Oil

Highlights Tight commodity markets, rising incomes, and constrained logistics networks will continue to push inflation gauges higher, so long as coronavirus mutations don't cause another global economic shutdown. Commodity price pressures – exacerbated by weak capex on the supply side – will feed directly into realized and expected inflation gauges going forward, just as they have this year (Chart of the Week).  In the short run, tight natural gas markets will raise fertilizer prices, which will keep food prices elevated next year. Inflation in goods prices will persist as tight energy and base-metals markets keep input and transportation costs elevated. Political uncertainty in important energy- and metals-exporting states, and ESG-related costs will contribute to upside price pressures.  The cost of building the infrastructure required to decarbonize the global economy – an effort now kicking into high gear – is heavily dependent on the availability of base metals and fossil fuels, which means the cost of this energy transition likely will rise. Against this backdrop, central banks’ room to maneuver will shrink – tightening policy to fight inflation risks will drive up hurdle rates and make supply-side investment more costly. We remain long gold as a hedge against inflation and policy uncertainty, and our commodity-index exposures (S&P GSCI and the COMT ETF). Feature The Fed's preferred inflation gauge, the core Personal Consumption Expenditures Price Index, is up 4.12% y/y; the overall index is up 5.05%. In the euro zone, inflation soared to record highs in November, reaching 4.9% y/y. Most of the surge in these inflation gauges is due to higher commodity prices, which are caused by tight markets globally: In many markets, particularly energy and metals, the level of demand exceeds that of supply, which is forcing inventories lower and prices higher. Supply has been slow catching up with demand post-pandemic. There is a direct feed through from commodity markets to price inflation, something markets will be reminded of repeatedly in coming years as the supply-side of critically important commodities – energy, metals and food – are stressed to keep up with demand (Chart 2).1 Chart of the WeekRealized, Expected Inflation Will Continue To Rise Realized, Expected Inflation Will Continue To Rise Realized, Expected Inflation Will Continue To Rise Chart 2Feedthrough From Commodities To Expected Inflation Is Strong Feedthrough From Commodities To Expected Inflation Is Strong Feedthrough From Commodities To Expected Inflation Is Strong The scope for central banks to act to contain inflation in such circumstances is constrained: Tightening policy to the point where the cost of capital becomes prohibitive will exacerbate supply-side constraints in energy and metals markets. The risk here is acute, given that a decade of monetary policy operating close to the zero bound has failed to encourage long-term investment on the supply side in oil, gas, and metals. The dearth of capex in energy (Chart 3) and metals (Chart 4) threatens to keep supplies constrained for years. Chart 3 Chart 4 Short-Run Pressure On Food Prices In earlier research, we delved into the sharp rise in food prices, and the underlying causes (Chart 5). Some of these are transitory – e.g., the tight shipping market for grains brought about by clogged logistics markets and delays in sailing, which has lifted rates sharply over the course of this year (Chart 6). Chart 5 Chart 6 Other factors – high natural-gas prices, which will drive fertilizer prices higher next year – will dog markets at least until 2H22, when natural gas inventories in Europe will be on their way to being rebuilt, following a difficult injection season this year (Chart 7). The scramble to find gas in Europe and Asia as distributors prepare for a La Niña winter will take time to recover from next year.2 Chart 7High EU Gas Prices Will Keep Fertilizer Prices Elevated High EU Gas Prices Will Keep Fertilizer Prices Elevated High EU Gas Prices Will Keep Fertilizer Prices Elevated Energy, Metals PricesDrive Inflation Expectations The really big inflationary push over the next five to 10 years will come from energy and metals markets, where capex has languished for years, as can be seen in Charts 3 and 4. These markets have been and remain in persistent physical deficits, which will not be easy to reverse without higher prices over a sustained period (Charts 8 and 9). Chart 8Oil Markets Will Remain In Deficit... Oil Markets Will Remain In Deficit... Oil Markets Will Remain In Deficit... Chart 9...As Will Metals Bellwether, Copper ...As Will Metals Bellwether, Copper ...As Will Metals Bellwether, Copper These markets will exert a strong influence on inflation and inflation expectations for as long as capex remains weak and supply is constrained. As can be gleaned from the model shown in Chart 10, the London Metal Exchange Index (LMEX) and 3-year-forward WTI are good explanatory variables for US 5-year/5-year CPI swap rates, the trading market in which inflation expectations are hedged. Until markets see sustainable investment in base metals and hydrocarbons over the course of the global energy transition now underway, forward-looking inflation markets will continue to price to tighter supply expectations. Chart 10 Gold's Role As A Hedge Against Inflation, Uncertainty In our modeling we often describe gold as a currency, which, similar to other currencies, is highly sensitive to US monetary variables, EM and DM income (as measured by nominal GDP), economic policy uncertainty, and core inflation (Chart 11). These variables are what we could call the "usual suspects" that typically are rounded up to explain inflation, in addition to commodities prices.3 In Chart 12, we zero in on one of the inflation gauges discussed above, which is extremely sensitive to commodity prices, and policy uncertainty. Here we show gold as a function of US Economic Policy uncertainty and US PCEPI to make the point that gold can hedge not only the inflation driving these indices, but the economic uncertainty that likely will attend the transition to a low-carbon future, which we expect will remain elevated during this transition. Chart 11Gold Prices Sensitive To Usual Suspects Gold Prices Sensitive To Usual Suspects Gold Prices Sensitive To Usual Suspects Chart 12...Particualrly Inflation And Uncertainty ...Particualrly Inflation And Uncertainty ...Particualrly Inflation And Uncertainty Investment Implications Much of the surge showing up in inflation gauges in the US and EU is being driven by strong commodity prices. These prices are being powered higher by strong income growth, which leads to strong demand; tight supplies, and inventories. As we have noted, the level of commodity demand exceeds that of supply, which is forcing inventories lower and prices higher in oil and metals markets. Going forward, these fundamentals will be slow to change, which argues in favor of our long gold position and our long commodity index positions (S&P GSCI and the COMT ETF). We reiterate the COVID-19 risk factor mentioned at the beginning of this report: Global aggregate demand still is fragile. The risk of another coronavirus shock remains high. In particular, China maintains its zero-tolerance COVID-19 policy. This means commodity markets have to remain alert to how policymakers respond if the highly contagious Omicron variant is detected and authorities once again shut down ports and travel. The risk of disrupted supply chains and hits to supply-demand balances next year remains acute.4     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 Crude oil prices rebounded following its Omicron-induced drop last week. Relative to last Wednesday - when brent closed at its lowest following news of the new variant - prices were up 9.54% as of Tuesday’s close (Chart 13). Saudi Arabia’s decision to increase the official selling price of oil to customers in Asia and the US is testimony to its belief global demand will remain strong, despite the emergence of the highly transmissible new COVID-19 variant. Base Metals: Bullish Ever since the Omicron variant of COVID-19 was disclosed, prices of base-metals bellwether copper have become more volatile. This mostly reflects uncertainty surrounding macroeconomic conditions, as characteristics of the latest variant of the coronavirus are not well-known. COVID-19 lockdowns due to the Omicron variant could potentially delay tightening stimulus measures, which will be positive for industrial metals. However, lockdowns will also reduce industrial activity and demand for the red metal, acting as a sea anchor on copper's price. At the start of this week, looser monetary policy and rising copper imports in China supported the red metal, however these gains were capped by fears regarding the Omicron variant and a strong USD. Despite the volatility in copper prices following Fed Chair Jay Powell’s remarks last week on the pace of the asset purchases, we continue to expect tight fundamentals will outweigh the bearish effects of a stronger USD, and the weaker global financial conditions which come with it (Chart 14). Precious Metals: Bullish The World Platinum Investment Council (WPIC) reported a large third quarter refined platinum surplus of 592k oz, up nearly 430k oz from the second quarter. The jump in the third quarter surplus means the organization expects a full year 2021 surplus of 792k oz, compared to the 190k oz it had forecast in its second quarter report. Increased refined supply due to accelerated processing of 2020 semi-finished platinum stock coupled with lower demand by automakers and outflows from ETFs and stocks held by exchanges propelled the global platinum market into this relatively large surplus. In 2022 South African mined supply is expected to remain stable, while demand is expected to pick up as the economic recovery continues, resulting in a surplus of 637k oz for the full year. These forecasts do not account for the latest Omicron variant which was first reported in South Africa. Lockdowns due to the virus could lead to mine closures in the world’s largest platinum producer and reduce platinum demand from automakers. Chart 13 WTI LEVEL GOING UP WTI LEVEL GOING UP Chart 14 Copper Overcomes Tighter Global Financial Conditions Copper Overcomes Tighter Global Financial Conditions   Footnotes 1     We find Granger-causality between realized and expected inflation gauges (US PCEPI and core PCEPI; US CPI, and US 5-year/5-year CPI swap rates) and commodity price indices (the S&P GSCI and Bloomberg Commodity Index) is very strong.  This indicates the commodity-price indices are good explanatory and predictive variables for realized inflation gauges and for inflation expectations. 2     Please see our November 11 report entitled Risk Of Persistent Food-Price Inflation for additional detail. 3    Please see Conflicting Signals Challenge Gold, which we published on October 7, for example. 4    Please see 2022 Key Views: A Challenging Balancing Act published by BCA Research's China Investment Strategy on December 8, 2021.   Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations

Dear Client, We had an error in our oil balances/forecasts report from 18 November 2021 resulting from a double counting of select US onshore production figures.  This has been corrected below. Highlights Higher oil production will restrain price increases in the short term, and give the impression the burst in inflation is transitory. Re-opening of airline travel and releasing of pent-up demand will absorb much of the higher output by year-end 2022. We are doubtful a US SPR release is forthcoming, as its impact would be trivial. Likewise, we do not expect the US to limit or ban exports of crude oil again, as it would unbalance markets. We are maintaining our Brent forecasts for 2022 and 2023 at $80 and $81/bbl. We again include a caveat, noting upside price risk is increasing going forward, due to inadequate capex (Chart of the Week). Stronger inflation prints going into 1Q22 will test the conviction underpinning central bankers' view that the current bout of price increases is transitory. If inflation appears to be more persistent going into 2H22, the Fed and other systemically important central banks likely will signal earlier-than-expected policy-rate hikes. This would be negative for commodities, as it would raise debt-service costs and investment hurdle rates, and reduce consumption. Higher oil prices and tighter monetary policy will temper demand. If capex is not forthcoming, however, prices will have to rise sharply to destroy demand. Feature It hardly deserves mention that the US has been hectoring the leadership of OPEC 2.0 to increase oil production, in order to reduce the cost of gasoline and home-heating fuels going into the winter … And, there's a mid-term election next year. The Biden administration also has been threatening – if that is the proper term – to release barrels from the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), and reportedly asked China to consider a similar release.1 The leadership of OPEC 2.0, on the other hand, is flagging the risk to stronger oil prices from higher production next year. Much to the chagrin of the Biden administration, the coalition led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia will not be increasing output by more than the 400k b/d it agreed to earlier this year. OPEC 2.0 will keep this up until June or July 2022, when most of its output sidelined by the COVID-19 pandemic will have been returned to the market. We expect the core Gulf-state producers – mostly KSA – will want to maintain ~ 3mm b/d of spare capacity thereafter. Chart of the WeekStable Oil-Price Trajectory Stable Oil-Price Trajectory Stable Oil-Price Trajectory Chart 2OPEC 2.0 Production Continues To Lift OPEC 2.0 Production Continues To Lift OPEC 2.0 Production Continues To Lift Higher Oil Output Expected Overall OPEC 2.0 production is expected to total 52.3mm b/d next year and 53.1mm b/d in 2023 (Chart 2). Most of the increase in the coalition's production will be accounted for by its core producers – KSA, Russia, Iraq, the UAE and Kuwait (Table 1). The "Other Guys" – i.e., those producers in OPEC 2.0 that can only maintain existing output levels or are managing continual declines in output – will account for a decreasing share of the coalition's production (Chart 3).2 Chart 3 Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) To Dec23 High Oil Prices, Low Capex, Inflation … Oh, My. High Oil Prices, Low Capex, Inflation … Oh, My. Including drilled-but-uncompleted wells (DUCs), we expect an additional 600k b/d from US shale-oil producers next year, which would take their output up to 8.39mm b/d, and another 350k b/d increase in their output in 2023. Output in the Lower 48 (L48) states of the US overall is expected to increase to 9.65mm b/d next year and 9.93mm b/d in 2023 (Chart 4). The increase in L48 output will continue to be led by higher shale-oil production, notably from the prolific Permian Basin play (Chart 5). US Gulf of Mexico and Alaska production tops up our total average output forecasts in the States to 11.89mm b/d next year and 12.20mm b/d in 2023. Chart 4US L48 Production Continues To Grow US L48 Production Continues To Grow US L48 Production Continues To Grow Chart 5 Demand Continues To Expand On the demand side, we continue to expect 2021 consumption growth of ~ 5.0mm b/d this year. Our growth expectation for 2022 and 2023 remains close to ~ 4.6mm b/d and 1.3mm b/d, respectively. We also expect demand to cross back over 100mm b/d in the current quarter, as can be seen in Table 1. As has been our wont during the recovery from the pandemic, we expect DM demand to level off next year after a stout recovery, and for EM demand to pick up the baton and lead global oil-consumption growth in the next two years (Chart 6). We remain bullish re the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines using mRNA technology globally, which will allow EM economies to step up growth. Re-opening of DM and EM economies will continue, pushing refined-product demand above 2019 levels next year, including jet-fuel toward the end of 2H22. Chart 6EM Oil Demand Growth Will Take The Lead EM Oil Demand Growth Will Take The Lead EM Oil Demand Growth Will Take The Lead Oil Market Remains Balanced Our supply-demand balances are largely unchanged from last month. This keeps global crude-oil markets in a physical deficit for most of next year. We expect OPEC 2.0's core producers will maintain their production-management strategy – i.e., keeping the level of supply below the level of demand. Producers in the price-taking cohort outside the coalition – chiefly the US, Canada and Brazil – will lift production subject to capital-market constraints on producing oil profitably (Chart 7). This supply-demand dynamic keeps inventories drawing through this year, then leveling off in 2022 and rebounding slowly in 2023 (Chart 8). Chart 7Global Crude Markets Mostly Balanced Global Crude Markets Mostly Balanced Global Crude Markets Mostly Balanced Chart 8Crude Inventories Continue To Draw Crude Inventories Continue To Draw Crude Inventories Continue To Draw   Global crude-oil inventories could come under pressure during the 2021-22 winter, if natural-gas markets remain supply-constrained. This week, the Russian state-owned supplier and operator of Nord Stream 2 (NS2) pipeline delivering Russian gas to Germany was told it must comply with German law before its gas will be allowed to flow. It is unlikely this will be done this year.3 This could keep demand for oil higher at the margin, as we noted earlier.4 Oil's Known Unknowns: Capex, Inflation The big unknowns – and risks – to our view are when and how much capex is going to be deployed in the oil and gas exploration-and-production space, and what we can expect from the Fed and other systematically important central banks if inflation looks to be persistent. OPEC 2.0 leaders and officials from the price-taking cohort agree that the dearth of capex for the industry threatens to destabilize oil and gas markets in the near future. Among the 90 international oil and gas producers tracked quarterly by the US EIA capex has collapsed (Chart 9). The industry appears to have made shareholder and investor interests their priority, so as to be competitive in the pursuit of capital that all firms engage in. This also is true for state-owned entities, which also compete for capital and access to technology. Chart 9 These firms and producers will continue to work to produce oil and gas profitably. Still, they likely will continue to find an unreceptive audience to invest in these energy sources; Governments and policymakers are actively discouraging investment in fossil fuels. This risks setting in motion a process in which supply erodes much faster than demand – similar to what is happening in coal markets presently – and prices for fossil fuels rocket higher. This is not a strategy, particularly as it disregards the fact there is insufficient renewables capacity and storage to cover the energy from hydrocarbons that is being lost because of the lack of a transition policy at any level. Recent strong inflation prints are a small-scale example of how this process could play out over the next decade or longer. When China eliminated Australian coal imports earlier this year in favor of Indonesian supplies, and forced its coal mines to shut as part of its dual-circulation policy to become more self-reliant, the resulting shortages set off chain reactions in global natural gas markets. European gas prices shot higher, which, along with higher Asian and American natgas prices, sent food prices soaring on the back of higher fertilizer prices.5 Shipping bottlenecks and container shortages worldwide exacerbated these problems. CBs' Inflation View Challenged Going into 2022, central bankers' view that the current bout of price increases is transitory is going to be put to the test. If inflation appears to be more persistent going into 2H22 – after hoped-for one-offs in coal, gas, oil and food markets are worked out – the Fed and other systemically important central banks likely would start signaling earlier-than-expected policy-rate hikes. This would be negative for commodities generally, as it would raise debt-service costs and investment hurdle rates, and reduce consumption. Higher oil prices and tighter monetary policy will temper demand. These inflationary pressures can be addressed, but this will require a serious re-thinking of the strategy the world needs to pursue if it is to pull off a successful energy transition. Such a strategy will have to give greater consideration to the role of fossil fuels in this transition. If capex is not forthcoming, however, oil prices will have to rise to destroy demand. This will feed into inflation, and ultimately could result in stagflation, as economic growth grinds lower. Investment Implications The level of uncertainty surrounding oil and gas prices remains elevated, given the background condition of 90% odds we see a La Niña in the Northern Hemisphere's winter (Nov21 – Mar22), and ~ 50% chance it persists into the Spring (March-May22). This could leave markets with colder-than-normal temperatures past the end of winter, as it did last year. Given this uncertainty, we remain long the S&P GSCI and the COMT ETF, to keep our exposure to higher prices and a return to higher backwardation.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com Paula Struk Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy paula.struk@bcaresearch.com   Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish Natural-gas price volatility in Europe and the EU exploded higher once again, following reports the German government would not certify Nord Stream 2 (NS2) unless and until it complies with German law (Chart 10). The European Commission also is setting conditions for its approval. Lastly, outgoing Chancellor Angela Merkel said further sanctions against Russia were possible if the pipeline was used against Ukrainian interests.6 The EU's TTF natural gas benchmark is up 24% this week alone, on the back of this news, while the UK's benchmark Balancing Point index is up 7%. These higher costs will feed into food costs, given the importance of natural gas to fertilizer markets, accounting for ~ 70% of fertilizer costs.7 Given the higher likelihood of another La Niña in the Northern Hemisphere (90% odds from the US Climate Prediction Center), we expect continued volatility in gas prices. Base Metals: Bullish Steel demand in China has been contracting after the government began tightening the supply of credit to the property sector following the Evergrande debt crisis. Construction makes up approximately one-fourth of total Chinese steel demand. At the same time, supply has been falling as, in addition to government regulation to curb carbon emissions, steel mills have voluntarily cut output due to decreasing margins on the back of soft demand. The fact that Chinese steel prices have been falling since their highs in May this year indicates that demand is dropping faster than supply (Chart 11). Reduced Chinese steel demand is feeding through to demand for iron ore – the main steel input in China – while disruptions in the top two iron ore exporters, Australia and Brazil are easing, increasing the possibility of an oversupplied market. Precious Metals: Bullish Gold ended last Thursday above $1,860/oz for the first time since mid-June after the October CPI data release showed that the US had its biggest inflation surge in nearly 30 years. As long as the Federal Reserve does not turn more hawkish, consecutive months of high CPI prints will mean low real rates well into 2022, which will reduce the opportunity cost of holding gold. The high US twin deficits – which as of Q3 2021 was 17.44% of GDP – support the long-term dollar bearish view our colleagues at BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy hold. A weak dollar over the next 12-18 months will increase the inflation-hedge appeal of the yellow metal relative to the greenback. Chart 10 Chart 11 GENERIC 1ST MONTH STEEL REBAR FUTURES PRICE LEVEL GOING DOWN GENERIC 1ST MONTH STEEL REBAR FUTURES PRICE LEVEL GOING DOWN   Footnotes 1     We note in passing the Biden administration has been mostly successful in getting massive fiscal and monetary stimulus deployed into the US economy, which has increased household savings and potential spending power dramatically, as our colleagues in BCA's US Investment Strategy noted in their 1 November 2021 report Half-Empty Or Half-Full?: "Massive fiscal transfers and an unprecedented increase in household wealth will support consumption and keep the economy from stagnating." We cannot view higher gasoline prices in the wake of this stimulus and growth as an economic emergency of the sort the SPR is designed to address. Nor can we view the pick-up in mobility – particularly in air travel expected shortly with the re-opening of routes closed due to the pandemic – as a supply-side emergency. 2     It's worthwhile mentioning here that OPEC 2.0 has been returning less than the 400k b/d every month it agreed due to shortfalls in production outside the core group broken out in Table 1. Reduced capex and maintenance is responsible for this. Higher oil prices might allow this group within the coalition to attract additional capex, but, given the uncertain long-term support for such exploration-production-maintenance investment, this will remain a long-term challenge to these producers. Lastly, we continue to expect Iran to return to markets as a bona fide exporter; we expect its production to return to 3.70-3.85mm b/d by 2H22. 3    Please see Nord Stream 2: Germany halts approval of Russian gas link published on November 16, 2021. 4    Please see last month's oil balances and price-forecast report Short-Term Oil-Price Risk Moves To The Downside, published 21 October 2021. 5    Please see our October 14, 2021 report entitled Inflation Surges, Slows, Then Grinds Higher, and last week's report entitled Risk Of Persistent Food-Price Inflation for additional discussion. 6    Please see fn 3 above. 7     Please see fn 5 above.   Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations

Highlights Geopolitical conflicts point to energy price spikes and could add to inflation surprises in the near term. However, US fiscal drag and China’s economic slowdown are both disinflationary risks to be aware of.  Specifically, energy-producers like Russia and Iran gain greater leverage amid energy shortages. Europe’s natural gas prices could spike again. Conflict in the Middle East could disrupt oil flows.    President Biden’s $1.75 trillion social spending bill is a litmus test for fiscal fatigue in developed markets. It could fail, and even assuming it passes it will not prevent overall fiscal drag in 2022-23. However, it is inflationary over the long run. China’s slowdown poses the chief disinflationary risk. But we still think policy will ease to avoid an economic crash ahead of the fall 2022 national party congress.  We are closing this year’s long value / short growth trade for a loss of 3.75%. Cyclical sectors ended up being a better way to play the reopening trade. Feature Equity markets rallied in recent weeks despite sharp upward moves in core inflation across the world (Chart 1). Inflation is fast becoming a popular concern and we see geopolitical risks that could drive headline inflation still higher in the short run. We also see underrated disinflationary factors, namely China’s property sector distress and economic slowdown.     Several major developments have occurred in recent weeks that we will cover in this report. Our conclusions: Biden’s domestic agenda will pass but risks are high and macro impact is limited. Congress passed Biden’s infrastructure deal and will probably still pass his signature social spending bill, although inflation is creating pushback. Together these bills have little impact on the budget deficit outlook but they will add to inflationary pressures.  Energy shortages embolden Russia and Iran. Winter weather is unpredictable, the energy crisis may not be over. But investors are underrating Russia’s aggressive posture toward the West. Any conflict with Iran could also cause oil disruptions in the near future. US-China relations may improve but not for long. A bilateral summit between Presidents Joe Biden and Xi Jinping will not reduce tensions for very long, if at all. Climate change cooperation is an insufficient basis to reverse the cold war-style confrontation over the long run. Chart 1Inflation Rattles Policymakers Inflation Rattles Policymakers Inflation Rattles Policymakers The investment takeaway is that geopolitical tensions could push energy prices still higher in the short term. Iran and Russia need to be monitored. However, China’s economic slowdown will weigh on growth. China poses an underrated disinflationary risk to our views. US Congress: Bellwether For Fiscal Fatigue While inflation is starting to trouble households and voters, investors should bear in mind that the current set of politicians have long aimed to generate an inflation overshoot. They spent the previous decade in fear of deflation, since it generated anti-establishment or populist parties that threatened to disrupt the political system. They quietly built up an institutional consensus around more robust fiscal policy and monetary-fiscal coordination. Now they are seeing that agenda succeed but are facing the first major hurdle in the form of higher prices. They will not simply cut and run. Inflation is accompanied by rising wages, which today’s leaders want to see – almost all of them have promised households a greater share of the fruits of their labor, in keeping with the new, pro-worker, populist zeitgeist. Real wages are growing at 1.1% in the US and 0.9% across the G7 (Chart 2). Even more than central bankers, political leaders are focused on jobs and employment, i.e. voters. Yet the labor market still has considerable slack (Chart 3). Almost all of the major western governments have been politically recapitalized since the pandemic, either through elections or new coalitions. Almost all of them were elected on promises of robust public investment programs to “build back better,” i.e. create jobs, build infrastructure, revitalize industry, and decarbonize the energy economy. Thus while they are concerned about inflation, they will leave that to central banks, as they will be loathe to abandon their grand investment plans.  Chart 2Higher Wages: Real Or Nominal? Higher Wages: Real Or Nominal? Higher Wages: Real Or Nominal? Still, there will be a breaking point at which inflation forces governments to put their spending plans on hold. The US Congress is the immediate test of whether today’s inflation will trigger fiscal fatigue and force a course correction.      Chart 3Policymakers Fear Populism, Focus On Employment Policymakers Fear Populism, Focus On Employment Policymakers Fear Populism, Focus On Employment President Biden’s $550 billion infrastructure bill passed Congress last week and will be signed into law around November 15. Now he is worried that his signature $1.75 trillion social spending bill will falter due to inflation fears. He cannot spare a single vote in the Senate (and only three votes in the House of Representatives). Odds that the bill fails are about 35%. Democratic Party leaders will not abandon the cause due to recent inflation prints. They see a once-in-a-generation opportunity to expand the role of government, the social safety net, and the interests of their constituents. If they miss this chance due to inflation that ends up being transitory then they will lose the enthusiastic left wing of the party and suffer a devastating loss in next year’s midterm elections, in which they are already at a disadvantage.   Biden’s social bill is also likely to pass because the budget reconciliation process necessary to pass the bill is the same process needed to raise the national debt limit by December 3. A linkage of the two by party leaders would ensure that both pass … and otherwise Democrats risk self-inflicting a national debt default. The reconciliation bill is more about long-term than short-term inflation risk. The bill does not look to have a substantial impact on the budget outlook: the new spending is partially offset by new taxes and spread out over ten years. The various legislative scenarios look virtually the same in our back-of-the-envelope budget projections (Chart 4). Chart 4 However, given that the output gap is virtually closed, this bill combined with the infrastructure bill will add to inflationary pressures. The fiscal drag will diminish by 2024, not coincidentally the presidential election year 2024, not coincidentally the presidential election year. The deficit is not expected to increase or decrease substantially between 2023 and 2024. From then onward the budget deficit will expand. The increased government demand for goods and services and the increased disposable income for low-earning families will add to inflationary pressures. Other developed markets face a similar situation: inflation is picking up, but big spending has been promised and normalizing budgets will marginally weigh on growth in the next few years (Chart 5). True, growth should hold up since the private economy is rebounding in the wake of the pandemic. But politicians will not be inclined to renege on campaign promises of liberal spending in the face of fiscal drag. The current crop of leaders is primed to make major public investments. This is true of Germany, Japan, Canada, and Italy as well as the United States. It is partly true in France, where fiscal retrenchment has been put on hold given the presidential election in the spring. The effect will be inflationary, especially for the US where populist spending is more extravagant than elsewhere. Chart 5 The long run will depend on structural factors and how much the new investments improve productivity. Bottom Line: A single vote in the US Senate could derail the president’s social spending bill, so the US is now the bellwether for fiscal fatigue in the developed world. Biden is likely to pass the bill, as global fiscal drag is disinflationary over the next 12 months. Yet inflation could stay elevated for other reasons. And this fiscal drag will dissipate later in the business cycle. Russia And Iran Gain Leverage Amid Energy Crunch The global energy price spike arose from a combination of structural factors – namely the pandemic and stimulus. It has abated in recent weeks but will remain a latent problem through the winter season, especially if La Niña makes temperatures unusually cold as expected. Rising energy prices feed into general producer prices, which are being passed onto consumers (Chart 6). They look to be moderating but the weather is unpredictable.   There is another reason that near-term energy prices could spike or stay elevated: geopolitics. Tight global energy supply-demand balances mean that there is little margin of safety if unexpected supply disruptions occur. This gives greater leverage to energy producers, two of which are especially relevant at the moment: Russia and Iran.      Russia’s long-running conflict with the West is heating up on several fronts, as expected. Russia may not have caused the European energy crisis but it is exacerbating shortages by restricting flows of natural gas for political reasons, as it is wont to do (Chart 7). Moscow always maintains plausible deniability but it is currently flexing its energy muscles in several areas: Chart 6Energy Price Depends On Winter ... And Russia/Iran! Energy Price Depends On Winter ... And Russia/Iran! Energy Price Depends On Winter ... And Russia/Iran! Ukraine: Russia has avoided filling up and fully utilizing pipelines and storage facilities in Ukraine, where the US is now warning that Russia could stage a large military action in retaliation for Ukrainian drone strikes in the still-simmering Russia-Ukraine war.    Belarus: Russia says it will not increase the gas flow through the major Yamal-Europe natural gas pipeline in 2022 even as Belarus threatens to halt the pipeline’s operation entirely. Belarus, backed by Russia, is locked in a conflict with Poland and the EU over Belarus’s funneling of migrants into their territory (Chart 8). The conflict could lead not only to energy supply disruptions but also to a broader closure of trade and a military standoff.1 Russia has flown two Tu-160 nuclear-armed bombers over Belarus and the border area in a sign of support. Moldova: Russia is withholding natural gas to pressure the new, pro-EU Moldovan government. Chart 7 Chart 8 Russia’s main motive is obvious: it wants Germany and the EU to approve and certify the new Nord Stream II pipeline. Nord Stream II enables Germany and Russia to bypass Ukraine, where pipeline politics raise the risk of shortages and wars. Lame duck German Chancellor Angela Merkel worked with Russia to complete this pipeline before the end of her term, convincing the Biden administration to issue a waiver on congressional sanctions that could have halted its construction. However, two of the parties in the incoming German government, the Greens and the Free Democrats, oppose the pipeline. While these parties may not have been able to stop the pipeline from operating, Russia does not want to take any chances and is trying to force Germany’s and the EU’s hand. The energy crisis makes it more likely that the pipeline will be approved, since the European Commission will have to make its decision during a period when cold weather and shortages will make it politically acceptable to certify the pipeline.2 The decision will further drive a wedge between Germany and eastern EU members, which is what Russia wants. EU natural gas prices will likely subside sometime next year and will probably not derail the economic recovery, according to both our commodity and Europe strategists. A bigger and longer-lasting Russian energy squeeze would emerge if the Nord Stream II pipeline is not certified. This is a low risk at this point but the next six months could bring surprises. More broadly, the West’s conflict with Russia can easily escalate from here. First, President Vladimir Putin faces economic challenges and weak political support. He frequently diverts popular attention by staging aggressive moves abroad. There is no reason to believe his post-2004 strategy of restoring Russia’s sphere of influence in the former Soviet space has changed. High energy prices give him greater leverage even aside from pipeline coercion – so it is not surprising that Russia is moving troops to the Ukraine border again. Growing military support for Belarus, or an expanded conflict in Ukraine, are likely to create a crisis now or later.   Second, the US-Germany agreement to allow Nord Stream II explicitly states that Russia must not weaponize natural gas supply. This statement has had zero effect so far. But when the energy shortage subsides, the EU could pursue retaliatory measures along with the United States. Of course, Russia has been able to weather sanctions. But tensions are already escalating significantly.  After Russia, Iran also gains leverage during times of tight energy supplies. With global oil inventories drawing down, Iran is in the position to inflict “maximum pressure” on the US and its allies, a role reversal from the 2017-20 period in which large inventories enabled the US to impose crippling sanctions on Iran after pulling out of the 2015 nuclear deal (Chart 9). Iran is rapidly advancing on its nuclear program and a new round of diplomatic negotiations may only serve to buy time before it crosses the “breakout” threshold of uranium enrichment capability as early as this month or next. In a recent special report we argued that there is a 40% chance of a crisis over Iran in the Middle East. Such a crisis could ultimately lead to an oil shock in the Persian Gulf or Strait of Hormuz.  Chart 9Now Iran Can Use 'Maximum Pressure' Now Iran Can Use 'Maximum Pressure' Now Iran Can Use 'Maximum Pressure' Bottom Line: Russia’s natural gas coercion of Europe could keep European energy prices high through March or May. More broadly Russia’s renewed tensions with the West confirm our view that oil producers gain geopolitical leverage amid the current supply shortages. Iran also gains leverage and its conflict with the US could lead to global oil supply disruptions anytime over the next 12 months. Until Nord Stream II is certified and a new Iranian nuclear agreement is signed, there are two clear sources of potential energy shocks. Moreover in today’s inflationary context there is limited margin of safety for unexpected supply disruptions regardless of source. Xi’s Historical Rewrite China continues to be a major source of risk for the global economy and financial markets in the lead-up to the twentieth national party congress in fall 2022. While Chinese assets have sold off this year, global risk assets are still vulnerable to negative surprises from China.  The five-year political reshuffle in 2022 is more important than usual since President Xi Jinping was originally supposed to step down but will instead stick around as leader for life, like China’s previous strongmen Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping.3 Xi’s rejection of term limits became clear in 2017 and is not really news. But Xi will fortify himself and his faction in 2022 against any opposition whatsoever. He is extremely vigilant about any threats that could disrupt this process, whether at home or abroad.  The Communist Party’s sixth plenary session this week highlights both Xi’s success within the Communist Party and the sensitivity of the period. Xi produced a new “historical resolution,” or interpretation of the party’s history, which is only the third such resolution. A few remarks on this historical resolution are pertinent: Mao’s resolution: Chairman Mao wrote the first such resolution in 1945 to lay down his version of the party’s history and solidify his personal control. It is naturally a revolutionary leftist document. Deng’s revision of Mao: General Deng Xiaoping then produced a major revision in 1981, shortly after initiating China’s economic opening and reform. Deng’s interpretation aimed to hold Mao accountable for “gross mistakes” during the Cultural Revolution and yet to recognize the Communist Party’s positive achievements in founding the People’s Republic. His version gave credit to the party and collective leadership rather than Mao’s personal rule. Two 30-year periods: The implication was that the party’s history should be divided into two thirty-year periods: the period of foundations and conflict with Mao as the party’s core and the period of improvement and prosperity with Deng as the core. Jiang’s support of Deng: Deng’s telling came under scrutiny from new leftists in the wake of Tiananmen Square incident in 1989. But General Secretary Jiang Zemin largely held to Deng’s version of the story that the days of reform and opening were a far better example of the party’s leadership because they were so much more stable and prosperous.4 Xi’s reaction to Jiang and Deng: Since coming to power in 2012, Xi Jinping has shown an interest in revising the party’s official interpretation of its own history. The central claim of the revisionists is that China could never have achieved its economic success if not for Mao’s strongman rule. Mao’s rule and the Communist Party’s central control thus regain their centrality to modern China’s story. China’s prosperity owes its existence to these primary political conditions. The two periods cannot be separated.  Xi’s synthesis of Deng and Mao: Now Xi has written himself into that history above all other figures – indeed the communique from the Sixth Plenum mentions Xi more often than Marx, Mao, or Deng (Chart 10). The implication is that Xi is the synthesis of Mao and Deng, as we argued back in 2017 at the end of the nineteenth national party congress. The synthesis consists of a strongman who nevertheless maintains a vibrant economy for strategic ends. Chart 10 What are the practical policy implications of this history lesson? Higher Country Risk: China’s revival of personal rule, as opposed to consensus rule, marks a permanent increase in “country risk” and political risk for investors. Autocratic governments lack institutional guardrails (checks and balances) that prevent drastic policy mistakes. When Xi tries to step down there will probably be a succession crisis. Higher Macroeconomic Risk: China is more likely to get stuck in the “middle-income trap.” Liberal or pro-market economic reform is de-emphasized both in the new historical resolution and in the Xi administration’s broader program. Centralization is already suppressing animal spirits, entrepreneurship, and the private sector.  Higher Geopolitical Risk: The return to autocracy and the withdrawal from economic liberalism also entail a conflict with the United States, which is still the world’s largest economy and most powerful military. The US is not what it once was but it will put pressure on China’s economy and build alliances aimed at strategic containment. Bottom Line: China is trying to escape the middle-income trap, like Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea, but it is trying to do so by means of autocracy, import substitution, and conflict with the United States. These other Asian economies improved productivity by democratizing, embracing globalization, and maintaining a special relationship with the United States. China’s odds of succeeding are low. China will focus on power consolidation through fall 2022 and this will lead to negative surprises for financial markets.    China Slowdown: The Disinflationary Risk While it is very unlikely that Xi will face serious challenges to his rule, strange things can happen at critical junctures. Therefore the regime will be extremely alert for any threats, foreign or domestic, and will ultimately prioritize politics above all other things, which means investors will suffer negative surprises. The lingering pandemic still poses an inflationary risk for the rest of the world while the other main risk is disinflationary:    Inflationary Risk – Zero COVID: The “Covid Zero” policy of attempting to stamp out any trace of the virus will still be relevant at least over the next 12 months (Chart 11). Clampdowns serve a dual purpose since the Xi administration wants to minimize foreign interference and domestic dissent before the party congress. Hence the global economy can suffer more negative supply shocks if ports or factories are closed.  Inflationary Risk – Energy Closures: The government is rationing electricity amid energy shortages to prioritize household heating and essential services. This could hurt factory output over the winter if the weather is bad. Disinflationary Risk – Property Bust: The country is still flirting with overtightening monetary, fiscal, and regulatory policies. Throughout the year we have argued that authorities would avoid overtightening. But China is still very much in a danger zone in which policy mistakes could be made. Recent rumors suggest the government is trying to “correct the overcorrection” of regulatory policy. The government is reportedly mulling measures to relax the curbs on the property sector. We are inclined to agree but there is no sign yet that markets are responding, judging by corporate defaults and the crunch in financial conditions (Chart 12). Chart 11 Chart 12China Has Not Contained Property Turmoil China Has Not Contained Property Turmoil China Has Not Contained Property Turmoil Evergrande, the world’s most indebted property developer, is still hobbling along, but its troubles are not over. There are signs of contagion among other developers, including state-owned enterprises, that cannot meet the government’s “three red lines.” 5 Credit growth has now broken beneath the government’s target range of 12%, though money growth has bounced off the lower 8% limit set for this year (Chart 13). China is dangerously close to overtightening.   China’s economic slowdown has not yet been fully felt in the global economy based on China’s import volumes, which are tightly linked to the combined credit-and-fiscal-spending impulse (Chart 14). The implication is that recent pullbacks in industrial metal prices and commodity indexes will continue. Chart 13China Tries To Avoid Over-Tightening China Tries To Avoid Over-Tightening China Tries To Avoid Over-Tightening Chart 14China Slowdown Not Yet Fully Felt China Slowdown Not Yet Fully Felt China Slowdown Not Yet Fully Felt ​​​​​​​Until China eases policy more substantially, it poses a disinflationary risk and a strong point in favor of the transitory view of global inflation.    It is difficult for China to ease policy – let alone stimulate – when producer prices are so high (see Chart 6 above). The result is a dangerous quandary in which the government’s regulatory crackdowns are triggering a property bust yet the government is prevented from providing the usual policy support as the going gets tough. Asset prices and broader risk sentiment could go into free fall. However, the party has a powerful incentive to prevent a generalized crisis ahead of the party congress. So we are inclined to accept signs that property curbs and other policies will be eased. Bottom Line: The full disinflationary impact of China’s financial turmoil and economic slowdown has yet to be felt globally.     Biden-Xi Summit Not A Game Changer As long as inflation prevents robust monetary and fiscal easing, Beijing is incentivized to improve sentiment in other ways. One way is to back away from the regulatory crackdown in other sectors, such as Big Tech. The other is to improve relations with the United States. A stabilization of US ties would be useful before the party congress since President Xi would prefer not to have the US interfering in China’s internal affairs during such a critical hour. No surprise that China is showing signs of trying to stabilize the relationship.   The US is apparently reciprocating. Presidents Biden and Xi also agreed to hold a virtual bilateral summit next week, which could lead to a new series of talks. The US Trade Representative also plans to restart trade negotiations. The plan is to enforce the Phase One trade deal, issue waivers for tariffs that hurt US companies, and pursue new talks over outstanding structural disputes. The Phase One trade deal has fallen far short of its goals in general but on the energy front it is doing well. China will continue importing US commodities amid global shortages (Chart 15). Chart 15 Chart 15 The summit alone will have a limited impact. Biden had a summit with Putin earlier this year but relations could deteriorate tomorrow over cyber-attacks, Ukraine, or Belarus. However, there is some basis for the US and China to cooperate next year: Iran. Xi is consolidating power at home in 2022 and probably wants to use negotiations to keep the Americans at bay. Biden is pivoting to foreign policy in 2022, since Congress will not get anything done, and will primarily focus on halting Iran’s nuclear program. If China assists the US with Iran, then there is a basis for a reduction in tensions. The problem is not only Iran itself but also that China will not jump to enforce sanctions on Iran amid energy shortages. And China is not about to make sweeping structural economic concessions to the US as the Xi administration doubles down on state-guided industrial policy. Meanwhile the US is pursuing a long-term policy of strategic containment and Biden will not want to be seen as appeasing China ahead of midterm elections, especially given Xi’s reversion to autocracy. What about cooperation on climate change? The US and China also delivered a surprise joint statement at the United Nations climate change conference in Scotland (COP26), confirming the widely held expectation that climate policy is an area of engagement. These powers and Europe have a strategic interest in reducing dependency on Middle Eastern oil (Chart 16). Climate talks will begin in the first half of next year. However, climate cooperation is not significant enough alone to outweigh the deeper conflicts between the US and China. Moreover climate policy itself is somewhat antagonistic, as the EU and US are looking at applying “carbon adjustment fees” to carbon-intensive imports, e.g. iron and steel exports from China and other high-polluting producers (Chart 17). While the EU and US are not on the same page yet, and these carbon tariffs are far from implementation, the emergence of green protectionism does not bode well for US-China relations even aside from their fundamental political and military disputes. Chart 16 Bottom Line: Some short-term stabilization of US-China relations is possible but not guaranteed. Markets will cheer if it happens but the effect will be fleeting. Chinese assets are still extremely vulnerable to political and geopolitical risks.   Chart 17 Investment Takeaways Gold can still go higher. Financial markets are pricing higher inflation and weak real rates. Gold has been our chief trade to prepare both for higher inflation and geopolitical risk. We are closing our long value / growth equity trade for a loss of 3.75%. We are maintaining our long DM Europe / short EM Europe trade. This trade has performed poorly due to the rally in energy prices and hence Russian equities. But while energy prices may overshoot in the near term, investors will flee Russian equities as geopolitical risks materialize. We are maintaining our long Korea / short Taiwan trade despite its being deeply in the red. This trade is valid over a strategic or long-term time horizon, in which a major geopolitical crisis and/or war is likely. Our expectation that China will ease policy to stabilize the economy ahead of fall 2022 should support Korean equities.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com       Footnotes 1     Over the past year President Alexander Lukashenko’s repression of domestic unrest prompted the EU to impose sanctions. Lukashenko responded by organizing an immigration scheme in which Middle Eastern migrants are flown into Belarus and funneled into the EU via Poland. The EU is threatening to expand sanctions while Belarus is threatening to cut off the Yamal-Europe pipeline amid Europe’s energy crisis. See Pavel Felgenhauer, “Belarus as Latest Front in Acute East-West Standoff,” Jamestown Foundation, November 11, 2021, Jamestown.org. 2     Both Germany and the EU must approve of Nord Stream II for it to enter into operation. The German Federal Network Agency has until January 8, 2022 to certify the project. The Economy Ministry has already given the green light. Then the European Commission has two-to-four months to respond. The EU is supposed to consider whether the pipeline meets the EU’s requirement that gas transport be “unbundled” or separated from gas production and sales. This is a higher hurdle but Germany’s clout will be felt. Hence final approval could come by March 8 or May 8, 2022. The energy crisis will put pressure for an early certification but the EU Commission may take the full time to pretend that it is not being blackmailed. See Joseph Nasr and Christoph Steitz, “Certifying Nord Stream 2 poses no threat to gas supply to EU – Germany,” Reuters, October 26, 2021, reuters.com. 3    Xi is not serving for an “unprecedented third term,” as the mainstream media keeps reporting. China’s top office is not constant nor were term limits ever firmly established. Each leader’s reign should be measured by their effective control rather than technical terms in office. Mao reigned for 27 years (1949-76), Deng for 14 years or more (1978-92), Jiang Zemin for 10 years (1992-2002), and Hu Jintao for 10 years (2002-2012).  4    See Joseph Fewsmith, “Mao’s Shadow” Hoover Institution, China Leadership Monitor 43 (2014), and “The 19th Party Congress: Ringing In Xi Jinping’s New Age,” Hoover Institution, China Leadership Monitor 55 (2018), hoover.org.  5    Liability-to-asset ratios less than 70%, debt-to-equity less than 100%, and cash-to-short-term-debt ratios of more than 1.0x.   Strategic View Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Open Trades & Positions  Image

Image The markets were deluged by a lot of information in late October. Several central banks made surprise moves towards tightening (the Bank of Canada, for example, ended asset purchases, and the Reserve Bank of Australia effectively abandoned its yield-curve control). Inflation continued to surprise on the upside (headline CPI in the US is now 5.4% year-on-year). But, at the same time, there were signs of faltering growth with, for example, US real GDP growth in Q3 coming in at only 2.0% quarter-on-quarter annualized, compared to 6.7% in Q2. This caused a flattening of the yield curve in many countries, as markets priced in faster monetary tightening but lower long-term growth (Chart 1). Nonetheless, equities shrugged off the barrage of news, with the S&P500 ending the month at a new high. All this highlights what we discussed in our latest Quarterly: That the second year of a bull market is often tricky, resulting in lower (but still positive) returns from equities and higher volatility. For risk assets to continue to outperform, our view of a Goldilocks environment needs to be “just right”: The economy must not be too hot or too cold. We think it will be – and so stay overweight equities versus bonds. But investors should be aware of the risks on either side. How too hot? Inflation is broadening out (at least in the US, UK, Australia and Canada, though not in the euro zone and Japan) and is no longer limited to items which saw unusually strong demand during the pandemic but where supply is constrained (Chart 2). Chart 1What Is The Message Of Flattening Yield Curves? What Is The Message Of Flattening Yield Curves? What Is The Message Of Flattening Yield Curves? Chart 2Inflation Is Broadening Out In The US Inflation Is Broadening Out In The US Inflation Is Broadening Out In The US There is a risk that this turns into a wage-price spiral as employees, amid a tight labor market, push for higher wages to offset rising prices. We find that wages tend to follow prices with a lag of 6-12 months (Chart 3). The Atlanta Fed Wage Tracker (good for gauging underlying wage pressures since it looks only at employees who have been in a job for 12 months or more) is already at 3.5% and looks set to rise further. On the back of these inflationary moves, the market has significantly pulled forward the date of central bank tightening. Futures now imply that the Fed will raise rates in both July and December next year (Chart 4) and that other major developed central banks will also raise multiple times over the next 14 months (Table 1). Breakeven inflation rates have also risen substantially (Chart 5). Chart 3Wages Tend To Rise After Prices Rise Wages Tend To Rise After Prices Rise Wages Tend To Rise After Prices Rise Chart 4Will The Fed Really Hike This Soon? Will The Fed Really Hike This Soon? Will The Fed Really Hike This Soon?   Table 1Futures Implied Path Of Rate Hikes Monthly Portfolio Update: The Risks To Goldilocks Monthly Portfolio Update: The Risks To Goldilocks Chart 5Breakevens Suggest Higher Inflation Breakevens Suggest Higher Inflation Breakevens Suggest Higher Inflation     We think these moves are a little excessive. There are several reasons why inflation might cool next year. Companies are rushing to increase capacity to unblock supply bottlenecks. For example, semiconductor production has already begun to increase, bringing down DRAM prices over the past few months (Chart 6). Another big contributor to broad-based inflation has been a 126% increase in container shipping costs since the start of the year (Chart 7). But currently the number of container ships on order is at a 10-year high; these new ships will be delivered over the next two years. Such deflationary forces should pull down core inflation next year (though we stick to our longstanding view that for multiple structural reasons – demographics, the end of globalization, central bank dovishness, the transition away from fossil fuels – inflation will trend up over the next five years). Chart 6DRAM Prices Falling As Production Ramps Up DRAM Prices Falling As Production Ramps Up DRAM Prices Falling As Production Ramps Up Chart 7All Those Ships On Order Should Bring Down Shipping Costs All Those Ships On Order Should Bring Down Shipping Costs All Those Ships On Order Should Bring Down Shipping Costs The Fed, therefore, will not be in a rush to raise rates. It does not see the labor market as anywhere close to “maximum employment” – it has not defined what it means by this, but we would see it as a 3.8% unemployment rate (the median FOMC dot for the equilibrium unemployment rate) and the prime-age participation rate back to its 2019 level (Chart 8). We continue to expect the first rate hike only in December next year. The Fed will feel the need to override its employment criterion only if long-term inflation expectations become unanchored – but the 5-year 5-year forward breakeven rate is only at 2.3%, within the Fed’s effective CPI target range of 2.3-2.5% (Chart 5). We remain comfortable with our view of only a moderate rise in long-term rates, with the US 10-year Treasury yield at 1.7% by end-2021, and reaching 2-2.25% at the time of the first Fed rate hike. It is also worth emphasizing that even a fairly sharp rise in long-term rates has historically almost always coincided with strong equity performance (Chart 9 and Table 2). This has again been evident in the past 12 months: When rates rose between August 2020 and March 2021, and then from July 2021, equities performed strongly. Chart 8We Are Not Back To "Maximum Employment" We Are Not Back To "Maximum Employment" We Are Not Back To "Maximum Employment" Chart 9Rising Rates Are Usually Accompanied By A Rising Stock Market Rising Rates Are Usually Accompanied By A Rising Stock Market Rising Rates Are Usually Accompanied By A Rising Stock Market   Table 2Episodes Of Rising Long-Term Rates Since 1990 Monthly Portfolio Update: The Risks To Goldilocks Monthly Portfolio Update: The Risks To Goldilocks But could the economy get too cold? We would discount the weak US GDP reading: It was mostly due to production shortages, especially in autos, which pushed down consumption on durable goods by 26% QoQ annualized, and by some softness in spending on services due to the delta Covid variant, the impact of which is now fading. US growth should continue to be supported by a combination of the $2.5 trillion of excess household savings, strong capex as companies boost their production capacity, and a further 5% of GDP in fiscal stimulus that should be passed by Congress by year-end. Similar conditions apply in other developed economies. Chart 10Real Estate Is A Big Part Of Chinese GDP Real Estate Is A Big Part Of Chinese GDP Real Estate Is A Big Part Of Chinese GDP We see three principal risks to this positive outlook: A new strain of Covid-19 that proves resistant to current vaccines – unlikely but not impossible. Our geopolitical strategists worry about Iran, which may have a nuclear bomb ready by December, prompting Israel to bomb the country. Iran would likely react by hampering oil supplies, even blocking the Strait of Hormuz, through which 25% of global oil flows. Chinese growth has been slowing and the impact from the problems at Evergrande is still unclear. Real estate is a major part of the Chinese economy, with residential investment comprising 10% of GDP (Chart 10) and, broadly defined to include construction and building materials, real estate overall perhaps as much as one-third. Our China strategists don’t expect the government to launch a major stimulus which would bail out the industry, since it is happy with the way that property-related lending has been shrinking in recent years (Chart 11). We expect the slowdown in Chinese credit growth to bottom out over the coming few months, but economic activity may have further to slow (Chart 12), and there is a risk that the authorities are unable to control the fallout from the property market. Chart 11Chinese Authorities Are Happy To See Slowing Property Lending Chinese Authorities Are Happy To See Slowing Property Lending Chinese Authorities Are Happy To See Slowing Property Lending Chart 12When Will Credit Growth Bottom? When Will Credit Growth Bottom? When Will Credit Growth Bottom?       Fixed Income: Given the macro environment described above, we remain underweight bonds and short duration. If we assume 1) a Fed liftoff in December 2022, 2) 100 basis points of rate hikes over the following year, and 3) a terminal Fed Funds Rate of 2.08% (the median forecast from the New York Fed’s Survey of Market Participants), 10-year US Treasurys will return -0.2% over the next 12 months, and 2-year Treasurys +0.3%.1 TIPs have overshot fair value and, although we remain neutral since they a tail-risk hedge against high inflation over the next five years, we would especially avoid 2-year TIPS which look very overvalued. We see some pockets of selective value in lower-quality high-yield bonds, specifically US Ba- and Caa-rated issues, which are still trading at breakeven spreads around the 35th historical percentile, whereas higher-rated bonds look very expensive (Chart 13). For US tax-paying investors, municipal bonds look particularly attractive at the moment, with general-obligation (GO) munis trading at a duration-matched yield higher than Treasurys even before tax considerations (Chart 14). Our US bond strategists have recently gone maximum overweight. Chart 13 Chart 14Muni Bonds Are A Steal Muni Bonds Are A Steal Muni Bonds Are A Steal     Equities: We retain our longstanding preference for US equities over other Developed Markets. US equities have outperformed this year, irrespective of whether rates were rising or falling, or how US growth was surprising relative to the rest of the world, emphasizing the much stronger fundamentals of the US market (Chart 15).  Analysts’ forecasts for the next few quarters look quite cautious, and so earnings surprises can push US stock prices up further (Chart 16). We reiterate the neutral on China but underweight on Emerging Markets ex-China that we initiated in our latest Quarterly. Our sector overweights are a mixture of cyclicals (Industrials), rising-interest-rate plays (Financials), and defensives (Heath Care). Chart 15US Equites Outperformed This Year Whatever Happened US Equites Outperformed This Year Whatever Happened US Equites Outperformed This Year Whatever Happened Chart 16Analysts Are Pessimistic About The Next Couple Of Quarters Analysts Are Pessimistic About The Next Couple Of Quarters Analysts Are Pessimistic About The Next Couple Of Quarters   Currencies: We continue to expect the US dollar to be stuck in its trading range and so stay neutral. Recent moves in prospective relative monetary policy bring us to change two of our currency recommendations. We close our underweight on the Australian dollar. The recent rise in Australian inflation (with both trimmed mean and 10-year breakevens now above 2% – Chart 17) has brought forward the timing of the first rate hike and should push up relative real rates (Chart 18). We lower our recommendation on the Japanese yen from overweight to neutral. The Bank of Japan will not raise rates any time soon, even when other central banks are tightening. This will push real-rate differentials against the yen (Chart 18, panel 2). Chart 17Australian Inflation Is Picking Up Australian Inflation Is Picking Up Australian Inflation Is Picking Up Chart 18Real Rates Moving In Favor Of The AUD And Against The JPY Real Rates Moving In Favor Of The AUD And Against The JPY Real Rates Moving In Favor Of The AUD And Against The JPY Chart 19Chinese-Related Metals' Prices Are Falling Chinese-Related Metals' Prices Are Falling Chinese-Related Metals' Prices Are Falling Commodities: We remain cautious on those industrial metals which are most sensitive to slowing Chinese growth and its weakening property market. The fall in iron ore prices since July is now being followed by aluminum. However, metals which are increasingly driven by investment in alternative energy, notably copper, are likely to hold up better (Chart 19). We are underweight the equity Materials sector and neutral on the commodities asset class. The Brent crude oil price has broadly reached our energy strategists’ forecasts of $80/bbl on average in 2022 and $81 in 2023 (Chart 20). Although the forward curve is lower than this, with December-22 Brent at only $75/bbl, it is a misapprehension to characterize this as the market forecasting that the oil price will fall. Backwardation (where futures prices are lower than spot) is the usual state of affairs for structural reasons (for example, producers hedging production forward). The market typically moves to contango only when the oil price has fallen sharply and reserves are high (Chart 21). We remain neutral on the equities Energy sector.   Chart 20Brent Has Reached Our 2022 And 2023 Forecast Level Brent Has Reached Our 2022 And 2023 Forecast Level Brent Has Reached Our 2022 And 2023 Forecast Level Chart 21Lower Oil Futures Don't Mean Oil Price Is Forecast To Fall Lower Oil Futures Don't Mean Oil Price Is Forecast To Fall Lower Oil Futures Don't Mean Oil Price Is Forecast To Fall Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com GAA Asset Allocation  

Highlights Short-term inflation risk will escalate further if politics causes new supply disruptions. Long-term inflation risk is significant as well. There is a distinct risk of a geopolitical crisis in the Middle East that would push up energy prices: the US’s unfinished business with Iran. The primary disinflationary risk is China’s property sector distress. However, Beijing will strive to maintain stability prior to the twentieth national party congress in fall 2022. South Asian geopolitical risks are rising. The Indo-Pakistani ceasefire is likely to break down, while Afghani terrorism will rebound. Book gains on our emerging market currency short targeting “strongman” regimes. Feature Chart 1 Investors are underrating the risk of a global oil shock. This was our geopolitical takeaway from the BCA Conference this year. Investors are focused on the risk of inflation and stagflation, always with reference to the 1970s. The sharp increase in energy prices due to the Arab Oil Embargo of 1973 and the Iranian Revolution of 1979 are universally cited as aggravating factors of stagflation at that time. But these events are also given as critical differences between the situation in the 1970s and today. Unfortunately, there could be similarities. From a strictly geopolitical perspective, the risk of a conflict in the Middle East is significant both in the near term and over the coming year or so. The risk stems from the US’s unfinished business with Iran. More broadly, any supply disruption would have an outsized impact as global energy inventories decline. OPEC’s spare capacity at present can cover a 5 million barrel shock (Chart 1). In this week’s report we also provide tactical updates on China, Russia, and India. Geopolitics And The 1970s Inflation Chart 2Wage-Price Spiral, Stagflation In 1970s Wage-Price Spiral, Stagflation In 1970s Wage-Price Spiral, Stagflation In 1970s Fundamentally the stagflation of the 1970s occurred because global policymakers engendered a spiral of higher wages and higher prices. The wage-price spiral was exacerbated by a falling dollar, after President Nixon abandoned the gold standard, and a commodity price surge (Chart 2). Monetary policy clearly played a role. It was too easy for too long, with broad money supply consistently rising relative to nominal GDP (Chart 3). Central banks including the Federal Reserve were focused exclusively on employment. Policymakers saw the primary risk to the institution’s credibility as recession and unemployment, not inflation. Fear of the Great Depression lurked under the surface. Fiscal policy also played a role. The size of the US budget deficit at this time is often exaggerated but there is no question that they were growing and contributed to the bout of inflation and spike in bond yields (Chart 4). The reason was not only President Johnson’s large social spending program, known as the “Great Society.” It was also Johnson’s war – the Vietnam war. Chart 3Central Banks Focused On Employment, Not Prices, In 1970s Central Banks Focused On Employment, Not Prices, In 1970s Central Banks Focused On Employment, Not Prices, In 1970s On top of this heady mix of inflationary variables came geopolitics. The Yom Kippur war in 1973 prompted Arab states to impose an embargo on Israel’s supporters in the West. The Arab embargo cut off 8% of global oil demand at the time. Oil prices skyrocketed, precipitating a deep recession (Chart 5). Chart 4Johnson's 'Great Society' And Vietnam War Spending Johnson's 'Great Society' And Vietnam War Spending Johnson's 'Great Society' And Vietnam War Spending The embargo came to a halt in spring of 1974 after Israeli forces withdrew to the east of the Suez Canal. The oil shock exacerbated the underlying inflationary wave that continued throughout the decade. The Iranian revolution triggered another oil shock in 1979, bringing the rise in general prices to their peak in the early 1980s, at which point policymakers intervened decisively. Chart 5Arab Oil Embargo And Iranian Revolution Arab Oil Embargo And Iranian Revolution Arab Oil Embargo And Iranian Revolution There is an analogy with today’s global policy mix. Fear of the Great Recession and deflation rules within policymaking circles, albeit less so among the general public. The Fed and the European Central Bank have adjusted their strategies to pursue an average inflation target and “maximum employment.” Chart 6Wage-Price Spiral Today? Wage-Price Spiral Today? Wage-Price Spiral Today? ​​​​​​ The Biden administration is reviving big government with a framework agreement of around $1.2 trillion in new deficit spending on infrastructure, green energy, and social programs likely to pass Congress before year’s end. In short, the macro and policy backdrop are changing in a way that is reminiscent of the 1970s despite various structural differences between the two periods. It is too early to declare that a wage-price spiral has developed but core inflation is rising and investors are right to be concerned about the direction and potential for inflation surprises down the road (Chart 6). These trends would not be nearly as concerning if they were not occurring in the context of a shift in public opinion in favor of government versus markets, labor versus capital, onshoring versus offshoring, and protectionism versus free trade. Investors should note that the last policy sea change (in the opposite direction) lasted roughly 30-40 years. The global savings glut – shown here as the combined current account balances of the world’s major economies – has begun to decline, implying that a major deflationary force might be subsiding. Asian exporters apparently have substantial pricing power, as witnessed by rising export prices, although they have yet to break above the secular downtrend of the post-2008 period (Chart 7). Chart 7Hypo-Globalization Is Inflationary Hypo-Globalization Is Inflationary Hypo-Globalization Is Inflationary A commodity price surge is also underway, of course, though it is so far manageable. The US and EU economies are less energy-intensive than in the 1970s and there is considerable buffer between today’s high prices and an economic recession (Chart 8). Chart 8Wage-Price Spiral Today? Wage-Price Spiral Today? Wage-Price Spiral Today? The problem is that there is a diminishing margin of safety. Furthermore, a crisis in the Middle East is not far-fetched, as there is a concrete and distinct reason for worrying about one: the US’s unresolved collision course with Iran. A crisis in the Persian Gulf would greatly exacerbate today’s energy shortages. Iran: The Risk Of An Oil Shock Iran now says it will rejoin diplomatic talks over its nuclear program in late November. This development was expected, and is important, but it masks the urgent and dangerous trajectory of events that could blow up any day now. It is emphatically not an “all clear” sign for geopolitical risk in the Persian Gulf. The US is hinting, merely hinting, that it is willing to use military force to prevent Iran from going nuclear. The Iranians doubt US appetite for war and have every reason to think that nuclear status will guarantee them regime survival. Thus the Iranians are incentivized to use diplomacy as a screen while pursuing nuclear weaponization – unless the US and Israel make a convincing display of military strength to force Iran back to genuine diplomacy. A convincing display is hard to do. A secret war is taking place, of sabotage and cyber-attacks. On October 26 a cyber-attack disrupted Iranian gas stations. But even attacks on nuclear scientists and facilities have not dissuaded the Iranians from making progress on their nuclear program yet. Iran does not want to be attacked but it knows that a ground invasion is virtually impossible and air strikes alone have a poor record of winning wars. The Iranians have achieved 60% highly enriched uranium and are expected to achieve nuclear breakout capacity – the ability to make a nuclear device – sometime between now and December (Table 1). The IAEA no longer has any visibility in Iran. The regime’s verified production of uranium metal can only be used for the construction of a warhead. Recent technical progress may be irreversible, according to the Institute for Science and International Security.1 If that is true then the upcoming round of diplomatic negotiations is already doomed. Table 1Iran’s Compliance With Nuclear Deal And Time Until Breakout (Oct 2021) Bad Time For An Oil Shock! (GeoRisk Update) Bad Time For An Oil Shock! (GeoRisk Update) American policymakers seem overconfident in the face of this clear nuclear proliferation risk. This is strange given that North Korea successfully manipulated them over the past three decades and now has an arsenal of 40-50 nuclear weapons. The consensus goes as follows: Regime instability: Americans emphasize that the Iranian regime is unstable, lacks genuine support, and faces a large and restive youth population. This is all true. Indeed Iran is one of the most likely candidates for major regime instability in the wake of the COVID-19 shock. Chart 9AIran's Economy Sees Inflation Spike ... Iran's Economy Sees Inflation Spike ... Iran's Economy Sees Inflation Spike ... ​​​​​​ Chart 9B... Yet Some Green Shoots Are Rising ... Yet Some Green Shoots Are Rising ... Yet Some Green Shoots Are Rising However, popular protest has not had any effect on the regime over the past 12 years. Today the economy is improving and illicit oil revenues are rising (Chart 9). A new nationalist government is in charge that has far greater support than the discredited reformist faction that failed on both the economic and foreign policy fronts (Chart 10). The sophisticated idea that achieving nuclear breakout will somehow weaken the regime is wishful thinking.  If it provokes US and/or Israeli air strikes, it will most likely see the people rally around the flag and convince the next generation to adopt the revolutionary cause.2 If it does not provoke a war, then the regime’s strategic wisdom will be confirmed. American military and economic superiority: Americans tend to think that Iran will back down in the face of the US’s and Israel’s overwhelming military and economic superiority. It is true that a massive show of force – combined with the sale of specialized weaponry to Israel to enable a successful strike against extremely hardened nuclear facilities – could force Iran to pause its nuclear quest and go back to negotiations. Yet the US’s awesome display of military power in both Iraq and Afghanistan ended in ignominy and have not deterred Iran, just next door, after 20 years. Nor have American economic sanctions, including “maximum pressure” sanctions since 2019. The US is starkly divided, very few people view Iran as a major threat, and there is an aversion to wars in the Middle East (Chart 11). The Iranians could be forgiven for doubting that the US has the appetite to enforce its demands. Chart 10 ​​​​​​ Chart 11 ​​​​​​ In short the US is attempting to turn its strategic focus to China and Asia Pacific, which creates a power vacuum in the Middle East that Iran may attempt to fill. Meanwhile global supply and demand balances for energy are tight, with shortages popping up around the world, giving Iran greater leverage. From an investment point of view, a crisis is likely in the near term regardless of what happens afterwards. A crisis is necessary to force the US and Iran to return to a durable nuclear deal like in 2015. Otherwise Iran will reach nuclear breakout and an even bigger crisis will erupt, potentially forcing the US and Israel (or Israel alone) to take military action. Diplomatic efforts will need to have some quick and substantial victories in the coming months to convince us that the countries have moved off their collision course. A conflict with Iran will not necessarily go to the extreme of Iran shutting down the Strait of Hormuz and cutting off 21% of the world’s oil and 26% of liquefied natural gas (Chart 12). If that happens a global recession is unavoidable. It would more likely involve lesser conflicts, at least initially, such as “Tanker War 2.0” in the Persian Gulf.3 Or it could involve a flare-up of the ongoing proxy war by missile and drone strikes, such as with the Abqaiq attack in 2019 that knocked 5.7 million barrels per day offline overnight. The impact on oil markets will depend on the nature and magnitude of the event. Chart 12 What are the odds of a military conflict? In past reports we have demonstrated that there is a 40% chance of conflict with Iran. The country’s nuclear program is at a critical juncture. The longer the world goes without a diplomatic track to defuse tensions, the more investors should brace for negative surprises. Bottom Line: There is a clear and present danger of a geopolitical oil shock. The implication is that oil and LNG prices could spike in the coming zero-to-12 months. The implication would be a dramatic “up then down” movement in global energy prices. Inflation expectations should benefit from simmering tensions but a full-blown war would cause an extreme price spike and global recession. China: The Return Of The Authoritative Person Another reason that today’s inflation risk could last longer than expected is that China’s government is likely to backpedal from overtightening monetary, fiscal, and regulatory policy. If this is true then China will secure its economic recovery, the global recovery will continue, commodity prices will stay elevated, and the inflation expectations and bond yields will recover. If it is not true then investors will start talking about disinflation and deflation again soon. We are not bullish on Chinese assets – far from it. We see China entering a property-induced debt-deflation crisis over the long run. But over the 2021-22 period we have argued that China would pull back from the brink of overtightening. Our GeoRisk Indicator for China highlights how policy risk remains elevated (see Appendix). So far our assessment appears largely accurate. The government has quietly intervened to prevent the troubled developer Evergrande from suffering a Lehman-style collapse. The long-delayed imposition of a nationwide property tax is once again being diluted into a few regional trial balloons. Alibaba founder Jack Ma, whom the government disappeared last year, has reappeared in public view, which implies that Beijing recognizes that its crackdown on Big Tech could cause long-term damage to innovation. At this critical juncture, a mysterious “authoritative” commentator has returned to the scene after five years of silence. Widely believed to be Vice Premier Liu He, a Politburo member and Xi Jinping confidante on economic affairs, the authoritative person argues in a recent editorial that China will stick with its current economic policies.4 However, the message was not entirely hawkish. Table 2 highlights the key arguments – China is not oblivious to the risk of a policy mistake. Table 2Messages From China’s ‘Authoritative Person’ On Economic Policy (2021) Bad Time For An Oil Shock! (GeoRisk Update) Bad Time For An Oil Shock! (GeoRisk Update) Readers will recall that a similar “authoritative Person” first appeared in the People’s Daily in May 2016. At that time, the Chinese government had just relented in the face of economic instability and stimulated the economy. It saw a 3.5% of GDP increase in fiscal spending and a 10.0% of GDP increase in the credit impulse from the trough in 2015 to the peak in 2016. The authoritative person was explaining that the intention to reform would persist despite the relapse into debt-fueled growth. So one must wonder today whether the authoritative person is emerging because Beijing is sticking to its guns (consensus view) or rather because it is gradually being forced to relax policy by the manifest risk of financial instability. To be fair, a recent announcement on government special purpose bonds does not indicate major fiscal easing. If local governments accelerate their issuance of new special purpose bonds to meet their quota for the year then they are still not dramatically increasing the fiscal support for the economy. But this announcement could protect against downside growth risks. The first quarter of 2022 will be the true test of whether China will remain hawkish. Going forward there are two significant dangers as we see it. The first is that policymakers prove ideological rather than pragmatic. An autocratic government could get so wrapped up in its populist campaign to restrain high housing costs that it refuses to slacken policies enough and causes a crash. The second danger is that inflation stays higher for longer, preventing authorities from easing policy even when they know they need to do so to stabilize growth. The second danger is the bigger of the two risks. As for the first risk, ideology will take a backseat to necessity. Xi Jinping needs to secure key promotions for his faction in the top positions of the Communist Party at the twentieth national party congress in 2022. He cannot be sure to succeed if the economy is in free fall. A self-induced crash would be a very peculiar way of trying to solidify one’s stature as leader for life at the critical hour. Similarly China cannot maintain a long-term great power competition with the United States if it deliberately triggers property deflation and financial turmoil. It can and will continue modernizing and upgrading its military, e.g. developing hypersonic missiles, even if it faces financial turmoil. But it will have a much greater chance of neutralizing US regional allies and creating a regional buffer space if its economic growth is stable. Ultimately China cannot prevent financial instability, economic distress, and political risk from rising in the coming years. There will be a reckoning for its vast imbalances, as with all countries. It could be that this reckoning will upset the Xi administration’s best-laid plans for 2022. But before that happens we expect policy to ease. A policy mistake today would mean that very negative economic outcomes will arrive precisely in time to affect sociopolitical stability ahead of the party congress next fall. We will keep betting against that. Bottom Line: China’s “authoritative” media commentator shows that policymakers are not as hawkish as the consensus holds. The main takeaway is that policymakers will adjust the intensity of their reform efforts to maintain stability. This is standard Chinese policymaking and it is more important than usual ahead of the political rotation in 2022. Otherwise global inflation risk will quickly give way to deflation risk as defaults among China’s property developers spread and morph into broader financial and economic instability. Indo-Pakistani Ceasefire: A Breakdown Is Nigh India and Pakistan agreed to a ceasefire along the line of control in February 2021. While the agreement has held up so far, a breakdown is probably around the corner. It was never likely to last for long. Over the short run, the ceasefire made sense for both countries: COVID-19 Risks: The first wave of the pandemic had abated but COVID-19-related risks loomed large. India had administered less than 15 million vaccine doses back then and Pakistan only 100,000. Dangerous Transitions Were Underway: With America’s withdrawal from Afghanistan in the works, Pakistan was fully focused on its western border. India was pre-occupied with its eastern front, where skirmishes with Chinese troops forced it to redirect some of its military focus. As we now head towards the end of 2021, these constraints are no longer binding. COVID-19 Risks Under Control: The vaccination campaign in India and Pakistan has gathered pace. More than 50% of India’s population and 30% of Pakistan’s have been given at least one dose. Pakistan’s Ducks Are Lined-up In Afghanistan: America’s withdrawal from Afghanistan has been completed. Afghanistan is under Taliban’s control and Pakistan has a better hold over the affairs of its western neighbor. One constraint remains: India and China remain embroiled in border disputes. Conciliatory talks between their military commanders broke down a fortnight ago. Winter makes it nearly impossible to undertake significant operations in the Himalayas but a failure of coordination today could set up a conflict either immediately or in the spring. While India may see greater value in maintaining the ceasefire than Pakistan, India has elections due in key northern states in 2022. India’s northern states harbor even less favorable views of Pakistan than the rest of India. Hence any small event could trigger a disproportionate response from India. Bottom Line: While it is impossible to predict the timing, a breakdown in the Indo-Pakistani ceasefire may materialize in 2022 or sooner. Depending on the exact nature of any conflict, a geopolitically induced selloff in Indian equities could create a much-needed consolidation of this year’s rally and ultimately a buying opportunity. Russia, Global Terrorism, And Great Power Relations Part of Putin’s strategy of rebuilding the Russian empire involves ensuring that Russia has a seat at the table for every major negotiation in Eurasia. Now that the US has withdrawn forces from Afghanistan, Russia is pursuing a greater role there. Most recently Russia hosted delegations from China, Pakistan, India, and the Taliban. India too is planning to host a national security advisor-level conference next month to discuss the Afghanistan situation. Do these conferences matter for global investors? Not directly. But regional developments can give insight into the strategies of the great powers in a world that is witnessing a secular rise in geopolitical risk. Chart 13 China, Russia, and India have skin in the game when it comes to Afghanistan’s future. This is because all three powers have much to lose if Afghanistan becomes a large-scale incubator for terrorists who can infiltrate Russia through Central Asia, China through Xinjiang, or India through Pakistan. Hence all three regional powers will be constrained to stay involved in the affairs of Afghanistan. Terrorism-related risks in South Asia have been capped over the last decade due to the American war (Chart 13). The US withdrawal will lead to the activation of latent terrorist activity. This poses risks specifically for India, which has a history of being targeted by Afghani terrorist groups. And yet, while China and Russia saw the Afghan vacuum coming and have been engaging with Taliban from the get-go, India only recently began engaging with Taliban. The evolution of Afghanistan under the Taliban will also influence the risk of terrorism for the rest of the world. In the wake of the global pandemic and recession, social misery and regime failures in areas with large youth populations will continue to combine with modern communications technology to create a revival of terrorist threats (Chart 14). Chart 14 American officials recently warned of the potential for transnational attacks based in Afghanistan to strike the homeland within six months. That risk may be exaggerated today but it is real over the long run, especially as US intelligence turns its strategic focus toward states and away from non-state actors. India, Europe, and other targets are probably even more vulnerable than the United States. If Russia and China succeed in shaping the new Afghanistan’s leadership then the focus of militant proxies will be directed elsewhere. Beyond terrorism, if Russia and China coordinate closely over Afghanistan then India may be left in the cold. This would reinforce recent trends in which a tightening Russo-Chinese partnership hastens India’s shift away from neutrality and toward favoring the US and the West in strategic matters. If these trends continue to the point of alliance formation, then they increase the risk that any conflicts between two powers will implicate others. Bottom Line: Afghanistan is now a regional barometer of multilateral cooperation on counterterrorism, the exclusivity of Russo-Chinese cooperation, and India’s strategic isolation or alignment with the West. Investment Takeaways It is too soon to play down inflation risks. We share the BCA House View that they will subside next year as pandemic effects wane. But we also see clear near-term risks to this view. In the short run (zero to 12 months), a distinct risk of a Middle Eastern geopolitical crisis looms. A gradual escalation of tensions is inflationary whereas a sharp spike in conflict would push energy prices into punitive territory and kill global demand. Over the next 12 months, China’s economic and financial instability will also elicit policy easing or fiscal stimulus as necessary to preserve stability, as highlighted by the regime’s mouthpiece. Obviously stimulus will not be utilized if the economic recovery is stable, given elevated producer prices. In a future report we will show that Russia is willing and able to manipulate natural gas prices to increase its bargaining leverage over Europe. This dynamic, combined with the risk of cold winter weather exacerbating shortages, suggests that the worst is not yet over. Geopolitical conflict with Russia will resume over the long run. Stay long gold as a hedge against both inflation and geopolitical crises involving Iran, Taiwan/China, and Russia. Maintain “value” plays as a cheap hedge against inflation. Book a profit of 2.5% on our short trade for currencies of emerging market “strongmen,” Turkey, Brazil, and the Philippines. Our view is still negative on these economies. Stay long cyber-security stocks. Over the long run, inflation risk must be monitored. We expect significant inflation risk to persist as a result of a generational change in global policy in favor of government and labor over business and capital. But the US is maintaining easy immigration policy and boosting productivity-enhancing investments. Meanwhile China’s secular slowdown is disinflationary. The dollar may remain resilient in the face of persistently high geopolitical risk. The jury is still out.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Ritika Mankar, CFA Editor/Strategist ritika.mankar@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      David Albright and Sarah Burkhard, "Iran’s Recent, Irreversible Nuclear Advances," Institute for Science and International Security, September 22, 2021, isis-online.org. 2     Ray Takeyh, "The Bomb Will Backfire On Iran," Foreign Affairs, October 18, 2021, foreignaffairs.com. 3     See Aaron Stein and Afshon Ostovar, "Tanker War 2.0: Iranian Strategy In The Gulf," Foreign Policy Research Institute, August 10, 2021, fpri.org. 4     "Ten Questions About China’s Economy," Xinhua, October 24, 2021, news.cn.     Section II: Appendix: GeoRisk Indicator China China: GeoRisk Indicator China: GeoRisk Indicator Russia Russia: GeoRisk Indicator Russia: GeoRisk Indicator United Kingdom UK: GeoRisk Indicator UK: GeoRisk Indicator Germany Germany: GeoRisk Indicator Germany: GeoRisk Indicator France France: GeoRisk Indicator France: GeoRisk Indicator Italy Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Canada Canada: GeoRisk Indicator Canada: GeoRisk Indicator Spain Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Taiwan Taiwan-Province of China: GeoRisk Indicator Taiwan-Province of China: GeoRisk Indicator Korea Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Turkey Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Brazil Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator Australia Australia: GeoRisk Indicator Australia: GeoRisk Indicator South Africa South Africa: GeoRisk Indicator South Africa: GeoRisk Indicator Section III: Geopolitical Calendar

In lieu of next week’s report, I will be presenting the quarterly Counterpoint webcast titled ‘Where Is The Groupthink Wrong? (Part 2)’. I do hope you can join. Highlights If a continued surge in the oil price – or other commodity or goods prices – started driving up the 30-year T-bond yield, the markets and the economy would feel the pain. We reiterate that the pain point at which the Fed would be forced to volte-face is only around 30 bps away on the 30-year T-bond, equal to a yield of around 2.4-2.5 percent. That would be a great buying opportunity for bonds. Given the proximity of this pain point, it is too late to short bonds, or for equity investors to rotate into value and cyclical equity sectors. That tactical opportunity has almost played out. On a 6-month and longer horizon, equity investors should prefer long-duration defensive sectors such as healthcare. Chinese long-duration bond yields are on a structural downtrend. Fractal analysis: The Korean won is oversold. Feature Many people have noticed the suspicious proximity of oil price surges to subsequent economic downturns – most recently, the 1999-2000 trebling of crude and the subsequent 2000-01 downturn, and the 2007-2008 trebling of crude and the subsequent 2008-09 global recession. Begging the question, should we be concerned about the trebling of the crude oil price since March 2020? Of course, we know that the root cause of both the 2000-01 downturn and the 2008-09 recession was not the oil price surge that preceded them. As their names make crystal clear, the 2001-01 downturn was the dot com bust and the 2008-09 recession was the global financial crisis. And yet, and yet… while the oil price surge was not the culprit, it was certainly the accessory to both murders, by driving up the bond yield and tipping an already fragile market and economy over the brink. Today, could oil become the accessory to another murder? (Chart I-1) Chart I-1AOil Was The Accessory To The Murder In 2008... Oil Was The Accessory To The Murder In 2008... Oil Was The Accessory To The Murder In 2008... Chart I-1B...Could It Become The Accessory To Another Murder? ...Could It Become The Accessory To Another Murder? ...Could It Become The Accessory To Another Murder?   Oil Is The Accessory To Many Murders Turn the clock back to the 1970s, and it might seem more straightforward that the recession of 1974 was the direct result of the oil shock that preceded it. Yet even in this case, we can argue that oil was the accessory, rather than the true culprit of that murder. It is correct that the specific timing, magnitude, and nature of OPEC supply cutbacks were closely related to geopolitical events – especially the US support for Israel in the Arab-Israeli war of October 1973. Yet as neat and popular as this explanation is, it ignores a bigger economic story: the collapse in August 1971 of the Bretton Woods ‘pseudo gold standard’, which severed the fixed link between the US dollar and quantities of commodities. To maintain the real value of oil, the OPEC countries were raising the price of crude oil well before October 1973. Meaning that while geopolitical events may have influenced the precise timing and magnitude of price hikes, OPEC countries were just ‘staying even’ with the collapsing real value of the US dollar, in which oil was priced. Seen in this light, the true culprit of the recession was the collapse of the Bretton Woods system, and the oil price surge through 1973-74 was just the accessory to the murder (Chart I-2). Chart I-2In 1973-74, OPEC Was Just 'Staying Even' With A Collapsing Real Value Of The Dollar In 1973-74, OPEC Was Just 'Staying Even' With A Collapsing Real Value Of The Dollar In 1973-74, OPEC Was Just 'Staying Even' With A Collapsing Real Value Of The Dollar A quarter of a century later in 1999, the oil price again trebled within a short time span – and by the turn of the millennium, the ensuing inflationary fears had pushed up the 10-year T-bond yield from 4.5 percent to almost 7 percent (Chart I-3). With stocks already looking expensive versus bonds, it was this increase in the bond yield – rather than a decline in the equity earnings yield – that inflated the equity bubble to its bursting point in early 2000 (Chart I-4). Chart I-3In 1999, As Oil Surged, So Did The Bond Yield... In 1999, As Oil Surged, So Did The Bond Yield... In 1999, As Oil Surged, So Did The Bond Yield... Chart I-4...Making Expensive Equities Even More Expensive ...Making Expensive Equities Even More Expensive ...Making Expensive Equities Even More Expensive To repeat, for the broader equity market, the last stage of the bubble was not so much that stocks became more expensive in absolute terms (the earnings yield was just moving sideways). Rather, stock valuations worsened markedly relative to sharply higher bond yields. Seen in this light, the oil price surge through 1999 was once again the accessory to the murder. Eight years later in 2007-08, the oil price once again trebled with Brent crude reaching an all-time high of $146 per barrel in July 2008. Again, the inflationary fears forced the 10-year T-bond yield to increase, from 3.25 percent to 4.25 percent during the early summer of 2008 (Chart I-5) – even though the Federal Reserve was slashing the Fed funds rate in the face of an escalating financial crisis (Chart I-6). Chart I-5In 2008, As Oil Surged, So Did The Bond Yield... In 2008, As Oil Surged, So Did The Bond Yield... In 2008, As Oil Surged, So Did The Bond Yield... Chart I-6...Even Though The Fed Was Slashing Rates In The Face Of A Financial Crisis ...Even Though The Fed Was Slashing Rates In The Face Of A Financial Crisis ...Even Though The Fed Was Slashing Rates In The Face Of A Financial Crisis Suffice to say, driving up bond yields in the summer of 2008 – in the face of the Fed’s aggressive rate cuts and a global financial system teetering on the brink – was not the smartest thing that the bond market could do. On the other hand, neither could it override its Pavlovian fears of the oil price trebling. Seen in this light, the oil price surge through 2007-08 was once again the accessory to the murder. Inflationary Fears May Once Again Lead To Murder Fast forward to today, and the danger of the recent trebling of the oil price comes not from the oil price per se. Instead, just as in 2000 and 2008, the danger comes from its potential to drive up bond yields, which can tip more systemically important economic and financial fragilities over the brink. One such fragility is the extreme sensitivity of highly-valued growth stocks to the 30-year T-bond yield, as explained in The Fed’s ‘Pain Point’ Is Only 30 Basis Points Away. On this note, one encouragement is that while shorter duration yields have risen sharply through October, the much more important 30-year T-bond yield has just gone sideways. A much bigger systemic fragility lies in the $300 trillion global real estate market, as explained in The Real Risk Is Real Estate (Part 2). Specifically, the global real estate market has undergone an unprecedented ten-year boom in which prices have doubled in every corner of the world. Over the same period, rents have risen by just 30 percent, which has depressed the global rental yield to an all-time low of 2.5 percent. Structurally depressed rental yields are justified by structurally depressed 30-year bond yields. Therefore, any sustained rise in 30-year bond yields risks undermining the foundations of the $300 trillion global real estate market (Chart I-7). Chart I-7Structurally Depressed Rental Yields Are Justified By Structurally Depressed 30-Year Bond Yields Structurally Depressed Rental Yields Are Justified By Structurally Depressed 30-Year Bond Yields Structurally Depressed Rental Yields Are Justified By Structurally Depressed 30-Year Bond Yields Nowhere is this truer than in China, where prime real estate yields in the major cities are at a paltry 1 percent. In this context, the recent woes of real estate developer Evergrande are just the ‘canary in the coalmine’ warning of an extremely fragile Chinese real estate sector. This will put downward pressure on China’s long-duration bond yields. As my colleague, BCA China strategist, Jing Sima, points out, “Chinese long-duration bond yields are on a structural downtrend…yields are likely to move structurally to a lower bound.” But it is not just in China. Real estate is at record high valuations everywhere and contingent on no major rise in long-duration bond yields. In the US, there is a tight relationship between the (inverted) 30-year bond yield and mortgage applications for home purchase (Chart I-8), and a tight relationship between mortgage applications for home purchase and building permits (Chart I-9). Thereby, higher bond yields threaten not only real estate prices. They also threaten the act of building itself, an important swing factor in economic activity. Chart I-8The Bond Yield Drives Mortgage Applications... The Bond Yield Drives Mortgage Applications... The Bond Yield Drives Mortgage Applications... Chart I-9...And Mortgage Applications Drive Building Permits ...And Mortgage Applications Drive Building Permits ...And Mortgage Applications Drive Building Permits To repeat, focus on the 30-year T-bond yield – as this is the most significant driver for both growth stock valuations, and for real estate valuations and activity. To repeat also, the 30-year T-bond yield has been generally well-behaved over the past few months. But if a continued surge in the oil price – or other commodity or goods prices – started driving up the 30-year T-bond yield, the markets and the economy would feel pain. And at some point, this pain would force the Fed to volte-face. We reiterate that this pain point is only around 30 bps away, equal to a yield on 30-year T-bond of around 2.4-2.5 percent – a level that would be a great buying opportunity for bonds. Given the proximity of this pain point, it is too late to short bonds or for equity investors to rotate into value and cyclical equity sectors. That tactical opportunity has almost played out. On a 6-month and longer horizon, equity investors should prefer long-duration defensive sectors such as healthcare. The Korean Won Is Oversold Finally, in this week’s fractal analysis, we note that the Korean won is oversold – specifically versus the Chinese yuan on the 130-day fractal structure of that cross (Chart I-10). Chart I-10The Korean Won Is Oversold The Korean Won Is Oversold The Korean Won Is Oversold Given that previous instances of such fragility have reliably indicated trend changes, this week’s recommended trade is long KRW/CNY, setting the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 2 percent.   Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades   Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Europe Ex Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Other Developed Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Highlights In our latest balances and forecast estimates, we are lifting our expectation for 4Q21 Brent prices to $81/bbl, and our forecasts for 2022 and 2023 to $80.00/bbl and $81.00/bbl, up $5/bbl and $1/bbl, respectively. Our revised balances reflect deeper physical deficits in the EIA's latest historical data, and higher short-term demand consistent with IEA's expected increase of 500k b/d. This largely is a knock-on effect of tight coal markets in Asia and globally tight natural gas markets. Over-compliance with production-cutting goals likely will force higher oil output from GCC producers to offset declining output from OPEC 2.0 states outside the Gulf. We expect output in the Lower 48 states of the US, which consists mostly of shale-oil production, to average 9.5mm b/d in 2022 and 10mm b/d in 2023, versus 2021 production levels of 9.0mm b/d. The odds of oil prices exceeding $100/bbl by the end of 1Q22 are 12.05%, based on price distributions embedded in market-cleared crude-oil options prices (Chart of the Week).1 At the margin, downside risk is increasing going into winter, due to slower economic growth brought on by tight coal and gas markets globally. Feature The short-term evolution of energy markets globally remains highly uncertain, mostly because it depends so much on the evolution of the Northern Hemisphere winter; policy actions to address tight coal and natural gas markets in Asia and Europe, and OPEC 2.0's reading of short- and medium-term demand. We are lifting our 4Q21 Brent price forecast to $81/bbl from $70.50/bbl, to reflect a marginal increase of 500k b/d in oil demand resulting from the knock-on effects of tighter coal and gas markets in Asia and Europe.2 For all of 2021, we are raising our expected global oil demand to 97.5mm b/d from 97.3mm b/d. Chart of the WeekProbability Of $100/bbl Remains Low Short-Term Oil-Price Risk Moves To The Downside Short-Term Oil-Price Risk Moves To The Downside For 2022 and 2023, we expect slightly higher oil demand – 102mmb/d and 103.3mm b/d, respectively, most of which will come from DM economies at the margin (Chart 2). This lifts our Brent forecasts for next year to $80.00/bbl, and to $81/bbl in 2023 (Chart 3). We expect WTI to trade $2-$3/bbl below Brent. Chart 2Short-Term DM Demand Increases At The Margin Short-Term DM Demand Increases At The Margin Short-Term DM Demand Increases At The Margin Chart 3Brent Forecast Lifted Slightly Brent Forecast Lifted Slightly Brent Forecast Lifted Slightly The uncertainty around our price forecast remains elevated, given the knock-on effects of additional slowing of economic growth in Asia due to lower hydro power output because of drought, and tighter coal and gas markets, as inventories continue to be restocked ahead of the Northern Hemisphere winter.3 Tighter coal and natural gas markets in China and Europe already have led to shutdowns in industrial output particularly in China's and Europe's base metals markets. Countering this bearish impulse is our expectation the roll-out of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines will pick up momentum, as joint ventures with the developers of these technologies increase global distribution over the next couple of years.4 Oil Supply Side Remains Well Managed OPEC 2.0 – led by Saudi Arabia and Russia – has consistently managed the level of its production to keep it just below the level of demand for its crude. Producers outside this coalition – the price-taking cohort, in our phraseology – has been managing its output to maintain profitability, which means investor interests are paramount. Both have been responsive to actual demand. Neither is calibrating output to match expected demand. From the EIA’s most recent historical estimates of realized supply and demand, it appears production from both OPEC 2.0 and the price-taking cohort was underestimated in 2H21, or the data-gathering-and-reporting agencies undercounted barrels (Chart 4). This can be seen in the larger physical deficits – i.e., demand in excess of supply – relative to last month's historical estimates, and in the sharply lower OECD inventories (Chart 5). In this month’s modeling, we tweaked OPEC 2.0 supply estimates to reflect the recent high compliance rate of the OPEC 2.0 coalition. According to Reuters, low oil investment in suppliers – chiefly Nigeria, Angola and Kazakhstan – was the primary reason the coalition has been unable to bring all of its agreed-to additional monthly supply increase of 400k b/d to the market.5 This undersupply is expected to continue until the end of 2021 in our models. Chart 4Higher 2H21 Physical Deficits Reported Higher 2H21 Physical Deficits Reported Higher 2H21 Physical Deficits Reported Chart 5OECD Inventories Remain Key OPEC 2.0 Metric OECD Inventories Remain Key OPEC 2.0 Metric OECD Inventories Remain Key OPEC 2.0 Metric We also modified our forecasts for Iranian production to reflect our Geopolitical Strategy colleagues’ belief that a deal between the US and Iran is likely.6 We project Iranian oil supply will reach 2.9 mmb/d by end of Q1 2022, and 3.7 mmb/d by the end of 2022.  OPEC's most recent monthly supply-demand estimates caution higher electricity prices due to the coal and natgas shortages in Asia and Europe could lead to lower demand over the winter months. This already is apparent in China and Europe, where heavy electricity users – steel mills and zinc smelters, e.g., – are being forced to shut down production as electricity is rationed. Should this persist – and result in lower oil demand – OPEC 2.0 output could contract. However, with inventories drawing sharply in the OECD, we expect the producer coalition will err on the side of higher output if Brent prices surge to $90/bbl or more this winter. OPEC 2.0 member states do not gain any long-term advantage from higher oil prices when demand globally is contracting and EM economies – the growth engine of global oil markets – are still trying to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic. The price-taking cohort – exemplified by the US shale-oil producers – cannot ramp production quickly enough to fill a physical supply deficit over the course of the winter. We estimate it takes ~ 8 months to assemble rigs and crews, drill pads in the shales, and hook gathering lines up to main lines to move oil to refining centers. Given the level of prices and the shape of the forward curve, we expect US production in the Lower 48 states, which is mostly accounted for by shale-oil production, to average 9.5mm b/d in 2022 and 9.9mm b/d in 2023 (Chart 6). While production in the Permian basin continues to rise, it will not grow quickly enough to address a tightening in global oil markets in the short run (Chart 7). Chart 6Higher US Shale Output Expected Higher US Shale Output Expected Higher US Shale Output Expected Chart 7US Shales Cannot Cover Deficit Short-Term Oil-Price Risk Moves To The Downside Short-Term Oil-Price Risk Moves To The Downside Investment Implications The evolution of global energy markets remains highly uncertain. Markets likely will not be able to form solid expectations until after the New Year begins, owing to weather uncertainty. There are reports already that winter has started early in northern China, but this does not necessarily presage colder-than-normal weather globally for the entire winter.7 We expect markets to remain balanced and for OPEC 2.0 in particular to manage its output in line with actual demand (Table 1). Our intellectual framework for assessing OPEC 2.0's production strategy is grounded in the view the coalition does not want to see oil prices much higher than current levels, given the fragility of the global economic recovery, particularly in EM economies. Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) To Dec23 Short-Term Oil-Price Risk Moves To The Downside Short-Term Oil-Price Risk Moves To The Downside We remain long commodity index exposure going into winter, in the expectation colder-than-normal weather will keep energy prices well bid, and oil and natural gas forward curves backwardated. We continue to monitor weather expectations   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com   Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish The EIA expects US households using natural gas will pay just under $750 to heat their homes on average this winter, a 30% increase over last year's level. This is the result of higher prices vs last year, and higher consumption estimates by the EIA, given its weather expectation. This past week, the US Climate Prediction Center raised the odds of a second La Niña to 87%, from it earlier 70-80% expectation. This raises the likelihood of a colder-than-normal winter in the Northern Hemisphere. US natural gas inventories are expected to end the April-October injection season at 3.6 TCF, in the EIA's latest estimate, which will put stocks ~ 5% below the 2016-2020 five-year average. US LNG exports are expected to average 10.7 BCF/d over the Oct21-Mar22 period, which would be a record. Higher prices in Asia and Europe due to stronger demand are pulling US natgas prices higher via exports (Chart 8). Base Metals: Bullish Spot copper traded in excess of $1,100/MT over 3-month forward LME futures this week, as traders globally scramble for product ahead of possible power rationing at copper-refining facilities in China this winter.8 Prices abruptly fell more than 7% from there, following a press report the Chinese government would directly intervene in coal markets to lower prices. Coal and natural gas shortages going into the winter are forcing smelters to shut production in China and Europe. Separately, China reportedly ordered 70% (35/50) of its magnesium smelters to close until year-end, to conserve fuel. Magnesium is critical to producing aluminum sheet and billets. The knock-on effects from lower aluminum supplies could be especially harsh for automobile manufacturers, which have been increasing their use of aluminum. Precious Metals: Bullish Gold was unable to hold last week’s gains as US Treasury yields and the dollar rallied towards the end of the week. The expected normalization of the US Fed’s monetary policy will be bullish for the USD and will push treasury yields higher, which will act as headwinds to gold. We continue to expect a weaker dollar, in line with the view of our colleagues at BCA’s Foreign Exchange Strategy (Chart 9). Chart 8 Short-Term Oil-Price Risk Moves To The Downside Short-Term Oil-Price Risk Moves To The Downside Chart 9Gold Prices Going Down Along With USD Gold Prices Going Down Along With USD Gold Prices Going Down Along With USD     Footnotes 1     Please see Appendix II beginning on p. 22 in Ryan, Bob and Tancred Lidderdale (2009), "Energy Price Volatility and Forecast Uncertainty," Short-Term Energy Outlook Supplement, US EIA. 2     The 500k b/d estimate is consistent with the IEA's October 2021 Oil Market Report. We are loading most of the 500k b/d increase in demand on OECD consumption, given its dual-fired oil and gas generation capacity. Please see Inflation Surges, Slows, Then Grinds Higher and La Niña And The Energy Transition, for additional discussion. 3    The US Climate Prediction Center raised the odds of a La Niña winter in the Northern Hemisphere persisting from Dec21 – Feb22 to 87% this week. While this increases the odds of a colder-than-normal winter in the hemisphere it is not absolutely certain. That said, prudence will push governments and firms to fill inventories and increase coal and gas production ahead of winter. 4    Please see Upside Price Risk Rises For Crude, published on September 16, 2021 for discussion of the global mRNA vaccine rollout. 5    Please see As OPEC reopens the taps, African giants losing race to pump more, published by Reuters on September 27, 2021; Please also refer to OPEC+ struggles to pump more oil to meet rising demand, published by Reuters on September 21, 2021. 6    Please see Third Quarter Outlook 2021: The Pivot To Asia Runs Through Iran, published by BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy on June 25, 2021. 7     Please see Early start to China's winter heating season bullish for gas, coal demand published by S&P Global Platts on October 19, 2021. 8    Please see LME 0-3 Copper Backwardation Surged to above $1,000/mt on Oct 19 published by metal.com on October 20, 2021.   Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations