then we should see significantly higher bond yields this year compared to last year. This makes it difficult to see how Treasury yields can fall much further from current levels. Another way to conceptualize the relationship between the output gap and long-maturity bond yields is to look at how long-dated yields move relative to short-dated yields. Since the Fed moves the funds rate in response to changes in the output gap, we can model the 10-year Treasury yield relative to the fed funds rate and expectations for near-term changes in the fed funds rate to get a sense of how well the output gap explains changes in long-maturity bond yields. Chart 5 presents a simple model of the 10-year Treasury yield relative to the fed funds rate and the 24-month fed funds discounter. It shows that last week’s decline in the 10-year yield caused it to diverge significantly from the model’s fair value. Chart 4The Output Gap Matters Chart 5Long-Maturity Yields Are Too Low   Third, the Fed’s pledge to keep rates at the zero-lower-bound at least until the labor market reaches “maximum employment” means that the labor market outlook is critical for bond yields. Our view is that the labor market is on the cusp of a rapid recovery that will cause the Fed to lift rates before the end of 2022. However, recent labor market data have been mixed and there is considerable uncertainty in the market about the future pace of employment gains. The next section delves deeper into the outlook for the labor market. Making Sense Of The Employment Data Chart 6ISM Employment Below 50 ... Overall, it seems safe to say that the labor market data have been disappointing in recent months. Yes, nonfarm payroll growth has averaged a robust +543k this year, but the minutes of the June FOMC meeting revealed that “some participants” viewed employment gains as “weaker than they had expected”. The recent dips in the employment components of both the ISM Manufacturing and Non-Manufacturing indexes to below the 50 boom/bust line only add to the sense of pessimism about the labor market. Historically, sub-50 readings from the ISM employment indices (particularly from the non-manufacturing ISM) have coincided with slowing employment growth (Chart 6). This time, however, we don’t see the ISM employment indexes staying below 50 for very long. The more demand-focused components of the ISM indexes – production, new orders and backlog of orders – remain elevated (Chart 7). This tells us that demand is strong and that hiring is only weak because of labor supply constraints, a topic we have covered repeatedly in this publication.3 Our view is that by September, once schools re-open and expanded unemployment benefits lapse, we will see a surge in hiring and a jump in the ISM employment components as people are enticed back into the workforce. A clearer picture of the labor market will then emerge, and it will catalyze a jump in bond yields. It’s not just weak ISM employment readings that are giving investors doubts about the labor market. The unemployment rate’s decline has also slowed markedly in recent months (Chart 8). Our adjusted measure of the U3 unemployment rate currently sits at 6.1%, above the headline U3 measure of 5.9% and significantly above the range of 3.5% to 4.5% that the Fed estimates is consistent with full employment. Chart 7... But Demand Indicators Are Elevated Chart 8Slow Progress On Unemployment Chart 9Labor Supply Is The Problem We adjust the U3 unemployment rate to include a number of people that are currently being classified as “employed but absent from work” when they should be classified as “temporarily unemployed”. The number of people describing themselves as “employed but absent from work” jumped sharply in March 2020 and has remained elevated. This is the result of workers that were placed on temporary furlough during the pandemic and who should be counted as unemployed. We make our adjustment by taking the difference between the number of people that are “employed but absent from work for other reasons” each month and a baseline calculated as that month’s average between 2015 and 2019. We then add this excess amount to the number of temporarily unemployed. This gives us adjusted readings for both the U3 unemployment rate and the temporary unemployment rate (Chart 8, top 2 panels). The Appendix of this report updates our scenarios for the average monthly nonfarm payroll growth required to reach “maximum employment” to consider both this new adjustment and June’s employment figures. Technical adjustments aside, the main takeaway for investors is that progress toward “maximum employment” has been relatively slow during the past few months. This is particularly true if we look at the unemployment rate excluding those on temporary furlough (Chart 8, panel 3) and the labor force participation rate (Chart 8, bottom panel). This slow progress toward “maximum employment” is undoubtedly a reason why bond yields remain low. But, once again, we think it’s only a matter of time before labor supply constraints ease and the unemployment rate falls rapidly, catching up to indicators of labor demand that have already surpassed pre-COVID levels (Chart 9). Bottom Line: The recent decline in Treasury yields is overdone. Economic growth is no longer accelerating, but it hasn’t slowed enough to justify the strength in bonds. The labor market also continues to make progress toward maximum employment (and Fed rate hikes) though that progress has slowed during the past few months. We anticipate that stronger employment data will pressure bond yields higher this fall, once labor supply constraints ebb. Ultimately, the economy will reach full employment in time for the Fed to lift rates in 2022. We expect that the 10-year Treasury yield will be in a range of 2% to 2.25% by then. Maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. A Quick Note On The Yield Curve Chart 105y5y Still Close To Fair Value While we view the recent drop in the level of bond yields as an overreaction, we are less inclined to view recent curve flattening as temporary. To see why, let’s look at the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield relative to survey estimates of the long-run neutral fed funds rate. We like to think of the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield as a market proxy for the long-run neutral fed funds rate, so a range of estimates of that rate is a logical fair value target. The 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield has fallen a lot during the past few weeks. But, at 2%, it is still within the range of neutral rate estimates from the New York Fed’s Survey of Market Participants and only just outside of the same range from the Survey of Primary Dealers (Chart 10). The fact that the 5-year/5-year yield remains relatively close to its fair value range tells us that there is very limited scope for curve steepening. Recent periods of significant curve steepening have tended to coincide with one of the following two developments: The Fed is cutting rates (coincides with a bull-steepening) The 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield moves into its fair value range after starting out well below it (coincides with a bear-steepening) This second sort of curve steepening occurred during the 2013 taper tantrum, after the 2016 presidential election and again after the 2020 presidential election. It’s conceivable that the yield curve could re-steepen somewhat during the next few months, if the 5-year/5-year forward yield moves back to its prior highs. But we expect the next major move in the Treasury market to be a bear-flattening as the rest of the yield curve catches up to the 5-year/5-year. This is the sort of curve flattening that occurred in 2017 and 2018 when the Fed was lifting rates (Chart 10, bottom 2 panels). A bear-flattening of the yield curve is also the most likely outcome if we start to see significant positive employment surprises later this year, as we anticipate. These employment surprises would bring forward the timing and pace of rate hikes but wouldn’t necessarily cause investors to question their views about the long-run neutral fed funds rate. Bottom Line: Remain positioned in yield curve flatteners. We specifically like shorting the 5-year bullet versus a duration-matched 2/10 barbell. We expect that the next significant move in Treasury yields will be a bear-flattening of the curve prompted by strong employment data this fall. Appendix: How Far From “Maximum Employment” And Fed Liftoff? Chart A1Defining “Maximum Employment” The Federal Reserve has promised that the funds rate will stay pinned at zero until the labor market returns to “maximum employment”. The Fed has not provided explicit guidance on the definition of “maximum employment”, but we deduce that “maximum employment” means that the Fed wants to see the U3 unemployment rate within a range consistent with its estimates of the natural rate of unemployment, currently 3.5% to 4.5%, and that it wants to see a more or less complete recovery of the labor force participation rate back to February 2020 levels (Chart A1). Alternatively, we can infer definitions of “maximum employment” from the New York Fed’s Surveys of Primary Dealers and Market Participants. These surveys ask respondents what they think the unemployment and labor force participation rates will be at the time of Fed liftoff. Currently, the median respondent from the Survey of Market Participants expects an unemployment rate of 3.5% and a participation rate of 63%. The median respondent from the Survey of Primary Dealers expects an unemployment rate of 3.7% and a participation rate of 63%. Tables A1-A4 present the average monthly nonfarm payroll growth required to reach different combinations of unemployment rate and participation rate by specific future dates. For example, if we use the definition of “maximum employment” from the Survey of Market Participants, then we need to see average monthly nonfarm payroll growth of +484k in order to hit “maximum employment” by the end of 2022. Table A1Average Monthly Nonfarm Payroll Growth Required For The Unemployment To Reach 4.5% By The Given Date Table A2Average Monthly Nonfarm Payroll Growth Required For The Unemployment To Reach 4% By The Given Date Table A3Average Monthly Nonfarm Payroll Growth Required For The Unemployment To Reach 3.5% By The Given Date Table A4Average Monthly Nonfarm Payroll Growth Required To Reach “Maximum Employment” As Defined By Survey Respondents Chart A2 presents recent monthly nonfarm payroll growth along with target levels based on the Survey of Market Participants’ definition of “maximum employment”. This chart helps us track progress toward specific liftoff dates. For example, if monthly nonfarm payroll growth continues to print at the same level as last month, then we could anticipate a Fed rate hike by June 2022. We will continue to track these charts and tables in the coming months, and will publish updates after the release of each monthly employment report. Chart A2Tracking Toward Fed Liftoff Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “How To Re-Shape The Yield Curve Without Really Trying”, dated June 22, 2021. 2 For a description of the five macro factors that determine bond yields please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Bond Kitchen”, dated April 9, 2019. 3 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Making Money In Municipal Bonds”, dated April 27, 2021.   Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Our sense remains that the dollar is undergoing a countertrend bounce, rather than entering a new bull market. The litmus test for this view is if the DXY fails to break above the 93-94 level that marked the March highs. Stay short USD/JPY. The drop in global bond yields should give this trade a welcome fillip. Short GBP/JPY positions also make sense. We are long CHF/NZD as a play on a potential increase in currency volatility. Look to rebuy a basket of Scandinavian currencies versus the USD and EUR at a trigger point of -2% from today’s levels. Remain long silver both in absolute terms and relative to gold. Our limit buy on EUR/USD was triggered at 1.18. Place tight stops given the potential for the dollar rally to continue for the next few weeks. We also believe the change in the ECB’s framework portends another bullish tailwind for the euro beyond the near term. Feature In our webcast last week, we made the case that the recent FOMC meeting (perceived as hawkish by market participants) has not altered the longer-term downtrend in the US dollar. This week, we are revisiting some of the sentiment and technical indicators that could help gauge how high the dollar can rise in the interim. Our view remains that three fundamental forces will continue to dictate currency market trends into the year end and beyond. First, the Federal Reserve will lag other central banks in raising rates amidst a shift in economic momentum from the US towards the rest of the world. This will boost short-term interest rates outside the US and provide a floor for procyclical currencies. Second, US inflation will prove stickier compared to other countries such as the eurozone or Japan. This will depress real interest rates in the US relative to the rest of the world, and curb bond inflows. And finally, an equity market rotation towards non-US stocks will improve flows into cyclical currencies. The transition could prove volatile in the coming month or so. Equity markets remain overbought, bond yields are falling, PMIs have stopped rising, and cyclical stocks are lagging growth stocks. More widespread infection from the Delta variant of Covid-19 will continue to reprice risk to the downside. As a countercyclical currency, the dollar will be a critical variable to watch. Sentiment and technical indicators make up an important component of our currency framework and are usually good at gauging significant shifts in financial markets. Our sense remains that the dollar is undergoing a countertrend bounce, rather than entering a new bull market. The litmus test for this view is if the DXY fails to break above the 93-94 level that marked the March highs. Momentum Indicators Our momentum indicators suggest that while the dollar is very oversold, the bear market remains very much intact. The dollar advance/decline line is sitting below its 200-day moving average (Chart I-1). Historically, bull markets in the dollar have been characterized by our advance/decline line breaking both above its 200-day and 400-day moving averages. This suggests a rally towards these critical resistance levels is in play but will constitute more of a countertrend bounce. Speculators are only neutral the dollar while, admittedly, leveraged funds are very short (Chart I-2). Historically, whenever the percentage of leveraged funds that are short the dollar has dipped near 40%, a meaningful rally has ensued. There are two important offsets to this. First, as Chart I-1 suggests, the dollar is a momentum currency. As such, during the bull market of the last decade, speculators were either neutral or long the dollar. If indeed the paradigm has shifted to a decade-long bear market, we expect speculators to be either short or neutral. Meanwhile, leveraged funds are a small subset of overall open interest, suggesting they are not the elephant in the room when it comes to dictating dollar movements. Leveraged funds were short the dollar during most of the bull market run last decade. Chart I-1The US Dollar Downtrend Is Intact Chart I-2Leveraged Funds Are Short The Dollar Carry trades are relapsing anew, suggesting the environment may be becoming unfavorable for high-yielding developed and emerging market currencies. The dollar has been negatively correlated with the Deutsche Bank carry ETF, DBV, since investors ultimately dump carry trades and fly to the safety of Treasurys on any market turbulence (Chart I-3). High-beta carry currencies such as the RUB, ZAR, MXN, and BRL have been consolidating recent gains. These currencies are usually good at sniffing out a change in the investment landscape, specifically one becoming precarious for carry trades. Our carry index tends to do well when the yield spread between US Treasuries and the indexes’ constituents’ is low. As such, there is some more adjustment underway, but one of limited amplitude (Chart I-4). Chart I-3The Carry Trade Rally Is Relapsing Chart I-4Carry Trades Have Hit An Air Pocket Chart I-5Currency Volatility Is Very Low Both expected and actual currency volatility are extremely depressed. Whenever currency volatility has been this low, the dollar has staged a meaningful rally. For example, the most significant episodes were the lows of 1996-1997, 2007-2008, and 2014-2015, and early 2020 (Chart I-5). Usually, low currency volatility is a sign of complacency, while higher volatility allows for a more balanced and healthy market rotation. The nature in which currency volatility adjusts higher this time around might be the same playbook as in previous episodes. The Asian crisis of the late 90s set the stage for the dollar bear market of the 2000s. The adjustment higher in the dollar during the Global Financial crisis jumpstarted the bull market the following decade. This time around, the Covid-19 crisis might have commenced a renewed dollar bear market. If this analogy is correct, then we should be selling the dollar on strength rather than buying on weakness. It is important to remember that the policy environment remains bearish for the dollar. These include deeply negative real rates, quantitative easing (which, admittedly, will soon end), generous liquidity swap lines to assuage any dollar funding pressures abroad (Chart I-6), and a global economy on the cusp of a renewed cycle. In our portfolio, we are long CHF/NZD since this cross has historically been a good hedge against rising currency volatility (Chart I-7). So is being short AUD/JPY. Being short the GBP/JPY cross might prove even more profitable, given that the UK has been a pandemic winner this year. Chart I-6The Fed Extended Its Swap Lines Chart I-7Buy CHF/NZD As Insurance Bottom Line: The message from our momentum indicators is that the bounce in the dollar was to be expected. We remain in the camp that believes the rally will be short-lived but are opportunistically playing what could be a more volatile environment. Equity Markets Signals A potential catalyst that could trigger further upside in the dollar is an equity market correction. Both the dollar and equities tend to be inversely correlated (Chart I-8). On this front, a few equity market indicators continue to flag that the rally in the dollar has a bit further to go.  Chart I-8The Dollar And Equities Move Opposite Ways Chart I-9Global Industrials Are Relapsing Anew The underperformance of cyclical stocks, especially global industrials, suggests equity markets could be entering a more volatile phase (Chart I-9). The dollar tends to strengthen when cyclical stocks are underperforming defensive ones. This is because non-US equity markets have a much higher concentration of cyclical stocks in their bourses. In more general terms, non-US markets are underperforming the US, a clear sign that the marginal dollar is rotating back towards the US (Chart I-10A and I-10B). Technology stocks have also been well bid in recent weeks, on the back of lower bond yields. These are all temporary headwinds for dollar weakness. Chart I-10ANon-US Stock Markets Are Underperforming Chart I-10BNon-US Stock Markets Are Underperforming Chart I-11US Relative Earnings Revisions Are High, But Rolling Over Earnings revisions continue to head higher across most markets, but US profit expectations are still higher compared to other countries (Chart I-11). Non-US bourses will need much higher earnings revisions to stimulate portfolio inflows, and for the dollar bear market to resume. On this front, both the euro area and emerging markets are showing only tentative improvement. The character of any selloff in equity markets will be worth monitoring. Cyclicals and value stocks are at historically bombed-out levels and could start to outperform high-flying stocks on any market reset.    Bottom Line: Whether a correction ensues, or the bull market continues, requires a change in equity market leadership from defensives to cyclicals. This is a necessary condition for the dollar bear market to resume. Commodities, Bonds, And The Dollar Commodity and bond prices give important cues about the health of the global economy. For example, rising copper prices and rising yields are a sign that industrial activity is humming, which in turn points to accelerating global growth. As a counter-cyclical currency, the dollar usually weakens in this scenario. Rising gold prices are generally a sign that policy settings remain ultra-accommodative, which also points to a weaker dollar. At the FX strategy service, we tend to focus more on the internal dynamics of commodity and bond markets, which can provide early warning signs. Chart I-12The Copper-To-Gold Ratio Is Consolidating Gains The copper-to-gold ratio is important since it indicates whether the liquidity-to-growth transmission mechanism is working. A rising ratio suggests policy settings are stimulating growth, while a falling ratio is a warning shot that the environment might be becoming deflationary. Correspondingly, this ratio has tended to track the dollar closely (Chart I-12). The copper-to-gold ratio is consolidating at very high levels. This is consistent with a healthy reset, rather than a reversal in the dollar bear market. The gold/silver ratio (GSR) tends to track the US dollar, and its recent price action also appears to be a welcome reset (Chart I-13). Like copper, silver benefits from rising industrial demand, especially in the electronics and renewable energy space. A falling GSR will be a sign that the manufacturing cycle is still humming. We are short the GSR with a target of 50, and a stop-loss at 71. The bond-to-gold ratio has bounced from very oversold levels. Both US Treasurys and gold are safe-haven assets and thus are competing assets. Remarkably, the ratio of the total return in US government bonds-to-gold prices has tracked the dollar pretty well since the end of the Bretton Woods system in the early ‘70s (Chart I-14). Gold has always been considered the perfect anti-fiat asset vis-à-vis the dollar, making the bond-to-gold ratio both a good short-term and long-term sentiment indicator. For now, the bounce in the ratio is not yet worrisome. We have noticed that inflows into US government bonds have risen sharply, while those into gold are falling. This should soon reverse with the fall in US rates, and the correction in gold prices. Chart I-13The Gold-To-Silver Ratio Is Consolidating Losses Chart I-14Competing Assets And The Dollar Bottom Line: The US is ultimately generating the most inflation in the G10, which is dampening real rates, and should curtail investor enthusiasm for gold relative to US Treasurys. The underperformance of Treasurys relative to gold will be a bearish development for the dollar. A Final Word On The Euro The strategic review from the European Central Bank had three key changes. The ECB now has a symmetric 2% inflation target. This is not a game changer, since it brings it in line with other global central banks, including the Bank of Japan. House prices will meaningfully begin to impact monetary policy, as the committee eventually includes owner’s equivalent rent (OER) in the HICP index (the ECB’s preferred inflation measure) for the euro area. This could be a game changer for the ECB’s price objective. Climate change was reiterated as important for price stability. Financial stability was also repeated as an important objective. As FX strategists, the second change was the most important. Shelter constitutes 17.7% of the euro area CPI basket, but it is 32.9% of the US CPI basket (Table I-1). Meanwhile, the shelter component of both the CPI basket in the US and euro area have tracked each other (Chart I-15). Table I-1Euro Area CPI Weights Chart I-15What Will Happen To Eurozone Inflation?   An adjustment in the weight of the shelter component in the euro area will boost the European CPI relative to the US and could trigger a major policy shift from the ECB in the coming years. This will especially be the in case if the current environment generates an inflationary shock. Bottom Line: The ECB will stay very accommodative in the next 1-2 years, but the change in its mandate could portend a bullish tailwind for the euro beyond the near term. Investment Implications We expect the current dollar rebound to be short-lived. As such, our strategy is as follows: Stay long other safe-haven currencies. Our preferred vehicle is the Japanese yen, which sports an attractive real rate relative to the US. Investors can also short GBP/JPY from current levels. Chart I-16The Euro, Yen And Real Rates Our limit-buy on EUR/USD was triggered at 1.18. Given our expectation that the dollar could rally in the near term, we are setting the stop-loss at the same level. However, the improvement in real rates in the euro area relative to the US could cushion any downside (Chart I-16). We are also long CHF/NZD, as a bet on rising currency volatility. Correspondingly, we are setting a limit buy on Scandinavian currencies relative to the euro and USD at a trigger level of -2%. Both gold and silver benefit from the current environment, but we prefer silver to gold, due to the former’s call option on continued improvement in global growth. We are short the gold/silver ratio from the 68 level. Overall, we expect the dollar to weaken towards the end of the year, as has been the case since the 1970s (Chart I-17). Chart I-17The Yen And Swiss Franc Are Usually Winners In H2   Chester Ntonifor Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Currencies US Dollar USD Technicals 1 USD Technicals 2 The recent data out of the US have been robust: June non-farm payrolls showed an increase of 850K jobs, versus expectations of a 700K increase. The unemployment rate was relatively flat at 5.9% in June.  Factory orders came in at 1.7% year-on-year in May, in line with expectations. The US dollar DXY index is relatively flat this week, but with tremendous volatility. It was a relatively quiet week in the US, due to Independence Day, but the key theme remained a drop in US yields, with the 10-year yield moving from a high of near 1.8% this year to 1.3% currently. This move has catalyzed rallies in lower beta currencies, such as the yen and Swiss franc. The FOMC minutes released this week continue to suggest a Fed that will remain very patient in both tapering asset purchases and lifting interest rates.   Report Links: Arbitrating Between Dollar Bulls And Bears - March 19, 2021 The Dollar Bull Case Will Soon Fade - March 5, 2021 Are Rising Bond Yields Bullish For The Dollar? - February 19, 2021 The Euro EUR Technicals 1 EUR Technicals 2 Recent data from the euro area were mixed: The PPI print for May came in at 9.6%, in line with expectations. Both the services and composite PMI were revised higher by 0.3 in June. At 59.2, the composite PMI is the highest in over a decade. ZEW expectations for the euro area fell sharply from 81.3 to 61.2. In Germany, there was a big decline in automotive surveys. The euro was flat this week against the dollar, despite gains overnight. The big news was the change in the ECB’s monetary policy objectives, which we discussed briefly in the front section of this report. The euro rallied on the news of three fundamental drivers in our view – real rate differentials are improving in favor of Europe, the ECB’s consideration for house price inflation could allow its price stability objective to be achieved sooner, and consideration for financial stability will be less favorable for negative interest rates.   Report Links: Relative Growth, The Euro, And The Loonie - April 16, 2021 The Euro Dance: One Step Back, Two Steps Forward - April 2, 2021 On Japanese Inflation And The Yen - January 29, 2021   The Yen JPY Technicals 1 JPY Technicals 2   Recent data from Japan remains subpar, but is improving: Labor cash earnings rose 1.9% in May, in line with expectations. Household spending rose 11.6% in May, in line with expectations. The Eco Watchers Survey for June came in at 47.6 from a May reading of 38.1. The outlook component rose from 47.6 to 52.4. The yen was up by 1.6% against the USD this week, the best performer. We argued a month ago that the yen is the most underappreciated G10 currency today. The catalyst that triggered yen gains were a drop in US real rates, that favored other safe-haven currencies. Going forward, further yen gains should materialize on the back of Japan successfully overcoming the pandemic like its Western counterparts. Report Links: The Case For Japan - June 11, 2021 The Dollar Bull Case Will Soon Fade - March 5, 2021 On Japanese Inflation And The Yen - January 29, 2021   British Pound GBP Technicals 1 GBP Technicals 2 There was scant data out of the UK this week: The construction PMI rose from 64.2 to 66.3 in June. House prices remain robust, with the RICS house price balance printing an elevated 83% in June. The pound was flat this week against the USD. The new delta variant of the COVID-19 virus is gaining momentum in the UK and will likely erode some of the dividends GBP had priced in from a fast vaccine rollout. As such, short GBP positions may pay off in the near term. Shorting GBP/CHF could be an attractive near-term hedge.   Report Links: Why Are UK Interest Rates Still So Low? - March 10, 2021 Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 Thoughts On The British Pound - December 18, 2020   Australian Dollar AUD Technicals 1 AUD Technicals 2 There was scant data out of Australia this week: The Melbourne Institute of Inflation survey came it at 3% year on year in June, from 3.3%. The RBA kept interest rates unchanged at 0.1%, reiterating its commitment to stay accommodative until inflation and wages pick up meaningfully. The AUD was down by 0.4% this week against the USD. The RBA is decisively lagging other central banks in communicating less monetary accommodation in the coming years. This will create a coiled spring response for the AUD, because the RBA will have to eventually play catchup as the global economic cycle gains momentum.   Report Links: The Dollar Bull Case Will Soon Fade - March 5, 2021 Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 Australia: Regime Change For Bond Yields & The Currency? - January 20, 2021   New Zealand Dollar NZD Technicals 1 NZD Technicals 2 The was scant data out of New Zealand this week: ANZ commodity price index rose by 0.8% in June. The NZD was down 0.3% against the dollar this week. Our long CHF/NZD position paid off handsomely in this environment. We recommend holding onto this trade, as a reset in global rates hurts the hawkish pricing in the NZD forward curve. Report Links: How High Can The Kiwi Rise? - April 30, 2021 Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 Currencies And The Value-Versus-Growth Debate - July 10, 2020   Canadian Dollar CAD Technicals 1 CAD Technicals 2 Canadian data softened but remained robust: Building permits fell by 14.8% month on month in May. The Markit manufacturing PMI fell from 57 to 56.5 in June. The Canadian trade balance deteriorated from C$0.6bn to a deficit of -C$1.4bn in May. Business Outlook Survey indicator hit the highest level on record. As the Bank of Canada put it, improving business sentiment is broadening. The CAD fell by 0.8% against USD this week. The results of the BoC survey highlight that a reopening phase is categorically bullish for economic activity in general and financial prices. Until recently, the CAD was one of the best performing currencies in the G10. This is a sea change from a country that was previously a laggard in vaccination efforts. CAD should hold up well once the dollar rally fades, but other currency laggards such as SEK and JPY could do even better.   Report Links: Relative Growth, The Euro, And The Loonie - April 16, 2021 Will The Canadian Recovery Lead Or Lag The Global Cycle? - February 12, 2021 The Outlook For The Canadian Dollar - October 9, 2020 Swiss Franc CHF Technicals 1 CHF Technicals 2 The was scant data out of Switzerland this week: The unemployment rate was near unchanged at 3.1% in June, from 3.0%. Total sight deposits were unchanged at CHF 712 bn on the week of July 2. The Swiss franc was up by 1.1% this week against the USD. Falling yields improved the relative appeal of the franc that has bombed out interest rates. The franc is also benefiting from the rising bout of volatility as a safe-haven currency. On this basis, we are long CHF/NZD cross, which performed well this week. Report Links: An Update On The Swiss Franc - April 9, 2021 Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 The Dollar Conundrum And Protection - November 6, 2020   Norwegian Krone NOK Technicals 1 NOK Technicals 2 Data out of Norway is improving: The unemployment rate fell from 3.3% to 2.9% in July. Industrial production growth came in at 2.1% year-on-year in May. Mainland GDP rose by 1.8% month on month in May. The NOK was down by 1.8% this week against the dollar, the worst performing G10 currency. The NOK is bearing the brunt of a reset in the US dollar, but our bias is that we are nearing a buy zone. NOK is cheap, would benefit from high oil prices and the economy is on the mend. We are looking to sell EUR/NOK and USD/NOK on further strength.   Report Links: The Norwegian Method - June 4, 2021 Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 Revisiting Our High-Conviction Trades - September 11, 2020   Swedish Krona SEK Technicals 1 SEK Technicals 2 Recent data from Sweden have been mildly positive: The Swedbank/Silf composite PMI fell from 70.2 to 66.9 in June. Industrial production came in at 24.4% year on year in May, after a rise of 26.4% in April. Household consumption jumped 8.8% year on year in April. The SEK was also up this week against the USD. Bombed-out interest rates in Sweden have also improved the appeal of the franc, given falling global bond yields. Meanwhile, the SEK remains one of the cheapest currencies in our models.   Report Links: Revisiting Our High-Conviction Trades - September 11, 2020 More On Competitive Devaluations, The CAD And The SEK - May 1, 2020 Sweden Beyond The Pandemic: Poised To Re-leverage - March 19, 2020   Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Limit Orders Closed Trades

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

Highlights Inflation is set to decelerate, job creation has a speed limit, and super-spreaders of new-variant Covid-19 infections will create speed bumps in the economy.  This means that in the second half of the year: Bonds will rally. The US dollar will rally. Growth stocks will outperform value stocks. US stocks will outperform non-US stocks. Fractal trade shortlist: Brazilian real, Saudi Tadawul All Share, and Marine Transportation.  Feature Chart of the WeekThe 60 Percent Correction In Lumber Shows What Happens When Supply Bottlenecks Ease. Are Used Cars Next? As Supply Bottlenecks Ease, Inflation Will Cool Since mid-March, US inflation has surged to 5 percent. Yet bond yields have drifted lower, by almost 50 bps in the case of the 30-year T-bond yield, equating to a handsome return of 12 percent. The seeming contradiction between rising inflation and declining bond yields has puzzled some people, but it shouldn’t. In 2009, the same pattern occurred in reverse. Inflation collapsed, culminating in a modern era low of -2 percent in July 2009. Yet while inflation was collapsing, bond yields rose sharply (Chart I-2 and Chart I-3). Chart I-2In 2009, Bond Yields Rose When Year-On-Year Inflation Fell Chart I-3In 2021, Bond Yields Fell When Year-On-Year Inflation Rose We can explain this seeming contradiction with an analogy from driving. The inflation rate is like your average speed over the past mile. But the bond market cares much more about your average speed over the next mile, or even over the next 5-10 miles. If you are driving at a constant speed, then your speed over the past mile is a good guide to your future speed. But if you have been driving unusually fast or unusually slowly, there is a more important predictor of your future speed. That important predictor is your acceleration – meaning, what is happening to your speed over successive hundred yards stretches. In the same way, during episodes of unusually low or unusually high inflation, the bond market focusses on the monthly rate of inflation, and specifically the moment that it stops decreasing, as in early-2009, or stops increasing, as in mid-2021. In 2008, after a long sequence of declining monthly rates of inflation that went deep into negative territory, the December 2008 print marked the first substantial increase. Hence, the bond yield also bottomed in December 2008 (Chart I-4), even though annual inflation did not bottom until July 2009. Chart I-4In 2009, Bond Yields Bottomed When Month-On-Month Inflation Bottomed Similarly, in 2020-21, after a six month sequence of increasing monthly rates of inflation, the May 2021 print marked the end of the rising trend. To the extent that this was anticipated, most of the decline in the bond yield has happened since mid-May (Chart I-5). Chart I-5In 2021, Bond Yields Topped When Month-On-Month Inflation Topped Since mid-May, the 60 percent crash in the lumber price shows what happens when supply bottlenecks ease. Other prices that are being supported by temporary supply constraints – such as used car prices – are likely to suffer the same fate (Chart of the Week). Hence, so long as the coming monthly prints confirm an ongoing deceleration in inflation, the current rally in bonds will stay intact. Jobs: The Hard Work Starts Now Staying on the theme of speed, there is a well-defined speed limit to every post-recession jobs recovery. In A Fed Rate Hike By Early 2023 Is Pie In the Sky, we pointed out the remarkable consistency in the pace of post-recession US jobs recoveries. The last five recessions had different causes, severities, durations and peak unemployment rates. Yet in the recoveries that followed each recession, the unemployment rate declined at a remarkably consistent pace of 0.4-0.5 percent per year (Table I-1). Table I-1After Every Recession, The Pace Of Recovery In The Jobs Market Is Near-Identical Reassuringly at the last FOMC press conference, Jay Powell supported this thesis: Most of the act of sort of going back to one's old job – that's kind of already happened. So, this is a question of people finding a new job. And that's just a process that takes longer. There may be something of a speed limit on it. You've got to find a job where your skills match, you know, what the employer wants. It's got to be in the right area. There's just a lot that goes into the function of finding a job. Powell’s comments lead to two further points: The act of going back to one’s old job for those on ‘temporary layoff’ is relatively straightforward. For job creation, this is the low hanging fruit, most of which has already been picked. Now comes the much harder part – finding jobs for those ‘not on temporary layoff’ whose numbers have barely declined from the peak (Chart I-6). Chart I-6For Job Creation, The Low Hanging Fruit Has Already Been Picked One way of encapsulating this is to observe that the unemployment rate – including those on temporary layoff – has already made 80 percent of the journey from its recession peak to the February 2020 trough, which makes it seem that the jobs recovery is largely done. However, the unemployment rate for those not on temporary layoff has made only 25 percent of the journey (Chart I-7). Moreover, this process is not a straight line, it is a curve. The first quarter of the journey is the easiest, then it gets harder. Chart I-7The Hard Part Is Finding Jobs For Those Unemployed 'Not On Temporary Layoff' As we, and Jay Powell, have pointed out, the process to reduce this unemployment rate has a remarkably consistent speed limit of 0.4-0.5 percent per year. Starting at the current rate of 2.5 percent and a target of 1.5 percent, this means full employment will not be reached before the second half of 2023. And even this assumes clear blue skies for the world economy through the next two years, which is a tall order. We conclude that the market pricing of a Fed funds rate lift-off in December 2022 is much too optimistic, making the December 2022 Eurodollar contract a good buy. The End Of Pandemic Restrictions Will Unleash Super-Spreaders On July 19, the UK will remove all its domestic pandemic restrictions – meaning no more facemasks, social distancing, and limits on the size of gatherings. This doesn’t mean that the pandemic is over in the UK. Far from it. The delta variant of the virus is rampant. Rather, with a large portion of the population vaccinated, the government is replacing state-imposed laws and regulations with a libertarian onus on personal responsibility. Given that Covid-19 is not going away, the UK strategy raises a fundamental question. Other than implementing a vaccination program, what role should a government take in containing the virus? In Who’s Right On The Pandemic – Sweden Or Denmark? we revealed two important findings: First, it is a misunderstanding that state-imposed restrictions cause the collapse in social consumption. This is a classic confusion between correlation and causation. The true cause of the recession is that a virulent disease focuses millions of people on self-preservation, shunning crowds and public places. But to the extent that the pandemic also leads to state-imposed restrictions, many people blame the slowdown on these correlated restrictions rather than on the underlying cause – the voluntary change in behaviour. Second, without state-imposed restrictions, the majority will voluntarily change their behaviour to avoid catching and spreading the virus, but a minority will not. When a virus is spreading, this is critical because a tiny minority of so-called ‘super-spreaders’ is responsible for most infections. Put simply, economic growth depends on the behaviour of the majority and in a pandemic the majority will voluntarily reduce their social consumption. This explains why libertarian Sweden and lockdown Denmark suffered similar contractions in their economies (Chart I-8). Chart I-8Libertarian Sweden Has Not Significantly Outperformed Lockdown Denmark... In contrast, containing the virus depends on restricting the minority of super-spreaders. Which explains why libertarian Sweden suffered a much worse outbreak of the disease than lockdown Denmark (Chart I-9). Chart I-9...But Libertarian Sweden Has Suffered Many More Covid-19 Casualties The worry now is that the end of state-imposed restrictions will unleash super-spreaders and super-spreading events. This will allow the virus to replicate, mutate, and create new variants which are potentially more transmissible and resistant to existing vaccines. Pulling together our three themes for the second half of the year, inflation is set to decelerate, job creation has a natural speed-limit, and super-spreaders of new-variant Covid-19 infections will create speed bumps in the economy. This means that:  Bonds will rally. The US dollar will rally. Growth stocks will outperform value stocks. US stocks will outperform non-US stocks Candidates For Countertrend Reversal This week, we present three candidates for countertrend reversal. First, the Brazilian real’s recent surge has hit expected resistance at 65-day fractal fragility. A good way to play a continued reversal is to short BRL/COP (Chart I-10). Chart I-10The Brazilian Real Is Correcting Second, within emerging markets, the strong rally in the Saudi equity market is vulnerable to a setback, especially versus other markets. A good way to play this is to short the Saudi Tadawul All Share index versus the FTSE Bursa Malaysia KLCI, given that the 260-day fractal structure is at the point of fragility that marked the major top in 2014 (Chart I-11). Chart I-11The Saudi Stock Market Is Vulnerable To A Setback Finally, coming full circle to short-term supply bottlenecks, one major beneficiary has been the Marine Transportation sector which, since February, has outperformed the world market by 70 percent. As the supply bottlenecks ease, this is vulnerable to correction, especially as the 260-day fractal structure is at the point of fragility that marked the major top in 2007 (Chart I-12). Chart I-12Underweight Marine Transportation Hence, this week’s recommended trade is to underweight Marine Transportation versus the market, setting the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 16.5 percent.   Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Equity Market Performance   Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area   Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations   Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Highlights 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.  

Highlights Three distinct forces are likely to make South Asia’s geopolitical risks increasingly relevant to global investors. First, India’s tensions with China stem from China’s growing foreign policy assertiveness and India’s shift away from traditional neutrality toward aligning with the US and its allies. This creates a security dilemma in South Asia, just as in East Asia. Second, India’s economy is sputtering in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, adding fuel to nationalism and populism in advance of a series of important elections. India will stimulate the economy but it could also become more reactive on the international scene. Third, the US is withdrawing from Afghanistan and negotiating a deal with Iran in an effort to reduce the US military presence in the Middle East and South Asia. This will create a scramble for influence across both regions and a power vacuum in Afghanistan that is highly likely to yield negative surprises for India and its neighbors. Traditionally geopolitical risks in South Asia have a limited impact on markets. India’s growth slowdown and forthcoming fiscal stimulus are more relevant for investors. However, a sharp rise in geopolitical risk would undermine India’s structural advantages as the West diversifies away from China. Stay short Indian banks. Feature Geopolitical risks in South Asia are slowly but surely rising. India-Pakistan and China-India are well-known “conflict-dyads” or pairings. Historically, these two sets have been fighting each other over their fuzzy Himalayan border with limited global financial market consequences. But now fundamental changes are afoot that are altering the geopolitical setting in the region. Specifically, the coming together of three distinct forces could trigger a significant geopolitical event in South Asia. The three forces are as follow: Force #1: Sino-Indian Tensions Get Real About a year ago, Indian and Chinese troops clashed in Ladakh, a disputed territory in the Kashmir region. Following these clashes China reduced its military presence in the Pangong Tso area but its presence in some neighboring areas remains meaningful. Besides the troop build-up along India’s eastern border, China is building more air combat infrastructure in its India-facing western theatre. China’s major air bases have historically been concentrated in China’s eastern region, away from the Indian border (Map 1). Consequently, India has historically enjoyed an advantage in airpower. But China appears to be working to mitigate this disadvantage. Map 1Most Of China’s Major Aviation Units Are Located Away From India Owing to China’s increased military focus along the Sino-India border, India’s threat perception of China has undergone a fundamental change in recent years. Notably, India has diverted some of its key army units away from its western Indo-Pak border towards its eastern border with China. India could now have nearly 200,000 troops deployed along its border with China, which would mark a 40% increase from last year.1 Turning attention to the Indo-Pak border, India’s problems with Pakistan appear under control for now. This is owing to the ceasefire agreement that was renewed by the two countries in February 2021. However, this peace cannot possibly be expected to last. This is mainly because core problems between the two countries (like Pakistan’s support of militant proxies and India’s control over Kashmir) remain unaddressed. History too suggests that bouts of peace between the two warring neighbors rarely last long. These bouts usually end abruptly when a terrorist attack takes place in India. With both political turbulence and economic distress in Pakistan rising, the fragile ceasefire between India and Pakistan could be upended over the next six months. In fact, two events over the last week point to the fragility of the ceasefire: Two drones carrying explosives entered an Indian air force station located in Jammu and Kashmir (i.e. a northern territory that India recently reorganized, to Pakistan’s chagrin). Even as no casualties were reported, this attack marks a turning point for terrorist activity in India as this was the first-time terrorists used drones to enter an Indian military base. Hours later, another drone attack struck an Indian base at the Ratnuchak-Kaluchak army station, the site of a major terrorist attack in 2002. Chart 1China, Pakistan And India Cumulatively Added 41 Nuclear Warheads Over 2020 Given that the ceasefire was agreed recently, any further increase in terrorist activity in India over the next six months would suggest that a more substantial breakdown in relations is nigh. Distinct from these recent tensions, China’s troop deployment along India’s eastern arm and Pakistan’s presence along India’s western arm creates a strategic “pincer” that increasingly threatens India. India is naturally concerned. China and Pakistan are allies who have been working closely on projects including the strategic China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). The CPEC is a collection of infrastructure projects in Pakistan that includes the development of a port in Gwadar where a future presence of the People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) is envisaged. Gwadar has the potential of providing China land-based access to the Indian Ocean. Trust in the South Asian region is clearly running low. Distinct from troop build-ups and drone-attacks, China, Pakistan, and India cumulatively added more than 40 nuclear warheads over the last year (Chart 1). China is reputed to be engaged in an even larger increase in its nuclear arsenal than the data show.2 From a structural perspective, too, geopolitical risks in the South Asian peninsula are bound to keep rising. When it comes to the conflicting Indo-Pak dyad, India’s geopolitical power has been rising relative to that of Pakistan in the 2000s. However, the geopolitical muscle of the Sino-Pak alliance is much greater than that of India on a standalone basis (Chart 2). Chart 2India Has Aligned With The QUAD To Counter The Sino-Pak Alliance China’s active involvement in South Asia is responsible for driving India’s increasing desire to abandon its historical foreign policy stance of non-alignment. India’s membership in the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (also known as the QUAD, whose other members include the US, Japan, and Australia) bears testimony to India’s active effort to develop closer relations with the US and its allies (Chart 2). India’s alignment with the US is deepening China’s and Pakistan’s distrust of India. Conventional and nuclear military deterrence should prevent full-scale war. But the regional balance is increasingly fluid which means geopolitical risks will slowly but surely rise in South Asia over the coming year and years. Force #2: A Growth Slowdown Alongside India’s Loaded Election Calendar The pandemic has hit the economies of South Asia particularly hard. South Asia historically maintained higher real GDP growth rates relative to Emerging Markets (EMs). But in 2021, this region’s growth rate is set to be lower than that of EM peers (Chart 3). History is replete with examples of a rise in economic distress triggering geopolitical events. South Asia is characterized by unusually low per capita incomes (Chart 4) and the latest slowdown could exacerbate the risk of both social unrest and geopolitical incidents materialising. Chart 3South Asian Economies Have Been Hit Hard By The Pandemic Chart 4South Asia Is Characterized By Very Low Per Capita Incomes To complicate matters a busy state elections calendar is coming up in India. Elections will be due in seven Indian states in 2022. These states account for about 25% of India’s population. State elections due in 2022 will amount to a high-stakes political battle. During state elections in 2021, the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) was the incumbent in only one of the five states. In 2022, the BJP is the incumbent party in most of the states that are due for elections, which means it has the advantage but also has a lot to lose, especially in a post-pandemic environment. Elections kick off in the crucial state of Uttar Pradesh next February. Last time this state faced elections Prime Minister Narendra Modi was willing to go to great lengths to boost his popularity ahead of time. Specifically, he upset the nation with a large-scale and unprecedented de-monetization program. Given the busy state election calendar in 2022, we expect the BJP-led central government to focus on policy actions that can improve its support among Indian voters. Two policies in particular are likely to come through: Fiscal Stimulus Measures To Provide Economic Relief: India has refrained from administering a large post-pandemic stimulus thus far. As per budget estimates, the Indian central government’s total expenditure in FY22 is set to increase only by 1% on a year-on-year basis. But the expenditure-side restraint shown by India’s central government could change. With elections and a pandemic (which has now claimed over 400,000 lives in India), the central government could consider a meaningful increase in spending closer to February 2022. Map 2Northern India Views Pakistan Even More Unfavorably Than Rest Of India India’s Finance Minister already announced a fiscal stimulus package of $85 billion (amounting to 2.8% of GDP) earlier this week. Whilst this stimulus entails limited fresh spending (amounting to about 0.6% of India’s GDP), we would not be surprised if the government follows it up with more spending closer to February 2022. Assertive Foreign Policy To Ward-Off Unfriendly Neighbors: India’s northern states are known to harbor unfavorable views of Pakistan (Map 2). The roots of this phenomenon can be traced to geography and the bloody civil strife of 1947 that was triggered by the partition of British-ruled India into the two independent dominions of India and Pakistan. Given the north’s unfavorable views of Pakistan and given looming elections, Indian policy makers may be forced to adopt a far more aggressive foreign policy response, to any terrorist strikes from Pakistan or territorial incursions by China. This kind of response was observed most recently ahead of the Indian General Elections in April-May 2019. An Indian military convoy was attacked by a suicide-bomber in early February 2019 and a Pakistan-based terrorist group claimed responsibility. A fortnight later the Indian air force launched unexpected airstrikes across the Line of Control which were then followed by the Pakistan air force conducting air strikes in Jammu and Kashmir. While the next round of Pakistani and Indian general elections is not due until 2023 and 2024, respectively, it is worth noting that of the seven state elections due in India in 2022, four are in the north (Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Uttarakhand, and Himachal Pradesh). Force #3: Power Vacuum In Afghanistan The final reason to be wary of the South Asian geopolitical dynamic is the change in US policy: both the Iran nuclear deal expected in August and the impending withdrawal from Afghanistan in September. The US public has now elected three presidents on the demand that foreign wars be reduced. In the wake of Trump and populism the political establishment is now responding. Therefore Biden will ultimately implement both the Iran deal and the Afghan withdrawal regardless of delays or hang-ups. But then he will have to do damage control. In the case of Iran, a last-minute flare-up of conflict in the region is likely this summer, as the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Iran underscore their red lines before the US and Iran settle down to a deal. Indeed it is already happening, with recent US attacks against Iran-backed Shia militias in Syria and Iraq. A major incident would push up oil prices, which is negative for India. But the endgame, an Iranian economic opening, is positive for India, since it imports oil and has had close relations with Iran historically. In the case of Afghanistan, the US exit will activate latent terrorist forces. It will also create a scramble for influence over this landlocked country that could lead to negative surprises across the region. The first principle of the peace agreement between the US and Afghanistan states that the latter will make all efforts to ensure that Afghan soil is not used to further terrorist activity. However, the enforceability of such a guarantee is next to impossible. Notably, the US withdrawal from Afghanistan will revive the Taliban’s influence in the region. This poses major risks for India, which has a long history of being targeted by Afghani terrorist groups. The Taliban played a critical role in the release of terrorists into Pakistan following the hijacking of an Indian Airlines flight in 1999. Furthermore, the Haqqani network, which has pledged allegiance to the Taliban, has attacked Indian assets in the past. Any attack on India deriving from the power vacuum in Afghanistan would upset the precarious regional balance. Whilst there are no immediate triggers for Afghani groups to launch a terrorist attack in India, the US withdrawal will trigger a tectonic shift in the region. Negative surprises emanating from Afghanistan should be expected. Investment Conclusions Chart 5Indian Banks Appear To Have Factored In All Positives We reiterate the need to pare exposure to Indian assets on a tactical basis. India’s growth engine is likely to misfire over the second half of the Indian financial year. Macroeconomic headwinds pose the chief risk for investors, but major geopolitical changes could act as a negative catalyst in the current context. So we urge clients to stay short Indian Banks (Chart 5). Financials account for the lion’s share of India’s benchmark index (26% weight). India could opt for an unexpected expansion in its fiscal deficit soon. Whilst we continue to watch fiscal dynamics closely, we expect the fiscal expansion to materialize closer to February 2022 when India’s most populous state (i.e. Uttar Pradesh) will undergo elections. Over the long run, India’s sense of insecurity will escalate in the context of a more assertive China, stronger Sino-Pakistani ties, and a power vacuum in Afghanistan. For that reason, New Delhi will continue to shed its neutrality and improve relations with the US-led coalition of democratic countries, with an aim to balance China. This process will feed China’s insecurity of being surrounded and contained by a hegemonic American system. This security dilemma is a source of South Asian geopolitical risk that will become more globally relevant over time. China’s conflict with the US and western world should create incentives for India to attract trade and investment. However, its ability to do so will be contingent upon domestic political factors and regional geopolitical factors.   Ritika Mankar, CFA Editor/Strategist ritika.mankar@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Sudhi Ranjan Sen, ‘India Shifts 50,000 Troops to China Border in Historic Move’, Bloomberg, June 28, 2021, bloomberg.com. 2 Joby Warrick, “China is building more than 100 missile silos in its western desert, analysts say,” Washington Post, June 30, 2021, washingtonpost.com.

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

Highlights The US dollar will reach its ultimate high in the next deflationary shock. The swing factor for dollar demand is portfolio flows. In the next shock, portfolio flows will surge into US investments, driving up the US dollar to its ultimate high. One reason is that the US T-bond is the only major bond that can act as a haven-asset, now that most other bond yields are close to the effective lower bound. For US investors, international stocks will create a double-jeopardy. Not only will non-US stocks underperform US stocks, but non-US currencies will underperform the dollar. For non-US investors, the US 30-year T-bond will create a double-win from price surge and dollar surge, leading to a potential doubling of your money. Fractal trade shortlist: stocks versus bonds, tin, and US REITS versus US utilities. Feature Chart of the WeekSuccessive Shocks Take The Dollar To New Highs In our recent report The Shock Theory Of Bond Yields we explained that the structural level of high-quality government bond yields is simply a function of the number of lasting deflationary shocks that an economy has endured. Each successive deflationary shock takes the bond yield to a lower low. Until it can go no lower (Chart 2). Chart I-2Successive Shocks Take The T-Bond Yield To New Lows Today’s report explains an important corollary. Each major deflationary shock has taken the US dollar to a new high, led by strong rallies against cyclical currencies such as the pound and the Canadian dollar (Chart of the Week, Chart I-3 and Chart I-4). We conclude that the US dollar will reach its ultimate high in the next deflationary shock. Chart I-3USD/GBP Surges In Shocks Chart I-4USD/CAD Surges In Shocks   Investors Must Build Shocks Into Their Strategy Most strategists claim that shocks, such as the pandemic, are inherently unpredictable. They argue that shocks are exogenous events that investors cannot plan for. We disagree. Granted, the timing and source of individual shocks are inherently unpredictable. But as we explained in How To Predict Shocks, the likelihood of suffering a shock is highly predictable. We define a shock as any event that causes the long-duration bond price in a major economy to rally or to slump by at least 25 percent.1 Using this definition through the past five decades, shocks have arrived with a remarkable predictability (Chart I-5). As a statistical distribution, the number of shocks in any ten-year period is Poisson (3.33) and the time between shocks is Exponential (3.33). Chart I-5A Shock Is A 25 Percent Move In The Long Duration Bond Price, And A Shock Tends To Come Every 3 Years Hence, in any three-year period, the likelihood of suffering a shock is 50 percent; in a five-year period, it is 81 percent; and in a ten-year period, it is a near-certain 96 percent (Chart I-6). Chart I-6On A Multi-Year Horizon, A Shock Is A Near-Certainty Yet, to repeat, the precise source and timing of the near-certain shock is unknown. This creates a dissonance for our narrative-focused minds. Absent a narrative for the certain shock, we do not plan for it. But we should. For long-term investors one crucial takeaway is that the ultimate low in the T-bond yield is yet to come. Another crucial takeaway is that the ultimate high in the US dollar is also yet to come. In A Shock, The US Dollar Surges The net demand for dollars comes from four sources: To fund the demand for goods and services denominated in dollars. (In fact, the structural US deficit in goods and services means that this source generates a persistent supply of dollars.) To fund the demand for long-term investments denominated in dollars, also known as foreign direct investment (FDI). To fund the demand for shorter-term financial investments like bonds and equities denominated in dollars, also known as portfolio flows.2 To fund the demand for currency reserves denominated in dollars. Of these four sources of dollar demand, the US deficit in goods and services is not particularly volatile. FDI flows also change relatively slowly. Meanwhile, demand for dollar reserves is a residual factor, except at the rare moment that a currency peg starts or ends.3  The largest quarterly swings in portfolio flows swamp the largest quarterly swings in the trade balance and FDI. This means that the swing factor for dollar demand is portfolio flows. Chart I-7 and Chart I-8 show that the largest quarterly swings in portfolio flows, at over $1.5 trillion (annualised rate) swamp the largest quarterly swings in the trade balance and FDI, at just $0.5 trillion. Chart I-7The Swing Factor For Dollar Demand Is Portfolio Flows Chart I-8The Swing Factor For Dollar Demand Is Portfolio Flows All of which brings us to the main point of this report. In a shock, portfolio flows surge into US investments, which drives up the US dollar. In a shock, portfolio flows surge into US investments, which drives up the US dollar. There are two reasons for this. First, the US stock market is one of the most defensive in the world. Hence, in a shock, equity flows flood into the US (Chart I-9). Chart I-9The US Stock Market Is One Of The Most Defensive In The World But even more important now, the US T-bond is the only major bond that can act as a haven-asset. With most other bond yields already close to the effective lower bound, the US T-bond is the only mainstream asset which still has substantial scope to rally when other asset prices are collapsing. Hence, in recent years, the dollar is just tracking the performance of bonds versus stocks (Chart I-10). It follows that in the next deflationary shock, when bonds surge versus stocks, the dollar will surge to its ultimate high. Chart I-10The Dollar Is Just Tracking Bonds Versus Stocks An Inflationary Shock Will Quickly Morph Into A Deflationary Shock But what if the next shock is a dollar crisis? Such a crisis, caused by a loss of faith in the greenback as a store of value, would start off inflationary – to the detriment of the dollar. However, our high-conviction view is that even if the shock started as inflationary, it would quickly morph into deflationary. The simple reason is that the initial backup in bond yields that would come from such an inflationary shock would collapse the value of $500 trillion worth of global real estate, equities, and other risk-assets, and thereby unleash a massive deflationary impulse. Many people believe that real assets, such as real estate and equities, perform well in an inflationary shock, but this is a misunderstanding. Granted, the income generated by real assets should keep pace with nominal GDP. But the valuation paid for that income will collapse if it starts off at an elevated level, such as now. Investors demand a massive risk premium when inflation is out of control. The starting valuation needed to generate a given real return during an inflationary shock collapses because investors demand a massive risk premium when inflation is out of control. For example, in the low-inflation 1990s and 2000s, a starting price to earnings multiple of 15 consistently generated a prospective 10-year real return of 10 percent. But to generate the same real return of 10 percent during the inflationary 1970s, the starting multiple had to halve to 7 (Chart I-11). Chart I-11In An Inflationary Shock, Valuations Collapse Suffice to say, if the valuation of $500 trillion of global risk-assets were to halve, we would not have to worry about inflation. So, to sum up: On a timeframe of a few years, a shock is a near-certainty even if we do not know its precise source or its precise timing. Furthermore, the shock will be net deflationary. Hence, investors must build such a net deflationary shock or shocks into their long-term investment strategy. Specifically, in the next shock: US equities will outperform non-US equities. The 10-year T-bond yield will reach zero, and the 30-year T-bond yield will reach 0.5 percent. The US dollar will reach its ultimate high. This leads to two very important messages, one for US investors, one for non-US investors. For US investors, international stocks will create a double-jeopardy. In the next shock, not only will non-US stocks underperform US stocks, but non-US currencies will underperform the dollar. The corollary for non-US investors is that the US 30-year T-bond will create a double-win. Not only will the T-bond price surge, but the dollar will also reach a new high. The combination will lead to a potential doubling of your money. H1 2021 Win Ratio Reaches A Magnificent 71 Percent Last Thursday’s 16 percent rally in Nike shares on a brighter sales outlook means that our long Nike versus L’Oréal trade quickly achieved its 9 percent profit target. Long USD/HUF also quickly achieved its 3 percent profit target. Combined with other ‘wins’, this has boosted the fractal trades win ratio for H1 2021 to a magnificent 71 percent – comprising 12.1 wins versus just 4.9 losses. A fragile fractal structure is a warning that the investors setting the investment’s price has become dangerously biased to short-term traders. As longer-term value investors are missing from the price setting process, the price becomes unmoored from the longer-term valuation anchor. This creates an excellent countertrend investment opportunity because once the longer-term investors re-enter the price setting process, the recent trend will reverse. This week we highlight three fragile fractal structures. The fractal structure of stocks versus bonds (MSCI All Country World versus 30-year T-bond) remains fragile, suggesting that a neutral stance, at best, for stocks versus bonds through the summer (Chart I-12). Chart I-12The Fractal Structure Of Stocks Versus Bonds Is Fragile The fractal structure of tin is also fragile (Chart I-13). Given that most commodity prices have begun corrections, tin is vulnerable – especially versus other commodities. Chart I-13The Fractal Structure Of Tin Is Fragile Finally, comparing two high-yielding sectors, the fractal structure of US REITS versus US utilities is at a point of fragility that has reliably presaged countertrend moves (Chart I-14). Accordingly, this week’s recommended trade is to short US REITS versus US utilities, setting the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 5 percent. Chart I-14Short US REITS Versus US Utilities   Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 As bond yields approach their lower limit, this definition of a shock will need to change as it will become impossible for long-duration bond prices to rally by 25 percent. 2 In this discussion, portfolio flows include short-term speculative flows. 3For example, if a currency broke its peg with the dollar it would stop buying the dollar reserves needed to maintain the peg. Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Equity Market Performance   Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Chart I-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Chart I-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Chart I-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart I-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart I-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart I-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart I-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations