Sectors

Executive Summary China Copper Consumption Failed To Revive Post-Pandemic China Copper Consumption Failed To Revive Post-Pandemic China Copper Consumption Failed To Revive Post-Pandemic A greater-than-expected contraction in manufacturing and construction in China – evidenced by the latest PMI and home sales data – will keep pressure on copper prices. Higher inflation will continue to drive the cost of labor, fuels and materials higher. Lower copper prices and higher input costs will weaken margins, leading to reduced capex. This also will put pressure on the rate of spending on projects already sanctioned. Payouts to shareholders – buybacks and dividends – will fall, reducing the appeal of miners’ equities. Debt-service costs will rise as interest rates are pushed higher by central banks. Civil unrest in critically important metals-producing provinces is forcing some miners to suspend production guidance. This will be exacerbated in Chile by changing tax regimes, which likely will reduce capex as well. Bottom Line: As global demand for copper increases with the renewable-energy transition and higher arms spending in Europe, miners’ ability to expand supply is being seriously challenged. Falling prices and rising costs – along with higher tax burdens and civil unrest in key mining provinces – are forcing copper miners to lower production and capex guidance, which will redound to the detriment of supply growth. With demand expected to double by 2030-35, copper prices will have to move higher to keep capex flowing to support supply growth. We remain long the XME ETF as the best way to express our bullish, decade-long view. Feature Just as the world is scrambling to develop additional energy supplies in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, copper supplies – the critical element of the renewable-energy buildout – are being squeezed by an unusual convergence of fundamental, financial and social factors. Chart 1China Copper Consumption Failed To Revive Post-Pandemic China Copper Consumption Failed To Revive Post-Pandemic China Copper Consumption Failed To Revive Post-Pandemic Firstly, copper demand is weak, which, all else equal, is suppressing prices. This is largely down to China’s zero-tolerance COVID-19 policy, and uncertainty over whether the EU will be pushed into a massive recession, following the cutoff of its natural gas supplies from Russia. These are two of the three major pillars of the global economy, and their economies are entwined via trade in goods. China’s COVID-19 policy is hammering its critically important property market – sales were down almost 40% y/y in July – and forcing a contraction in manufacturing. Construction represents ~ 30% of total copper demand in China. Manufacturing is contracting, based on China’s official July PMI report, which showed the index fell below 50 to 49.0 for July.1 Related Report  Commodity & Energy StrategyOne Hot Mess: EU Energy Policy China accounts for more than half of global copper demand, and, because of its zero-tolerance COVID-19 policy, was the only major economy to register a year-on-year contractions in copper demand throughout the pandemic up to the present (Chart 1). The EU accounts for ~ 12.5% of global copper demand, which we expect will continue to be supported by the bloc’s renewable-energy and defense buildouts.2 We noted in earlier research the odds of the EU going into recession remain high as the bloc scrambles to prepare for winter, in the wake of its attempts to replace its dependence on Russian natural gas supplies.3 We continue to expect the EU will avoid a major recession, and that it will be able to navigate this transition, leaving it on a better energy footing in subsequent years.4 Lower Copper Prices Will Hurt Capex Chart 2Copper Price Rally Fades Copper Price Rally Fades Copper Price Rally Fades After bottoming in March 2020 at $2.12/lb on the COMEX, copper prices staged a 125% rally that ended in March of this year. This was due to the post-pandemic reopening of most economies ex-China, which was accompanied by massive fiscal and monetary stimulus that super-charged consumer demand. Copper prices have since fallen ~33% from their March highs on the back of a substantial weakening of demand resulting from China’s zero-tolerance COVID policy and a concerted global effort to rein in the inflation caused by governments’ largess (Chart 2). Most year-end 2021 capex expectations for 2022 and into the future among copper miners were drawn up prior to the price collapse in June. After that, fear of central-bank policy mistakes – chiefly over-tightening of monetary policy that pushes the global economy into recession – and weak EM demand took prices from ~ $4.55/lb down to less than $3.20/lb by mid-July. A strong USD also pushed demand lower during this time. Chart 3DRC Offsets Chile, Peru Weakness Copper Capex Under Pressure Copper Capex Under Pressure Following the copper-price rout, miners are re-thinking production goals, dividend policy and capex. Social and governance issues also are contributing to weaker copper output. Rio Tinto, for example, notified markets it would shave $500mm from its $8 billion 2022 capex budget. For 1H22, Rio cut its dividend to $2.67/share from $5.61/share in 1H21. Elsewhere, Glencore said copper output from its Katanga mine in the DRC now is expected to come in 15% lower this year, at 1.06mm MT, owing to geological difficulties. Separately, output guidance for Chinese miner MMG Ltd’s Las Bambas mine in Peru has been suspended, following a 60% drop in production. The company expected it would be producing up to 320k tons this year. Civil unrest at Las Bambas has been ongoing since production started in 2016, according to Reuters. Big producers like Chile and Peru – accounting for ~ 35% of global ore production – along with the DRC face multiple challenges. Chile accounts for ~ 25% of global copper ore production. Its output fell ~ 6% in 2Q22 vs year-earlier output due to falling ore quality, water-supply constraints, and rising input costs (Chart 3). Chile’s government expects copper ore output to decline 3.4% y/y in 2022, with many of the country’s premier mines faltering (Chart 4). Chart 4Chile Expecting Lower Copper Output Copper Capex Under Pressure Copper Capex Under Pressure Chile also is proposing to increase taxes and royalties, to raise money for its budget. However, this may have the effect of driving away investment in the country’s copper mining industry. Fitch notes, “Increased costs will decrease mining cash flows and discourage new mining investments in Chile, favoring the migration of investors to other copper mining districts.”5 BHP Billiton, on que, said it will reconsider further investment in Chile, if the new legislation is approved. Renewables Buildout Will Widen Copper Deficit Markets appear to be trading without regard for the huge increase in copper supply that will be required for the global renewable-energy transition, to say nothing of the upcoming re-arming of the EU and continued military spending by the US and China. In our modeling of supply-demand balances, we move beyond our usual real GDP-based estimates of demand, which estimates the cyclical copper demand, and include assumptions for the demand the green-energy transition will contribute. Hence, this additional copper demand for green energy needs to be added to the copper demand forecast generated by the model. Using projections for global supply taken from the Resource and Energy Quarterly published by the Australian Government’s Department of Industry, Science and Resources, we estimate there will be a physical refined copper deficit of 224k tons in 2022 and 135K tons next year (Chart 5). Among other things, we are assuming refined copper demand will double by 2030 and reach 50mm tons/yr by then. This is a somewhat more aggressive assumption than S&P Global’s estimate of demand doubling by 2035. If we assume refined copper production is 2% lower than the REQ’s estimate, we expect the physical deficit in the refined copper market rise to a ~ 532k-ton deficit in 2022 and ~ 677k-ton deficit in 2023. These results including renewables demand highlight the need to not only account for cyclical demand but also the new demand that will be apparent as the EU, the US and China kick their renewables investments into high gear. Importantly, this kick-off is occurring with global commodity-exchange inventories still more than ~ 35% below year-ago levels (Chart 6). Chart 5Coppers Deficit Will Narrow On Lower Demand Coppers Deficit Will Narrow On Lower Demand Coppers Deficit Will Narrow On Lower Demand ​​​​​​ Chart 6Exchange Inventories Remain Exceptionally Low Exchange Inventories Remain Exceptionally Low Exchange Inventories Remain Exceptionally Low ​​​​​​ Investment Implications Copper prices will have to move higher to keep capex flowing to support supply growth normal cyclical demand and renewable-energy demand will require over coming decades. Falling prices and rising costs – along with higher tax burdens and civil unrest in key mining provinces – are forcing copper miners to lower production and capex guidance, which will redound to the detriment of supply growth. This situation cannot persist unless governments call off their renewable-energy transition, and, in the case of the EU, their efforts to re-arm Europe’s militaries following the invasion of Ukraine by Russia. We remain bullish base metals, particularly copper. We remain long the XME ETF as the best way to express this decade-long view. Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish OPEC 2.0 agreed a token increase in oil production Wednesday of 100k b/d, partly as a sop to the US following President Biden’s visit to the Kingdom last month. KSA will be producing close to 11mm b/d in 2H22. We have argued this is about all KSA will be willing to put on the market, in order to maintain some spare capacity in the event of another exogenous shock. OPEC 2.0 spare capacity likely falls close to 1.5mm b/d in 2023 vs. an average of 3mm b/d this year, which will limit the capacity of core OPEC 2.0 – KSA and the UAE – to backstop unforeseen production losses. Separately, the US EIA reported total US stocks of crude oil and refined products rose 3.5mm barrels (ex SPR inventory). Demand for refined products in the US was down 28mm barrels in the week ended 29 July, or 4mm b/d. We continue to expect prices to average $110/bbl this year and $117/bbl next year (Chart 7). Base Metals: Bullish China flipped from a net importer of refined zinc in 2021 to a net exporter for the first half of 2022, despite a high export tax on the metal. This is indicative of the premium Western zinc prices are commanding over the domestic price. Chinese zinc demand has fallen, following reduced manufacturing activity and an ailing property sector. Thursday’s Politburo meeting did little to encourage markets of a Chinese rebound later this year. A subdued Chinese recovery, along with European zinc smelters operating at reduced capacity, if at all, could see this reversal in trade flow perpetuate for the rest of the year. Precious Metals: Bullish As BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy highlighted, US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan will increase tensions between the US and China but will not lead to war. For now. Increased uncertainty normally is good for gold and its rival, the USD. While geopolitical uncertainty from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine initially buoyed the yellow metal, gold has since dropped below the USD 1800/oz level. The greenback was the main beneficiary from the war (Chart 8). It is yet to be seen how this round of geopolitical risk will impact gold and USD, with the backdrop of increasing odds of a US recession and a hawkish Fed. Chart 7 Brent Backwardation Will Steepen Brent Backwardation Will Steepen Chart 8 Gold Prices Going Down Along With USD Gold Prices Going Down Along With USD   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com Paula Struk Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy paula.struk@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Please see China’s factory activity contracts unexpectedly in July as Covid flares up published by cnbc.com on July 31, 2022. The PMI summary noted contractions in oil, coal and metals smelting industries led the index’s decline. 2     Please see One Hot Mess: EU Energy Policy, which we published on May 26, 2022, for additional discussion. 3     Please see Copper Prices Decouple From Fundamentals, which we published on July 7, 2022. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4     Please see Energy Security Rolls Over EU's ESG Agenda published on July 28, 2022. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 5     Please see Proposed Tax Reform Weakens Cost Positions for Chilean Miners (fitchratings.com), published by Fitch Ratings on July 7, 2022.   Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Trades Closed in 2022

Counterpoint’s August schedule: Next week, I am travelling to see clients in Australia, New Zealand, and Singapore, so we will send you a report on China’s 20th National Party Congress written by our Chief Geopolitical Strategist, Matt Gertken. Given that the outlook for the $100 trillion Chinese real estate market is crucial for the global economy and markets, Matt’s insights will be very interesting. Then on August 18, I will host the monthly Counterpoint webcast, which I hope you can join. We will then take a week’s summer holiday and return with a report on September 1. Executive Summary In the topsy-turvy recession of 2022, real wages have collapsed. This means profits have stayed resilient and firms have not laid off workers. Making this recession a ‘cost of living crisis’ rather than a ‘jobs crisis’. If inflation comes down slowly, then the ‘cost of living crisis’ will persist. But if inflation comes down quickly while wage inflation remains sticky, firms will lay off workers to protect their profits, turning the ‘cost of living crisis’ into a ‘jobs crisis’. Either way, this will keep a choke on consumer spending, and particularly the spending on goods, which is likely to remain in recession. Meanwhile, until mortgage rates move meaningfully lower, housing investment will also remain in recession.  The double choke on growth means that the bear market in the 30-year T-bond is likely over. This suggests that the bear market in stock market valuations is also over, but that ‘cyclical value’ is now vulnerable to profit downgrades. Hence, equity investors should stick with ‘defensive growth’, specifically healthcare and biotech. Fractal trading watchlist: GBP/USD and Hungarian versus Polish bonds. In The 2008 Recession, Real Wage Rates ##br##Went Up So Employment Went Down… In The 2008 Recession, Real Wage Rates Went Up So Employment Went Down... In The 2008 Recession, Real Wage Rates Went Up So Employment Went Down... …But In The 2022 Recession, Real Wage Rates##br##Went Down So Employment Went Up! ...But In The 2022 Recession, Real Wage Rates Went Down So Employment Went Up! ...But In The 2022 Recession, Real Wage Rates Went Down So Employment Went Up! Bottom Line: The bear market in the 30-year T-bond and stock market valuations is likely over, but equity investors should stick with ‘defensive growth’, specifically healthcare and biotech. Feature The US economy has just contracted for two consecutive quarters, meeting the rule-of-thumb definition of a recession. Other major economies are likely to follow. Yet many economists and strategists are in denial. This cannot be a ‘proper’ recession, they say, because the economy remains at full employment. But the recession-deniers are wrong. It is a recession, albeit it is a ‘topsy-turvy’ recession in which employment remains high (so far) because real wage rates have collapsed, circumventing the need for lay-offs. This contrasts with a typical recession when real wage rates remain high, forcing the need for lay-offs.1 The Topsy-Turvy Recession Of 2022 When do firms lay off workers? The answer is, when they need to protect their profits. Profits are nothing more than revenues minus costs, and in a typical recession revenues slow much faster than the firms’ biggest cost, the wage bill. In this event, the only way that firms can protect their profits is to lay off workers. Chart I-1 confirms that every time that nominal sales have shrunk relative to wage rates, the unemployment rate has gone up. Without exception. Chart I-1Unemployment Goes Up Whenever Firms' Wage Rates Rise Faster Than Their Revenues... Unemployment Goes Up Whenever Firms' Wage Rates Rise Faster Than Their Revenues... Unemployment Goes Up Whenever Firms' Wage Rates Rise Faster Than Their Revenues... But what happens during a recession in which nominal sales do not shrink relative to wage rates? In this event, profits stay resilient, so firms do not need to lay off workers. Welcome to the topsy-turvy recession of 2022! In the topsy-turvy recession of 2022, there has been much greater inflation in consumer prices and nominal sales than in nominal wage rates (Chart I-2). The result is that real wage rates have collapsed, profits have stayed resilient, and firms have not needed to lay off workers… so far. Chart I-2...But In The 2022 Recession, Wage Rates Have Risen Slower Than Revenues, So Unemployment Hasn't Gone Up ...But In The 2022 Recession, Wage Rates Have Risen Slower Than Revenues, So Unemployment Hasn't Gone Up ...But In The 2022 Recession, Wage Rates Have Risen Slower Than Revenues, So Unemployment Hasn't Gone Up In a typical recession, the pain falls on the minority of workers who lose their jobs, as well as on profits. Paradoxically, for the majority that keep their jobs, real wages go up. This is because sticky wage inflation tends to hold up more than collapsing price inflation. For example, in the 2008 recession, the real wage rate surged by 4 percent (Chart I-3), and in the 2020 recession it rose by 2 percent. Chart I-3In The 2008 Recession, Real Wage Rates Went Up So Employment Went Down... In The 2008 Recession, Real Wage Rates Went Up So Employment Went Down... In The 2008 Recession, Real Wage Rates Went Up So Employment Went Down... Yet in the 2022 recession, the real wage rate has shrunk by 4 percent, meaning that the pain of the recession has fallen on all of us (Chart I-4). In one sense therefore, this recession is ‘fairer’ because ‘we’re all in it together’. This is confirmed by the current malaise being characterised not as a ‘jobs crisis’, but as a ‘cost of living crisis’. In another sense though, the recession is unfair because the pain has not been shared by corporate profits, which have remained resilient… so far. Chart I-4...But In The 2022 Recession, Real Wage Rates Went Down So Employment Went Up! ...But In The 2022 Recession, Real Wage Rates Went Down So Employment Went Up! ...But In The 2022 Recession, Real Wage Rates Went Down So Employment Went Up! The crucial question is, what happens next? Using the US as our template, wage rates are growing at 5-6 percent, and this growth rate is typically stickier than sales growth. Assuming inflation drifts lower, nominal sales growth will also drift lower from its current 7 percent clip, meaning that it could soon dip below sticky wage growth. Once the growth in firms’ revenues has dipped below that in nominal wage rates, profits will finally keel over. To repeat, profits are nothing more than revenues minus costs, where the biggest cost is the wage bill (Chart I-5).2 Chart I-5Profits Are Nothing More Than Revenues Minus Costs Profits Are Nothing More Than Revenues Minus Costs Profits Are Nothing More Than Revenues Minus Costs At this point, the downturn will become more conventional. To protect profits, firms will be forced to lay off workers who will bear the pain of the downturn alongside falling profits. Meanwhile, with inflation easing, real wage growth for the majority that keep their jobs will turn positive. But to repeat, this is the typical pattern in a recession. Accelerating real wage rates are entirely consistent with a contracting economy as we witnessed in both 2008 and 2020.  As Two Huge Imbalances Correct, Demand Will Be Pegged Back All of this assumes that real demand will remain under pressure, so the question is what is pegging back real demand? The answer is: corrections in two huge imbalances in the global economy. A breakdown of the -1.3 percent contraction in the US economy reveals these two corrections:3   Spending on goods, which contributed -1.2 percent Housing investment, which contributed -0.7 percent. These corrections are not over. As we presciently explained back in February in A Massive Economic Imbalance, Staring Us In The Face: “The pandemic overspend on goods constitutes one of the greatest imbalances in economic history. An overspend on goods is corrected by a subsequent underspend; but an underspend on services is not corrected by a subsequent overspend. The pandemic overspend on goods constitutes one of the greatest imbalances in economic history. This unfortunate asymmetry means that the recent overspend on goods at the expense of services makes the economy vulnerable to a recession. And the risk is exacerbated by central banks’ intentions to hike rates in response to inflation” (Chart I-6). Chart I-6The Pandemic Overspend On Goods Constitutes One Of The Greatest Imbalances In Economic History The Pandemic Overspend On Goods Constitutes One Of The Greatest Imbalances In Economic History The Pandemic Overspend On Goods Constitutes One Of The Greatest Imbalances In Economic History Then, in The Global Housing Boom Is Over, As Buying Becomes More Expensive Than Renting, we identified a second major imbalance that is starting to correct. Specifically, the global housing boom of the past decade, which has doubled the worth of global real estate to $370 trillion, was predicated on ultra-low mortgage rates that made buying a home more attractive than renting. But in many parts of the world now, buying a home has become more expensive than renting (Chart I-7). Disappearing US and European homebuyers combined with a flood of home-sellers will weigh on home prices and housing investment – at least until policymakers are forced to bring down mortgage rates (Chart I-8 and Chart I-9). Chart I-7Buying A Home Has Become More Expensive Than Renting! Buying A Home Has Become More Expensive Than Renting! Buying A Home Has Become More Expensive Than Renting! Chart I-8Homebuyers Have Disappeared... Homebuyers Have Disappeared... Homebuyers Have Disappeared... Chart I-9...While Home-Sellers Are Flooding The Market ...While Home-Sellers Are Flooding The Market ...While Home-Sellers Are Flooding The Market Meanwhile, as Chinese policymakers try and gently let the air out of the $100 trillion Chinese real estate market, a collapse in Chinese property development and construction activity will have negative long-term implications for commodities, emerging Asia, and developing countries that produce raw materials. More Investment Conclusions In addition to the long-term investment conclusions just described, we can draw some shorter-term conclusions: If inflation comes down slowly, then the current ‘cost of living crisis’, which is pummelling everyone’s real incomes, will persist. But if inflation comes down quickly while wage inflation remains sticky, firms will be forced to lay off workers to protect their profits, turning the ‘cost of living crisis’ into a ‘jobs crisis’. Either way, this will keep a choke on consumer spending, and particularly the spending on goods, which is likely to remain in recession. Meanwhile, until mortgage rates move meaningfully lower, housing investment will also remain in recession.  Equityinvestors should stick with ‘defensive growth’, specifically healthcare and biotech. This double choke on growth is likely to keep a lid on ultra-long bond yields, even if central banks need to hike short-term rates more than expected to slay inflation. Our proprietary fractal analysis confirms that the sell-off in the 30-year T-bond is likely over (Chart I-10). Chart I-10The Bear Market In The 30-Year T-Bond Is Likely Over The Bear Market In The 30-Year T-Bond Is Likely Over The Bear Market In The 30-Year T-Bond Is Likely Over For the stock market, this suggests that the valuation bear market is now over, but that ‘cyclical value’ sectors are now vulnerable to profit downgrades. Hence, equity investors should stick with ‘defensive growth’, specifically healthcare and biotech. Fractal Trading Watchlist This week we noticed that the sudden 20 percent collapse of Hungarian versus Polish 10-year bonds, has reached the point of short-term fractal fragility that suggests an imminent rebound. Hence, we are adding this to our watchlist. Go long GBP/USD. But our trade is GBP/USD. UK political risk is diminishing, the BoE is likely to be as, or more, hawkish than the Fed, and the 260-day fractal structure of GBP/USD is at the point of fragility that has signalled major turning points in 2014, 15, 16, 18 and 21 (Chart I-11). Accordingly the recommendation is long GBP/USD, setting the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 5 percent.   Chart I-11Go Long GBP/USD Go Long GBP/USD Go Long GBP/USD Go Long GBP/USD Go Long GBP/USD Expect Hungarian Bonds To Rebound Expect Hungarian Bonds To Rebound Expect Hungarian Bonds To Rebound Chart 1CNY/USD At A Potential Turning Point CNY/USD At A Potential Turning Point CNY/USD At A Potential Turning Point   Chart 2Expect Hungarian Bonds To Rebound Expect Hungarian Bonds To Rebound Expect Hungarian Bonds To Rebound Chart 3Copper's Selloff Has Hit Short-Term Resistance Copper's Selloff Has Hit Short-Term Resistance Copper's Selloff Has Hit Short-Term Resistance Chart 4US REITS Are Oversold Versus Utilities US REITS Are Oversold Versus Utilities US REITS Are Oversold Versus Utilities Chart 5CAD/SEK Is Reversing CAD/SEK Is Reversing CAD/SEK Is Reversing Chart 6Financials Versus Industrials Has Reversed Financials Versus Industrials Has Reversed Financials Versus Industrials Has Reversed Chart 7The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Biotech Has Ended The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Biotech Has Ended The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Biotech Has Ended Chart 8The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Healthcare Has Ended The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Healthcare Has Ended The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Healthcare Has Ended Chart 9FTSE100 Outperformance Vs. Euro Stoxx 50 Is Vulnerable To Reversal FTSE100 Outperformance Vs. Euro Stoxx 50 Is Vulnerable To Reversal FTSE100 Outperformance Vs. Euro Stoxx 50 Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 10Netherlands' Underperformance Vs. Switzerland Has Ended Netherlands' Underperformance Vs. Switzerland Has Ended Netherlands' Underperformance Vs. Switzerland Has Ended Chart 11The Sell-Off In The 30-Year T-Bond At Fractal Fragility The Sell-Off In The 30-Year T-Bond At Fractal Fragility The Sell-Off In The 30-Year T-Bond At Fractal Fragility Chart 12The Sell-Off In The NASDAQ Is Approaching Fractal Fragility The Sell-Off In The NASDAQ Is Approaching Fractal Fragility The Sell-Off In The NASDAQ Is Approaching Fractal Fragility Chart 13Food And Beverage Outperformance Is Exhausted Food And Beverage Outperformance Is Exhausted Food And Beverage Outperformance Is Exhausted Chart 14German Telecom Outperformance Has Started To Reverse German Telecom Outperformance Has Started To Reverse German Telecom Outperformance Has Started To Reverse Chart 15Japanese Telecom Outperformance Vulnerable To Reversal Japanese Telecom Outperformance Vulnerable To Reversal Japanese Telecom Outperformance Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 16ETH Is Approaching A Possible Capitulation ETH Is Approaching A Possible Capitulation ETH Is Approaching A Possible Capitulation Chart 17The Strong Trend In The 18-Month-Out US Interest Rate Future Has Ended The Strong Trend In The 18-Month-Out US Interest Rate Future Has Ended The Strong Trend In The 18-Month-Out US Interest Rate Future Has Ended Chart 18The Strong Downtrend In The 3 Year T-Bond Has Ended The Strong Downtrend In The 3 Year T-Bond Has Ended The Strong Downtrend In The 3 Year T-Bond Has Ended Chart 19A Potential Switching Point From Tobacco Into Cannabis A Potential Switching Point From Tobacco Into Cannabis A Potential Switching Point From Tobacco Into Cannabis Chart 20Biotech Is A Major Buy Biotech Is A Major Buy Biotech Is A Major Buy Chart 21Norway's Outperformance Has Ended Norway's Outperformance Has Ended Norway's Outperformance Has Ended Chart 22Cotton Versus Platinum Has Reversed Cotton Versus Platinum Has Reversed Cotton Versus Platinum Has Reversed Chart 23Switzerland's Outperformance Vs. Germany Is Exhausted Switzerland's Outperformance Vs. Germany Is Exhausted Switzerland's Outperformance Vs. Germany Is Exhausted Chart 24USD/EUR Is Vulnerable To Reversal USD/EUR Is Vulnerable To Reversal USD/EUR Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 25The Outperformance Of MSCI Hong Kong Versus China Has Ended The Outperformance Of MSCI Hong Kong Versus China Has Ended The Outperformance Of MSCI Hong Kong Versus China Has Ended Chart 26A Potential New Entry Point Into Petcare A Potential New Entry Point Into Petcare A Potential New Entry Point Into Petcare Chart 27US Utilities Outperformance Vulnerable To Reversal US Utilities Outperformance Vulnerable To Reversal US Utilities Outperformance Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 28The Outperformance Of Oil Versus Banks Is Exhausted The Outperformance Of Oil Versus Banks Is Exhausted The Outperformance Of Oil Versus Banks Is Exhausted   Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The best measure of wage rates is the employment cost index (ECI) because it includes all forms of compensation including benefits and bonuses. 2  In fact, stock market profits are even more cyclical because, as well as wages, there are other sticky deductions from revenues such as interest and taxes. 3 All expressed as annualised rates. Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades Welcome To The Topsy-Turvy Recession Of 2022! Welcome To The Topsy-Turvy Recession Of 2022! Welcome To The Topsy-Turvy Recession Of 2022! Welcome To The Topsy-Turvy Recession Of 2022! 6-12 Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - 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 - Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - 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  

Executive Summary Biden Taps China-Bashing Consensus Biden's Midterm Tactics Bear Fruit… But There's A Snake Biden's Midterm Tactics Bear Fruit… But There's A Snake House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan reflects one of our emerging views in 2022: the Biden administration’s willingness to take foreign policy risks ahead of the midterm elections. Biden’s foreign policy will continue to be reactive and focused on domestic politics through the midterms. Hence global policy uncertainty and geopolitical risk will remain elevated at least until November 8.  Biden is seeing progress on his legislative agenda. Congress is passing a bill to compete with China while the Democrats are increasingly likely to pass a second reconciliation bill, both as predicted. These developments support our view that President Biden’s approval rating will stabilize and election races will tighten, keeping domestic US policy uncertainty elevated through November. These trends pose a risk to our view that Republicans will take the Senate, but the prevailing macroeconomic and geopolitical environment is still negative for the ruling Democratic Party. We expect legislative gridlock and frozen US fiscal policy in 2023-24. Close Recommendation (Tactical) Initiation Date  Return Long Refinitiv Renewables Vs. S&P 500 Mar 30, 2022 25.4% Long Biotech Vs. Pharmaceuticals Jul 8,  2022 -3.3% Bottom Line: While US and global uncertainty remain high, we will stay long US dollar, long large caps over small caps, and long US Treasuries versus TIPS. But these are tactical trades and are watching closely to see if macroeconomic and geopolitical factors improve later this year. Feature President Biden’s average monthly job approval rating hit its lowest point, 38.5%, in July 2022. However, Biden’s anti-inflation campaign and midterm election tactics are starting to bear fruit: gasoline prices have fallen from a peak of $5 per gallon to $4.2 today, the Democratic Congress is securing some last-minute legislative wins, and women voters are mobilizing to preserve abortion access.  These developments mean that the Democratic Party’s electoral prospects will improve marginally between now and the midterm election, causing Senate and congressional races to tighten – as we have expected. US policy uncertainty will increase. Investors will see a rising risk that Democrats will keep control of the Senate – and conceivably even the House – and hence retain unified control of the executive and legislative branches. This “Blue Sweep” risk will challenge the market consensus, which overwhelmingly (and still correctly) expects congressional gridlock in 2023-24. A continued blue sweep would mean larger tax hikes and social spending, while gridlock would neutralize fiscal policy for the next two years. Investors should fade this inflationary blue sweep risk and continue to plan for disinflationary gridlock. First, our quantitative election models still predict that Democrats will lose control of both House and Senate (Appendix). Second, Biden’s midterm tactics face very significant limitations, particularly emanating from geopolitics – the snake in this report’s title. Pelosi’s Trip To Taiwan Raises Near-Term Market Risks One of Biden’s election tactics is our third key view for 2022: reactive foreign policy. Initially we viewed this reactiveness as “risk-averse” but in May we began to argue that Biden could take risky bets given his collapsing approval ratings. Either way, Biden is using foreign policy as a means of improving his party’s domestic political fortunes. In particular, he is willing to take big risks with China, Russia, Iran, and terrorist groups like Al Qaeda. The template is the 1962 congressional election, when President John F. Kennedy largely defied the midterm election curse by taking a tough stance against Russia in the Cuban Missile Crisis (Chart 1). If Biden achieves a foreign policy victory, then Democrats will benefit. If he instigates a crisis, voters will rally around his administration out of patriotism. Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taipei is the prominent example of this key view. The trip required full support from the US executive branch and military and was not only the swan song of a single politician. It was one element of the Biden administration’s decision to maintain the Trump administration’s hawkish China policy. Thus while Congress passes the $52 billion Chips and Science Act to enhance US competitiveness in technology and semiconductor manufacturing, Biden is also contemplating tightening export controls on computer chip equipment that China needs to upgrade its industry.1 Biden is reacting to a bipartisan and popular consensus holding that the US needs to take concrete measures to challenge China and protect American industry (Chart 2). This is different from the old norm of rhetorical China-bashing during midterms. Chart 1Biden Provokes Foreign Rivals Biden's Midterm Tactics Bear Fruit… But There's A Snake Biden's Midterm Tactics Bear Fruit… But There's A Snake Chart 2Biden Taps China-Bashing Consensus Biden's Midterm Tactics Bear Fruit… But There's A Snake Biden's Midterm Tactics Bear Fruit… But There's A Snake Reactive US foreign policy will continue through November and possibly beyond – including but not limited to China. The US chose to sell long-range weapons to Ukraine and provide intelligence targeting Russian forces, prompting Russia to declare that the US is now “directly” involved in the Ukraine conflict. The US decision to eradicate Al Qaeda leader Ayman Al-Zawahiri also reflects this foreign policy trend. Reactive foreign policy will increase the near-term risk of new negative geopolitical surprises for markets. Note that the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis analogy is inverted when it comes to the Taiwan Strait. China is willing to take much greater risks than the US in its sphere of influence. The same goes for Russia in Ukraine. If US policy backfires then it may assist the Democrats in the election – but not if Biden suffers a humiliation or if the US economy suffers as a result. Chart 3US Import Prices Will Stay High From Greater China US Import Prices Will Stay High From Greater China US Import Prices Will Stay High From Greater China US import prices will continue to rise from Greater China (Chart 3), undermining Biden’s anti-inflation agenda. Supply kinks in the semiconductor industry will become relevant again whenever demand rebounds  (Chart 4). Global energy prices will also remain high as a result of the EU’s oil embargo and Russia’s continued tightening of European natural gas supplies. Chart 4New Semiconductor Kinks Will Appear When Demand Recovers New Semiconductor Kinks Will Appear When Demand Recovers New Semiconductor Kinks Will Appear When Demand Recovers OPEC has decided only to increase oil production by 100,000 barrels per day, despite Biden’s visit to Saudi Arabia cap in hand. We argued that the Saudis would give a token but would largely focus on weakening global demand rather than pumping substantially more oil to help Biden and the Democrats in the election. The Saudis know that Biden is still attempting to negotiate a nuclear deal with Iran that would free up Iranian exports. So the Saudis are not giving much relief, and if Biden fails on Iran, oil supply disruptions will increase. Bottom Line: Price pressures will intensify as a result of the US-China and US-Russia standoffs – and probably also the US-Iran standoff. Hawkish foreign policy is not conducive to reducing inflationary ills. Global policy uncertainty and geopolitical risk will remain high throughout the midterm election season, causing continued volatility for US equities. Abortion Boosts Democratic Election Odds Earlier this year we highlighted that the Supreme Court’s overturning of the 1972 Roe v. Wade decision would lead to a significant mobilization of women voters in favor of the Democratic Party ahead of the midterm election. The first major electoral test since the court’s ruling, a popular referendum in the state of Kansas, produced a surprising result on August 2 that confirms and strengthens this thesis. Kansas is a deeply religious and conservative state where President Trump defeated President Biden by a 15% margin in 2020. The referendum was held during the primary election season, when electoral turnout skews heavily toward conservatives and the elderly. Yet Kansans voted by an 18% margin (59% versus 41%) not to amend the constitution, i.e. not to empower the legislature to tighten regulations on abortion. Voter turnout is not yet reported but likely far higher than in recent non-presidential primary elections. Kansans voted in the direction of  nationwide opinion polling on whether abortion should be accessible in cases where the mother’s health is endangered. They did not vote in accordance with more expansive defenses of abortion, which are less popular (Chart 5). If the red state of Kansas votes this way then other states will see an even more substantial effect, at least when abortion is on the ballot. Chart 5Abortion Will Mitigate Democrats’ Losses Biden's Midterm Tactics Bear Fruit… But There's A Snake Biden's Midterm Tactics Bear Fruit… But There's A Snake The question is how much of this Roe v. Wade effect will carry over to the general congressional elections. The referendum focused exclusively on abortion. Voters did not vote on party lines. Voters never like it when governments try to take away rights or privileges that have previously been granted. But in November the election will center on other topics, including inflation and the economy. And midterm elections almost always penalize the incumbent party. Our quantitative election models imply that Democrats will lose 22 seats in the House and two seats in the Senate, yielding Congress to the Republicans next year (Appendix). Still, women’s turnout presents a risk to our models. Women’s support for the Democratic Party has not improved markedly since the Supreme Court ruling, as we have shown in recent reports (Chart 6). But the polling could pick up again. Women’s turnout could be a significant tailwind in a year of headwinds for the Democrats. Bottom Line: Democrats’ electoral prospects have improved, as we anticipated earlier this year (Chart 7). This trend will continue as a result of the mobilization of women. Republicans are still highly likely to take Congress but our conviction on the Senate is much lower than it is on the House. Chart 6Biden’s And Democrats’ Approval Among Women Biden's Midterm Tactics Bear Fruit… But There's A Snake Biden's Midterm Tactics Bear Fruit… But There's A Snake Chart 7Democrats’ Odds Will Improve On Margin Biden's Midterm Tactics Bear Fruit… But There's A Snake Biden's Midterm Tactics Bear Fruit… But There's A Snake Reconciliation Bill: Still 65% Chance Of Passing Ultimately Democrats’ electoral performance will depend on inflation, the economy, and cyclical dynamics. If inflation falls over the course of the next three months, then Democrats will have a much better chance of stemming midterm losses. That is why President Biden rebranded his slimmed down “Build Back Better” reconciliation bill as the “Inflation Reduction Act.” We maintain our 65% odds that the bill will pass, as we have done all year. There is still at least a 35% chance that Senator Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona could defect from the Democrats, given that she opposed any new tax hikes and the reconciliation bill will impose a 15% minimum tax on corporations. A single absence or defection would topple the budget reconciliation process, which enables Democrats to pass the bill on a simple majority vote. We have always argued that Sinema would ultimately fall in line rather than betraying her party at the last minute before the election. This is even more likely given that moderate-in-chief, Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, negotiated and now champions the bill. But some other surprise could still erase the Democrats’ single-seat majority, so we stick with 65% odds. Most notably the bill will succeed because it actually reduces the budget deficit – by an estimated $300 billion over a decade (Table 1). Deficit reduction was the original purpose of lowering the number of votes required to pass a bill under the budget reconciliation process. Now Democrats are using savings generated from new government caps on pharmaceuticals (a popular measure) to fund health and climate subsidies. Given deficit reduction, it is conceivable that a moderate Republican could even vote for the bill. Table 1Democrats’ Inflation Reduction Act (Budget Reconciliation) Biden's Midterm Tactics Bear Fruit… But There's A Snake Biden's Midterm Tactics Bear Fruit… But There's A Snake Bottom Line: Democrats are more likely than ever to pass their fiscal 2022 reconciliation bill by the September 30 deadline. The bill will cap some drug prices and reduce the deficit marginally, so it can be packaged as an anti-inflation bill, giving Democrats a legislative win ahead of the midterm. However, its anti-inflationary impact will ultimately be negligible as $300 billion in savings hardly effects the long-term rising trajectory of US budget deficits relative to output. The bill will add to voters’ discretionary income and spur the renewable energy industry. And if it helps the Democrats retain power, then it enables further spending and tax hikes down the road, which would prove inflationary. The reconciliation bill, annual appropriations, and the China competition bill were the remaining bills that we argued would narrowly pass before the US Congress became gridlocked again. So far this view is on track.   Investment Takeaways Companies that paid a high effective corporate tax rate before President Trump’s tax cuts have benefited relative to those that paid a low effective rate. They stood to suffer most if Trump’s tax cuts were repealed. But Democrats were forced to discard their attempt to raise the overall corporate tax rate last year. Instead the minimum corporate rate will rise to 15%, hitting those that paid the lowest effective rate, such as Big Tech companies, relative to high-tax rate sectors such as energy (Chart 8, top panel). Tactically energy may still underperform tech but cyclically energy could outperform and the reconciliation bill would feed into that trend. Similarly, companies that faced high foreign tax risk, because they made good income abroad but paid low foreign tax rates, stand to suffer most from the imposition of a minimum corporate tax rate (Chart 8, bottom panel). Again, Big Tech stands to suffer, although it has already priced a lot of bad news and may not perform poorly in the near term. Chart 8Market Responds To Minimum Corporate Tax Market Responds To Minimum Corporate Tax Market Responds To Minimum Corporate Tax Chart 9Market Responds To New Climate Subsidies Market Responds To New Climate Subsidies Market Responds To New Climate Subsidies Renewable energy stocks have rallied sharply on the news of the Democrats’ reconciliation bill getting back on track (Chart 9). We are booking a 25.4% gain on this tactical trade and will move to the sidelines for now, although renewable energy remains a secular investment theme. Health stocks, particularly pharmaceuticals, have taken a hit from the new legislation as we expected. However, biotech has not outperformed pharmaceuticals as we expected, so we will close this tactical trade for a loss of 3.3%. The reconciliation bill will cap drug prices for only the most popular generic drugs and does not pose as much of a threat to biotech companies (Chart 10). Biotech should perform well tactically as long bond yields decline – they are also historically undervalued, as noted by Dhaval Joshi of our Counterpoint strategy service. So we will stick to long Biotech versus the broad market. US semiconductors remain in a long bull market and will be in heavy demand once global and US economic activity stabilize. They are also likely to outperform competitors in Greater China that face a high and persistent geopolitical risk premium (Chart 11).  Chart 10Market Responds To Drug Price Caps Market Responds To Drug Price Caps Market Responds To Drug Price Caps Chart 11Market Responds To China Competition Bill Market Responds To China Competition Bill Market Responds To China Competition Bill Tactically we prefer bonds to stocks, US equities to global equities, defensive sectors to cyclicals, large caps to small caps, and growth stocks to value stocks (Chart 12). The US is entering a technical recession, Europe is entering recession, China’s economy is weak, and geopolitical tensions are at extreme highs over Ukraine, Taiwan, and Iran. The US is facing an increasingly uncertain midterm election. These trends prevent us from adding risk in our portfolio in the short term. However, much bad news is priced and we are on the lookout for positive economic surprises and successful diplomatic initiatives to change the investment outlook for 2023. If the US and China recommit to the status quo in the Taiwan Strait, if Russia moves toward ceasefire talks in Ukraine, if the US and Iran rejoin the 2015 nuclear deal, then we will take a much more optimistic attitude. Some political and geopolitical risks could begin to recede in the fourth quarter – although that remains to be seen. And even then, geopolitical risk is rising on a secular basis. Chart 12Tactically Recession And Geopolitics Will Weigh On Risk Assets Tactically Recession And Geopolitics Will Weigh On Risk Assets Tactically Recession And Geopolitics Will Weigh On Risk Assets Matt Gertken Senior Vice President Chief US Political Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com       Footnotes 1     Alexandra Alper and Karen Freifeld, “U.S. considers crackdown on memory chip makers in China,” Reuters, August 1, 2022, reuters.com.   Strategic View Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Table A2Political Risk Matrix Biden's Midterm Tactics Bear Fruit… But There's A Snake Biden's Midterm Tactics Bear Fruit… But There's A Snake Table A3US Political Capital Index Biden's Midterm Tactics Bear Fruit… But There's A Snake Biden's Midterm Tactics Bear Fruit… But There's A Snake Chart A1Presidential Election Model Third Quarter US Political Outlook: Last Ditch Effort Third Quarter US Political Outlook: Last Ditch Effort Chart A2Senate Election Model Third Quarter US Political Outlook: Last Ditch Effort Third Quarter US Political Outlook: Last Ditch Effort  Table A4House Election Model Biden's Midterm Tactics Bear Fruit… But There's A Snake Biden's Midterm Tactics Bear Fruit… But There's A Snake Table A5APolitical Capital: White House And Congress Biden's Midterm Tactics Bear Fruit… But There's A Snake Biden's Midterm Tactics Bear Fruit… But There's A Snake Table A5BPolitical Capital: Household And Business Sentiment Biden's Midterm Tactics Bear Fruit… But There's A Snake Biden's Midterm Tactics Bear Fruit… But There's A Snake Table A5CPolitical Capital: The Economy And Markets Biden's Midterm Tactics Bear Fruit… But There's A Snake Biden's Midterm Tactics Bear Fruit… But There's A Snake

Executive Summary Non-Commodity Enterprises: No Profit Expansion For 12 Years Flat Profits For Non-Commodity Enterprises Flat Profits For Non-Commodity Enterprises The past decade has seen a deterioration in the financial performance metrics of industrial Chinese companies. Declining efficiency of investments, rising labor compensation and slowing productivity growth will constitute formidable headwinds to the long-term profitability of China’s industrial sector. Potential deleveraging by local governments, companies and households will cap revenue growth for enterprises and, hence, weigh on their profitability. High commodity prices in the past 18 months have improved profitability and financial metrics for commodity producers. These strengths will reverse as commodity prices sink in the coming months. Corporate earnings are set to disappoint in 2H. Bottom Line: We maintain a neutral stance on Chinese onshore stocks and an underweight stance on investable stocks in a global equity portfolio. In absolute terms, risks to Chinese shares prices are to the downside. ​​​​Among Chinese industrial companies, underweight commodity producers and overweight food & beverage, autos and utilities.   The data for this report for industrial enterprises, which are sourced from China’s National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), encompass state-owned and holding enterprises (SOEs) and other forms of ownership, including private ones. It covers both listed and non-listed companies. The sectors included are construction materials, steel, non-ferrous metals, energy, coal, machinery, auto, tech hardware, food & beverage and utilities. An analysis based on this dataset shows that China’s corporate profitability and efficiency ratios have experienced a prolonged structural downturn since the early 2010s (Chart 1 and 2). Chart 1Chinese Industrial Companies: Structural Deterioration in Productivity... Chinese Industrial Companies: Structural Deterioration in Productivity... Chinese Industrial Companies: Structural Deterioration in Productivity... Chart 2… And Operational Efficiency ...And Operational Efficiency ...And Operational Efficiency Chart 3Cyclical Improvements Within Structural Downtrend Cyclical Improvements Within Structural Downtrend Cyclical Improvements Within Structural Downtrend In the past 10 years, these measures improved only modestly during recovery periods and stumbled during downturns (Chart 3). The structural deterioration in corporate profitability from 2011 onward has followed structural improvements from the late 1990s to 2010. Beyond cyclical upswings, China's corporate profitability will likely continue to face structural headwinds. Declining efficiency of investments, rising labor compensation and slowing productivity growth will constitute formidable headwinds to the long run profitability of China’s industrial sector. Furthermore, potential deleveraging by local governments, companies and households will curtail revenue growth for enterprises and, hence, weigh on profitability. Investigating The Financial Performance Of Industrial Enterprises Our analysis of corporates’ financial ratios shows the following: Corporate leverage: The total liabilities (debt)-to-sales ratio rose sharply from 2011 until 2021. However, the leverage ratio has declined in the past 18 months. A close examination suggests that the descent in the debt-to-sales ratio has been due to surging revenues of resource producing companies propelled by rising commodity prices. Chart 4 illustrates that the debt-to-sales ratio has dropped substantially for commodity producers, but much less so for other industrial companies. In the case of non-commodity industrial enterprises, the leverage ratio has not declined much because nominal sales have been lackluster. As resource prices continue to drop, revenues of commodity companies will be devastated, and their debt-to-sales ratios will spike. The thesis that corporate leverage has not yet dropped in China is corroborated by data on all companies. The country’s corporate leverage remains the highest worldwide (Chart 5). Chart 4The Decline In Debt-To-Sales Ratio For Commodity Producers Was Largely Due to Surging Commodity Prices The Decline In Debt-To-Sales Ratio For Commodity Producers Was Largely Due to Surging Commodity Prices The Decline In Debt-To-Sales Ratio For Commodity Producers Was Largely Due to Surging Commodity Prices Chart 5China's Corporate Leverage Remains The Highest In the World China's Corporate Leverage Remains The Highest In the World China's Corporate Leverage Remains The Highest In the World Chart 6Corporates' Debt servicing Ability Has Been propelled by falling interest rates Corporates' Debt Servicing Ability Has Improved Due To Lower Interest Rates Corporates' Debt Servicing Ability Has Improved Due To Lower Interest Rates Debt servicing: Even though debt levels of industrial companies remain elevated, their interest coverage ratios – operating profits-to-interest expense – have improved since late 2020. For all industries, interest expenses have dropped substantially because of falling interest rates (Chart 6). On the margin, this has also helped industrials’ profit margins.   Efficiency: Asset turnover (sales/assets), inventory turnover (sales/inventory) and receivables turnover (sales/receivables), have all have sunk in the past 10 years, as shown in Chart 2. Lower turnover indicates falling efficiency. Coal, steel and non-ferrous metals have been the only sectors experiencing an improvement in inventory turnover due to China’s capacity reduction campaign. Meanwhile, there has been no improvement in inventory turnover for non-commodity enterprises.   Profit margins: Net profit margins for industrial corporates have recently risen slightly. However, the entire improvement in industrial profit margins is attributable to commodity producers. With the exception of commodity producing sectors, there has not been any upturn in operating profit margins and/or net profit margins (Chart 7). Rising corporate income taxes from 2011 to 2020 were one of the reasons worsening profitability (Chart 8). Chart 7Improvement In Industrial Profit Margins Is Attributable To Commodity Producers Improvement In Industrial Profit Margins Is Attributable To Commodity Producers Improvement In Industrial Profit Margins Is Attributable To Commodity Producers Chart 8Rising Corporate Income Taxes Have Contributed The Divergency Between GPM And Net Profit Margin Corporate Tax Burden Rose From 2010 To 2020 Corporate Tax Burden Rose From 2010 To 2020 Profitability: The return on assets (RoA) and the return on equity (RoE) for industrial corporates have dwindled during the past decade (Chart 1 above). The spike in commodity prices in the past two years has helped profitability of commodity producers, but this is about to reverse. A DuPont analysis1 illustrates that the downturn in corporate profitability was driven by poor operating efficiency and a lack of improvement in net profit margins. Chart 9 shows that the profitability of non-commodity producers has worsened dramatically during the past 10 years. After more than a decade-long structural downturn, the RoA and RoE for commodity producers have recently strengthened along with asset turnovers and net profit margins (Chart 10). However, the commodity bonanza is over for now and profitability measures of resource companies are set to worsen significantly.2 Chart 9A DuPont Analysis: Non-Commodity Enterprises A DuPont Analysis: Non-Commodity Enterprises A DuPont Analysis: Non-Commodity Enterprises Chart 10A DuPont Analysis: Commodity Enterprises A DuPont Analysis: Commodity Enterprises A DuPont Analysis: Commodity Enterprises Bottom Line: The past decade has seen a deterioration in the financial performance metrics of industrial companies. The profitability of corporates has undergone a structural decline along with a prolonged slump in operating efficiency.  High commodity prices in the past 18 months have ameliorated profitability and efficiency parameters for commodity producers. Nevertheless, these improvements will vanish as commodity prices fall materially in the coming months. Structural Headwinds To Corporate Profitability The following factors will weigh on China’s corporate profitability in the long term: 1. Demographics and rising labor costs: A shrinking workforce since mid-2010s has led to higher wages that have weighed on the corporate sector’s profitability (Chart 11). This dynamic is also confirmed by rising labor compensation as a share of non-financial corporates’ value added, as illustrated in Chart 12. Chart 11China: Shrinking Labor Force China: Shrinking Labor Force China: Shrinking Labor Force Chart 12Labor Compensation As A Share Of Corporate Revenues Labor Compensation As A Share Of Corporate Revenues Labor Compensation As A Share Of Corporate Revenues In China, blue-collar labor shortages and upward pressures on wages will likely intensify in the coming decade. A rapid decline in the population’s natural growth rate with the third lowest fertility rate in the world (below Japan) foreshadows a decline in China’s working age population which started in 2015.  2. Common prosperity policies: The share of labor compensation in GDP has risen since 2011 at the expense of the share of corporate profits (Chart 13). China’s common prosperity policies will only reinforce this trend. These policies will encourage enterprises to assume more social duties, distributing a larger share of profits to society at the expense of shareholders. Chart 13Labor's Share Will Continue Rising In China's National Income Labor's Share Will Continue Rising In China's National Income Labor's Share Will Continue Rising In China's National Income Chart 14Output Per Unit Of Capex Is Falling Output Per Unit Of Capex Is Falling Output Per Unit Of Capex Is Falling 3. Declining efficiency of investments: A deteriorating output-to-capital ratio  indicates capital misallocation or falling efficiency (Chart 14). When a nation attempts to invest substantially for a long time, capital will likely be misallocated and the return on new investment will be low. This will drag down the overall return on capital. Falling efficiency ultimately entails lower productivity. 4. Slowing productivity growth: China’s productivity growth has downshifted, and total factor productivity growth slipped again recently. Notably, total factor productivity – a measure of productivity calculated by dividing economy-wide total production by the weighted average of inputs – has contributed less and less to China’s real GDP growth in the past decade. It is unrealistic to expect that China will reverse the downward trend in productivity growth in the next few years. 5. Deleveraging by companies and households: China’s corporate sector continues to face deleveraging pressures. Although some industrial enterprises underwent deleveraging in recent years, the country’s overall corporate debt is still very elevated. Remarkably, Chinese corporate debt as a share of nominal GDP is the highest in the world, as shown in Chart 5. China’s households are reducing debt. Depressed household income growth and deflating home prices have curbed borrowing. Deleveraging by households heralds weaker consumption, which is negative for corporates revenues. Bottom Line: Rising labor compensation and declining efficiency of investments constitute formidable headwinds to the profitability of China’s industrial sector. Moreover, the secular outlook of corporates’ profitability is also vulnerable to lower productivity growth and weaker top-line growth due deleveraging among companies and households. The Cyclical Outlook In our report two weeks ago, we discussed how China’s business cycle recovery in the second half of this year will be more U rather than V shaped. Both sluggish domestic demand and contracting external demand for Chinese exports will curb the rebound of the industrial sector in 2H. Industrial earnings are set to disappoint.  Chart 15Non-Commodity Enterprises: No Profit Expansion For 12 Years Flat Profits For Non-Commodity Enterprises Flat Profits For Non-Commodity Enterprises Manufacturing producers have not been able to fully pass on higher input prices to consumers given weak demand. This weakness together with elevated commodity prices has led to a substantial profit divergence between upstream and mid- and downstream industries since late 2020 (Chart 15).  However, upstream commodity producers face the headwind of commodity price deflation. At the margin, weakening resource prices will benefit mid- and downstream industries that use commodities. However, their revenue growth will remain fragile due to subdued domestic and external demand and a lack of pricing power. The tight correlation between industrial profits and raw material prices reinforces the importance of commodity prices as a driver of China’s industrial profit cycles Therefore, if commodity prices drop meaningfully in the second half of this year, then overall industrial profits in China will suffer markedly. Chart 16The share of loss-making industrial enterprise ventures has Rocketed The Share of Loss-Making Industrial Enterprises Has Been Surging The Share of Loss-Making Industrial Enterprises Has Been Surging Furthermore, overcapacity and operational inefficiencies persist despite supply-side reforms and a capacity reduction campaign implemented by China’s authorities. Chart 16 demonstrates that the share of loss-making industrial enterprise ventures has soared to 24%, implying capital misallocation.  With a further rising share of enterprises making losses as commodity prices plunge, the ability of companies to service debt will deteriorate and hence banks will experience climbing non-performing loans. Bottom Line: China’s recovery in the second half of this year will be more U than V shaped. Corporate earnings are set to disappoint in 2H. Investment Strategy The gloomy outlook for corporate profitability does not bode well for the performance of Chinese stocks. Chinese A-shares are struggling to bottom on the back of shaky economic fundamentals, while investable stocks are cheap for a reason. We maintain a neutral stance on Chinese onshore stocks and an underweight stance on investable stocks in a global equity portfolio. Lower profitability and return on equity have ramifications for the valuations of China’s industrial companies. Remarkably, China’s industrial profits have been flat in the past 12 years (Chart 15 above). That is a reason why many Chinese stocks have been de-rated. Among A-share industrial companies, sectors with higher profitability are coal, non-ferrous metals, auto, construction materials and food & beverage. However, coal, non-ferrous metals and construction materials are pro-cyclical sectors, and their profit growth is positively correlated with economic growth, which is facing downward pressure at least through the end of this year. In addition, resources and commodity plays are vulnerable in the next 6 to 12 months. We recommend to underweight these sectors.  Within the Chinese equity universe, we recommend overweighting autos, food & beverage, and utilities sectors. Food & beverage and utilities are interest rate-sensitive sectors, which will continue to benefit from lower onshore bond yields. In addition, utilities sector’s profit margin and earnings will improve as coal prices decline. The auto sector will gain an advantage from China’s stimulus for auto purchases, especially for new energy vehicles.   Qingyun Xu, CFA Associate Editor qingyunx@bcaresearch.com Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 The DuPont analysis breaks down return on equity in three distinct elements: net profit margin, operational efficiency, and leverage. This analysis enables to identify how various drivers impact return on equity. 2Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report "Global Copper Market: No Bottom Yet," dated July 27, 2022, and Emerging Markets Strategy Report "A Cocktail Of Falling Oil Prices And Surging US Wages," dated July 21, 2022, available at bcaresearch.com Strategic Themes Cyclical Recommendations

Dear Client, On Monday August 8, I will be sending you an abbreviated version of our monthly Chart Pack. Our regular publication will resume on August 15. Kind regards, Irene Tunkel Executive Summary The US Is Vulnerable: Only 10% Of Chips Are Manufactured At Home What To Do With Semiconductors And The Energy Sector What To Do With Semiconductors And The Energy Sector In the following report we continue answering questions from our “Bear Market 2.0” webcast, by reviewing recent US legislative actions, and their effects on semiconductor and energy stocks. Semiconductors Bill: Over the long term, the recently passed CHIPS+ bill will have a moderately positive effect on the supply of chips and will benefit a select group of companies with chip manufacturing capabilities. Semiconductors Overview: Semis are "growthy" and have surged on the back of falling yields. They are also highly cyclical, and slowing growth will become a headwind to performance. Demand for chips is fading, especially in the consumer electronics space, with sales slowing and inventories building up. We prefer more stable growth areas of the Technology sector and are overweight Software and Services as opposed to semis stocks. The bill is not enough to "move the needle". What To Do With Energy? The stars are aligning for the price of energy to turn down decisively – not only is demand for energy flagging on the back of slowing economic growth, but also the Inflation Act will likely further boost energy production. As a result, we downgrade the Exploration & Production segment, maintain our overweight in the Equipment & Services, and boost Storage & Transportation from underweight to neutral on the back of the upcoming new pipeline construction. Bottom Line: We remain underweight semis as the one-off boost from the CHIPS+ bill does not counterbalance demand headwinds. When it comes to Energy, the capex upswing will lower the price of oil which warrants an underweight stance in Exploration & Production names. Feature This week investors experienced a deluge of news and data, spanning the Fed rate decision, the Q2-2022 GDP estimate, and earnings reports from some of the largest US corporations, such as Apple, Amazon, and Facebook. To top it off, we had major developments on the legislation front after a multi-month hiatus. Two major bills, the Chips and Science Act of 2022 (aka CHIPS+) and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (an incarnation of Build Back Better), are close to passage, after months and months of dithering. In this report, we will discuss the potential effects of these pieces of legislation on the two equity sectors most affected, Semiconductors and Energy. Since these sectors are also at the epicenter of recent market action, we hope that this report is timely and will help you make the right investment decisions. Sneak Preview: We maintain our underweight on Semiconductors, and downgrade Energy Exploration and Production to an underweight on the back of falling energy prices. Semiconductors: Is It Time To Close The Underweight? When it comes to semis stocks, the current bear market caused a deeper peak-to-trough correction (40%) than at the bottom of the pandemic, implying that, perhaps, much of the bad news was priced in. We have been underweight semis since early January and are up 14% relative to the S&P 500. With the industry bouncing 20% off its June lows, we question whether we have overstayed our welcome and it is time to close this underweight, especially in light of the imminent passage of the CHIPS+ bill. Let’s start by discussing the bill: Designed In The US, Made In Asia In a November 2021 “Semiconductors: Aren’t They Fab?!” Special Report, we highlighted that semiconductor production is divided among chip designers and manufacturers, a so-called “fabless model,” which has grown in prominence as the pace of innovation made it increasingly difficult for firms to manage both the capital intensity of manufacturing and the high levels of R&D spending for design. The entire semiconductor industry depends on cooperation between two regions: North America, which houses global leaders in designing the most sophisticated chips, and Asia, which is home to companies that have the technology to manufacture them (Charts 1 & 2). As a result, the US share of chip manufacturing has been falling steadily for the past 30 years, from 37% to 10% (Chart 3). Recent, supply chain disruptions and heightening geopolitical tensions have underscored this country’s vulnerability due to outsourcing of chip manufacturing, which led to renewed calls for chip independence and onshoring. Chart 1Chips Are Designed In The US... What To Do With Semiconductors And The Energy Sector What To Do With Semiconductors And The Energy Sector Chart 2...And Manufactured In Asia What To Do With Semiconductors And The Energy Sector What To Do With Semiconductors And The Energy Sector Objective Of The CHIPS+ Bill Congress has passed the CHIPS+ bill to alleviate the chip shortage and shore up US competitiveness with China. Money is earmarked for domestic semiconductor production and research, and factory construction. The bill will provide financial incentives for both US and non-US chip makers to open manufacturing plants in the US while restricting semiconductor companies’ activities “in specific countries that present a national security threat to the United States.” The provision ensures that China, which has also been recently striving for chip independence, will not be a beneficiary of US government funds. The bill also comes with strings attached: It states that it will not allow companies to use any of the funds to buy back stocks or issue dividends. Chart 3The US Is Vulnerable: Only 10% Of Chips Are Manufactured At Home What To Do With Semiconductors And The Energy Sector What To Do With Semiconductors And The Energy Sector Cost Of The Bill Preliminary analysis from the Congressional Budget Office assesses that the bill will trigger roughly $79 billion in new spending over the coming decade. The key provision in the bill is the $52.7 billion for chip makers. Of those funds, $39 billion is earmarked to “build, expand, or modernize domestic facilities” for chip-making, while $11 billion is set aside for research and development. Funds will be spread over five years. The bill also adds $24 billion in tax incentives and other provisions for semiconductor manufacturing. In addition, $2 billion is allocated to translate laboratory advances into military and other applications. While $79 billion sounds like a lot of money, we need to keep things in perspective. As Barron’s pointed out: “According to IC Insights, total semiconductor industry capital spending is estimated to grow 24% this year, to $190 billion. Assuming some growth over the next several years, the bill would be a modest single digit percentage of the aggregate spending over the five-year time period.” Therefore, the financial benefits the bill provides are modest. Key Beneficiaries US chip makers with fab facilities, such as Intel (INTC), Micron Technology (MU), and Texas Instruments (TXN) will be the key beneficiaries of the bill as they are offered financial incentives for opening new plants. Foreign companies, such as TSMC, Samsung, and Global Foundries, might also qualify for financial incentives to open chip production facilities in the US. In fact, Intel, TSMC, and Global Foundries have already announced plans to build plants in the US contingent on the bill’s passing. Fabless chip designers, such as Nvidia (NVDA), AMD, and Qualcomm are unlikely to benefit from the package in a major way. Over the long term, the bill will have a moderately positive effect on the supply of chips and will benefit a select group of companies with chip manufacturing capabilities. Demand For Chips Is Fading While the bill will have some positive effect on chip manufacturing, there is a lurking danger that production is being ramped up globally just at a time when, after prolonged shortages, demand for chips is starting to fade. Historically, this highly cyclical industry has gone through boom and boost cycles every three to four years. During the Q2 earnings call, TSMC Chief Executive Mr. Wei said that the broader industry is dealing with an “inventory correction” that has led customers to cut orders from some of its peers. After two years of pandemic-driven demand, “our expectation is for the excess inventory in the semiconductor supply chain to take a few quarters to rebalance to a healthier level.” This is not surprising. Semiconductors are highly economically sensitive with sales declining in lockstep with slowing global growth (Chart 4), while inventory levels are picking up (Chart 5). Chart 4Sales Are Declining In Lockstep With Slowing Global Growth Sales Are Declining In Lockstep With Slowing Global Growth Sales Are Declining In Lockstep With Slowing Global Growth Chart 5Chip Inventory Levels Are Picking Up Chip Inventory Levels Are Picking Up Chip Inventory Levels Are Picking Up Demand for two of the industry’s key markets, computers and mobile phones, which account for 50% of the overall chip demand, seems to be deteriorating rapidly amid the slowing global economy. Demand for consumer electronics is fading after a pandemic surge of buying, when consumers pulled forward their spending on phones and computers. Most of these items don’t need to be upgraded or replaced for years. COVID-related lockdowns in China, meanwhile, have also weighed on consumer demand. According to IDC, worldwide shipments of personal computers fell 15% in the June quarter from a year earlier, due to “macroeconomic headwinds.” IDC has also lowered its forecast for 2022 expecting computer shipments to retreat by 8.2%. Canalys said global shipments for mobile phones fell 9% year over year, following economic headwinds, sluggish demand, and inventory pile-up. Memory chips represent 28% of the industry, and DRAM accounts represent three-fifths of memory sales. DRAM prices are falling (Chart 6). According to TrendForce, the average contract price for a DRAM, used widely in consumer items ranging from cars to phones to fridges, fell by 10.6% during the second quarter, compared to a year ago, the first such decline in two years. DRAM prices are expected to slide by 21% in Q3-2022. Companies are telling us similar stories: Micron, the No. 3 player in memory, recently issued revenue guidance well below analysts’ estimates. Chief Executive Sanjay Mehrotra warned that “the industry demand environment has weakened,” with PC and smartphone sales declining. Lisa Su, Chief Executive of AMD, expects computer demand to be roughly flat. Nvidia is bracing for a slowdown in the crypto space and game consoles. Intel has reported disappointing results: PC customers are reducing inventory levels at a rate not seen in a decade, Chief Executive Pat Gelsinger said in a call with analysts. PC makers typically reduce inventory levels of chips when they are expecting lower sales. Chart 6DRAM Prices Are Falling DRAM Prices Are Falling DRAM Prices Are Falling Of course, there is significant variability in demand for chips across sectors: While demand for phones and computers is fading, there is still pent-up demand for auto chips, and servers (Chart 7). According to Ms. Su, demand remains hot for chips used in high-performance computers and servers. TSMC, which has Apple and Nvidia among its clients, seconds this notion: Quarterly revenue for high-performance computers, increased 13% from the previous quarter and was greater than the revenue from smartphones, which rose 3%. There are also significant shortages of less-advanced auto chips (Chart 8). In a recent Q2 earnings call, GM reported that it carries 95,000 unfinished cars in its inventory due to the auto chip shortage. According to Mr. Wei of TSMC, the company will continue investing in auto chips, a product that historically it didn’t emphasize as much as its cutting-edge chips, in response to strong demand. Texas Instruments, which reported stellar results, also said that while it saw strength in the auto and industrial segments, demand from the consumer electronics market remained weak in both the second quarter and the current quarter. Chart 7Demand For Servers Is Still Strong Demand For Servers Is Still Strong Demand For Servers Is Still Strong Chart 8More Chips Will Boost Auto Sales More Chips Will Boost Auto Sales More Chips Will Boost Auto Sales Demand for chips is fading, especially in the consumer electronics space, with sales slowing and inventories building up. Pricing power is also fading. However, there are still areas immune to the downturn, such as chips for servers, high-performance computers, and less advanced auto chips. Valuations and Fundamentals Earnings growth expectations have also come down significantly off their peak, and are currently at 5% for the next 12 months, which indicates negative real growth (Chart 9). Chart 9Earnings Growth Is Slowing Earnings Growth Is Slowing Earnings Growth Is Slowing Chart 10Valuations Are Above Pre-Pandemic Trough Valuations Are Above Pre-Pandemic Trough Valuations Are Above Pre-Pandemic Trough Semi valuations have pulled back from a 33x trailing multiple to 17x over the course of six months, only to bounce back another 3x since June 16, currently trading at 20x multiple. While valuations certainly moderated, they are still above the pre-pandemic trough in 2019 when the global economy was also slowing. The BCA Valuation Indicator, an amalgamation of various valuation metrics, indicates that semiconductors trade at fair value (Chart 10 & Chart 11). The rebound rally was fast and furious; at nearly 20% off market lows, it feels like much of the recovery from severely oversold conditions has run its course. Chart 11Chips Are Moderately Priced, While Investor Position Is Light Chips Are Moderately Priced, While Investor Position Is Light Chips Are Moderately Priced, While Investor Position Is Light Semis Investment Implications Semiconductors are somewhat unique in that they are both cyclical and “growthy” (Chart 12). Since semis are “growthy,” the past six-week rebound may be attributed to falling rates, which have led to multiple expansion of most growth sectors. However, we need to keep in mind that rates have stabilized because of signs of global slowdown, and that the cyclical nature of semis will get in the way of further outperformance. While we also believe that the CHIPS+ bill is a modest tailwind, it is hard to commit to an industry in the early innings of contraction. For investors who would like to top up their allocations to semis, we recommend companies most exposed to demand from industrial sectors (autos, servers, high performance computers), and staying away from companies most exposed to consumer electronics. Much of the performance of companies that have reported so far hinged on their product mix. Chart 12Semis Are Both "Growthy" And Cyclical Semis Are Both "Growthy" And Cyclical Semis Are Both "Growthy" And Cyclical Bottom Line We are reluctant to add to semis after the sector gained nearly 20% in just six weeks. Economic challenges remain – demand for chips is slowing, and the process of clearing inventory build-up may take several quarters. CHIPS+ is a positive but, in our opinion, is not enough to move the needle. We prefer more stable growth areas of the Technology sector and are overweight Software and Services. We also prefer semis most exposed to demand from non-consumer sectors. What To Do With Energy? We are currently equal-weight Energy. More specifically, we are overweight Energy Equipment and Services, equal weight Explorations and Production (we closed an overweight in March, booking a profit of 50%), and underweight Energy Transportation industry groups. With Brent down 18% and GSCI down 15%, and economic growth slowing, it is essential to review what is in store for the sector. Further, the Inflation Reduction Act, which is now on President Biden desk expecting his signature, has quite a few provisions relevant to the sector. Inflation Reduction Act And Its Effects On The Fossil Fuels Industry This bill is a true marvel of political negotiation and gives all parties something to be happy about and something to complain about. While the bill earmarks $370 billion for clean energy spending at the insistence of Senator Manchin (D, WV), the legislative package provides support for traditional sources of energy like oil, gas, and coal. Broadly speaking, the bill is a positive for expanding domestic energy production and supporting its nascent Capex cycle, which we called for in the “Energy: After Seven Lean Years” Special Report. Development of new wells has already picked up over the past few months (Chart 13). Chart 13New Energy CAPEX Cycle New Energy CAPEX Cycle New Energy CAPEX Cycle Here are a few important rules stipulated by the bill, highlighted by the Wall Street Journal: Expanding offshore wind and solar power development on federal land will now require the federal government to offer more access for drilling on federal territory. Under the bill, the Interior Department would be required to offer up at least two million acres of federal land and 60 million acres of offshore acreage to oil and gas producers every year for the next decade. It would be the first-ever required minimum acreage for offshore oil and gas leasing and would significantly increase the acreage requirements for onshore leasing. The bill would also effectively reinstate an 80-million-acre sale of the Gulf of Mexico to the oil drillers last year that a federal judge had invalidated. The bill is also a major positive for the natural gas industry, providing an accelerated timeline for building the pipelines and terminals needed to increase production and export of fossil fuels. In exchange for access to more federal territory, oil and gas companies would also have to pay higher royalty rates for drilling there. It would also require them to pay royalties on methane they burn off or let intentionally escape from their operations on federal lands. The bill aims to increase the supply of oil, gas, and coal, and return the US towards energy independence. Over the medium term, it should lead to a normalization of the price of energy. Demand Vs. Supply Naturally, the price of oil is all about supply and demand. And the performance of the energy sector is inextricably linked to the price of oil (Chart 14). Supply: According to our EM Strategist, Arthur Budaghyan, “fears that sanctions on Russia will considerably reduce global oil supply have not yet materialized.” According to International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates, Russia’s shipments of crude and oil products have declined by only about 5% since January (Chart 15). Clearly, despite the sanctions and logistical challenges that Western governments have enforced on Russia, the country’s oil exports have not collapsed. Chart 14Price Of Oil Is Important For The Energy Sector's Profitability Price Of Oil Is Important For The Energy Sector's Profitability Price Of Oil Is Important For The Energy Sector's Profitability Chart 15Russia's Supply Of Oil Has Decreased By Only 5% Russia's Supply Of Oil Has Decreased By Only 5% Russia's Supply Of Oil Has Decreased By Only 5% Demand: Meanwhile, global commodities and energy demand is downshifting in response to both high fuel prices and weakening global growth. US consumption of gasoline and other motor fuel has marginally contracted (Chart 16, top panel). In China, rolling lockdowns and weak income growth will continue to suppress the nation’s crude oil imports, which have already been depressed over the past 12 months (Chart 16, bottom panel). In the rest of EM (excluding China), a strong dollar and high oil prices are leading to demand destruction. Chart 16US And Chinese Oil Consumption Is Weak US And Chinese Oil Consumption Is Weak US And Chinese Oil Consumption Is Weak Prices Are To Trend Down: Hence, the supply of energy and commodities is stable, but demand is flagging, which does not bode well for the prices of energy and materials. Odds are that oil prices will decline further and recouple with industrial and precious metal prices. In addition, as the market anticipates a turn in inflation, there is a pronounced rotation away from Energy and Materials towards Technology and other growth pockets of the market (Charts 17 & 18). With a supply of energy staying steady or even expanding, while demand is slowing on the back of the global slowdown, we expect the price of energy to trend down. Chart 17Energy And Materials Were Biggest Winners In the "Inflation High And Rising" Regime... What To Do With Semiconductors And The Energy Sector What To Do With Semiconductors And The Energy Sector Chart 18...But They Gave Back Their Gains In "Inflation High But Falling" Regime What To Do With Semiconductors And The Energy Sector What To Do With Semiconductors And The Energy Sector Energy Investment Implications It appears that the stars are aligning for the price of energy to turn down decisively – not only is demand for energy flagging on the back of slowing economic growth, but also the Inflation Act will likely further boost energy production. As production is expanded and prices fall, the profitability of the Oil Exploration and Production industry (upstream) will decline. In addition, inflation is about to turn, and a change in market leadership has already ensued. We downgrade Exploration and Production to an underweight. In the meantime, the Equipment and Services industry will benefit from contracts to develop new wells and will thrive. We maintain an overweight. We are currently underweight the Energy Storage and Transportation industry (mid-stream) as historically, this industry was marred in multiple regulations and most expansion projects faced obstacles, especially if running through public land. However, under the provisions of the Inflation Act, midstream will benefit from rising production volumes and expedited construction the pipelines and terminals needed to increase production and exports of fossil fuels. We upgrade Storage and Transportation to an equal weight. Bottom Line The Inflation Reduction Act will create conditions favorable for expanding the production of fossil fuels and will support US energy independence. As supply grows while demand is slowing, the price of energy is likely to turn – while a boon for US consumers, this is a headwind to the performance of the Energy sector.   Irene Tunkel Chief Strategist, US Equity Strategy irene.tunkel@bcaresearch.com   Recommended Allocation

Feature Clean energy names rallied yesterday on the back of the news that a reconciliation deal was struck to support Biden’s fiscal package. The deal, which was dubbed the “Inflation Reduction Act Of 2022”, includes approximately $370 billion in clean energy spending as well as EV tax credits for both new and used cars.  The bill has been sent to President Biden for his signature. The bill is a boon to two of our long-term investment themes: “EV Revolution” and “Is It Time To Invest Green And Clean?”. In both reports, we argued that both themes were to benefit from the favorable legislative tailwinds thanks to this administration’s focus on climate change prevention policies. Since its inception in June 2021, the EV theme has outperformed the S&P 500 by 15%, while the “Green and Clean” theme is up 14% since the April 2022 inauguration report. When it comes to investing in green technology and EV, we recommend investors continue to treat them as long-term thematic calls. Technological innovation themes are intrinsically risky: They are rarely immediately profitable and require both continuous investment and technological breakthroughs to succeed. As such, they are fickle over short term but pay off over a longer investment horizon. On a tactical basis both EV and clean energy stocks may be ripe for a pullback after a robust rally (Chart 2). Chart 1 On The Clean Energy Deal On The Clean Energy Deal Chart 2 On The Clean Energy Deal On The Clean Energy Deal     Thematic themes are best captured either via an ETF or a custom basket. Green energy ETFs are TAN, FAN, RNRG, CTEC, RAYS, and WNDY. Electric vehicle ETFs are ARKQ, IDRIV, DRIV, and KARS (See appendix for details). Bottom Line: We reiterate our structural preference for green technology and EV stocks on the back of strong legislative support and a continuous push for innovation and affordability. Appendix Table 1 On The Clean Energy Deal On The Clean Energy Deal Table 2 On The Clean Energy Deal On The Clean Energy Deal

Executive Summary If a loss of wealth persists for a year or more, it hurts the economy. The recent $40 trillion slump in global financial wealth is larger than that suffered in the pandemic of 2020, the global financial crisis of 2008, and the dot com bust of 2000-01. Partly countering this slump in global financial wealth is a $20 trillion uplift in global real estate wealth. However, Chinese home prices are already stagnating. And the recent disappearance of US and European homebuyers combined with a flood of home-sellers warns that US and European home prices will cool over the next 6 months. With the loss of wealth likely to persist, it will amplify a global growth slowdown already in train, aided and abetted by central banks that are willing to enter recession to slay inflation. The optimal asset allocation over the next 6-12 months is: overweight bonds, neutral stocks, and underweight commodities. A variation on this theme is: overweight conventional bonds and stocks versus inflation-protected bonds and commodities. Fractal trading watchlist: US telecoms versus utilities, and copper. We Have Just Suffered The Worst Loss Of Financial Wealth In A Generation The World Is $20 Trillion Poorer. Why That Matters The World Is $20 Trillion Poorer. Why That Matters Bottom Line: On a 6-12 month horizon, overweight bonds, neutral stocks, and underweight commodities. Feature Since the end of last year, the world has lost $40 trillion of financial wealth, evenly split between the crashes in stocks and bonds (Chart I-1). The slump in financial wealth, both in absolute and proportionate terms, is the worst suffered in a generation, larger than that in the pandemic of 2020, the global financial crisis of 2008, and the dot com bust of 2000-01.1 Chart I-1Global Stocks And Global Bonds Have Both Slumped By $20 Trillion Global Stocks And Global Bonds Have Both Slumped By $20 Trillion Global Stocks And Global Bonds Have Both Slumped By $20 Trillion Partly countering this $40 trillion slump in global financial wealth is a $20 trillion uplift in global real estate wealth. But in total, the world is still $20 trillion ‘asset poorer’ than at the end of last year. Given that global GDP is around $100 trillion, we can say that we are asset poorer, on average, by about one fifth of our annual income. Does this loss of wealth matter? A Loss Of Wealth Matters If It Persists For A Year Or More Some argue that we shouldn’t worry about the recent slump in our wealth, because we are still wealthier than we were, say, at the start of the pandemic (Chart I-2). Yet this is a facile argument. Whatever loss of wealth we suffer, there is always some point in the past against which we are richer! Chart I-2We Have Just Suffered The Worst Loss Of Financial Wealth In A Generation We Have Just Suffered The Worst Loss Of Financial Wealth In A Generation We Have Just Suffered The Worst Loss Of Financial Wealth In A Generation Another argument is that people do not care about a short-lived dip in their wealth. This argument has more truth to it. For example, in the extreme event of a flash crash, an asset price can drop to zero and then bounce back in the blink of an eyelid. In this case, most people would be oblivious, or unconcerned, by this momentary collapse in their wealth. But people do care if the slump in their wealth becomes more prolonged. How long is prolonged? The answer is, if the slump persists for a year or more. Why a year? Because that is the timeframe over which governments, firms, and households make their income and spending plans. Governments and firms do this formally in their annual budgets that set tax rates, wages, bonuses, and investment spending. Households do it informally, because their wages, bonuses, and taxes – and therefore disposable incomes – also adjust on an annual basis. Into this yearly spending plan will also come any change in wealth experienced over the previous year. For example, firms often do this formally by converting an asset write-down to a deduction from profits, which will then impact the firm’s future spending. This illustrates that what impacts your spending is not the level of your wealth, but the yearly change in your wealth. Spending Is Impacted By The Change In Wealth The intellectual battle here is between Economics and Psychology. The economics textbooks insist that it is the level of your wealth that impacts your spending, whereas the psychology and behavioural finance textbooks insist that it is the change in your wealth that impacts your spending. (Chart I-3and Chart I-4). In my view, the psychologists and behavioural finance guys have nailed this better than the economists, through a theory known as Mental Accounting Bias. Chart I-3The Change And Impulse Of Stock Market Wealth Are Both Negative The Change And Impulse Of Stock Market Wealth Are Both Negative The Change And Impulse Of Stock Market Wealth Are Both Negative Chart I-4The Change And Impulse Of Bond Market Wealth Are Both Negative The Change And Impulse Of Bond Market Wealth Are Both Negative The Change And Impulse Of Bond Market Wealth Are Both Negative Nobel Laureate psychologist Daniel Kahneman points out that we categorise our money into different accounts, which are sometimes physical, sometimes only mental – and that there is a clear hierarchy in our willingness to spend these ‘mental accounts’. Put simply, we are willing to spend our income mental account, but we are much less willing to spend our wealth mental account. Still, wealth can generate income through interest payments and dividends, which we are willing to spend. Clearly, the level of income generated will correlate with the amount of wealth – $10 million of wealth will likely generate much more income than $1 million of wealth. So, economists get the impression that it is the level of wealth that impacts spending, but the truth is that it is the income generated by the wealth that impacts spending.    We are willing to spend our income ‘mental account’, but we are much less willing to spend our wealth ‘mental account’. What about someone like Amazon founder Jeff Bezos who has immense wealth but seemingly negligible income – Mr. Bezos receives only a token salary, and his huge holding of Amazon shares pays no dividend – how then can we explain his largesse? The answer is that Mr. Bezos’ immense wealth generates tens of billions in trading income. So again, it is his income that is driving his spending. Wealth also generates an ‘income substitute’ via capital gains. For example, you should be indifferent between a $100 bond giving you $2 of income, or a $98 zero-coupon bond maturing in one year at $100, giving you $2 of capital gain. In this case the capital gain is simply an income substitute and fully transferred into the spending mental account. Nowhere is this truer than in China, where the straight-line appreciation in house prices through several decades has allowed homeowners to regard a reliable capital gain as an income substitute (Chart I-5). Which justifies rental yields on Chinese housing that are the lowest in the world and lower even than the yield on risk-free cash. In other words, which justifies a stratospheric valuation for Chinese real estate. Image Usually though, we tend to transfer only a proportion of our capital gains or losses into our spending mental account. As described previously, a firm will do this formally by transferring an asset write-down into the income statement. And households will do it informally by transferring some proportion of their yearly change in wealth into their spending mental account. The important conclusion is that spending is impacted by the yearly change in wealth. Meaning that spending growth is impacted by the yearly change in the yearly change in wealth, known as the wealth (1-year) impulse, where a negative impulse implies negative growth. Cracks Appearing In The Housing Market Given the recent slump in financial wealth, the global financial wealth impulse is in deeply negative territory. Yet by far the largest part of our wealth comprises housing, meaning the value of our homes2 (Chart I-6). In China, the recent stagnation of house prices means that the housing wealth impulse has turned negative. Elsewhere in the world though, the recent boom in house prices means that the housing wealth impulse is still positive, meaning a tailwind – albeit a rapidly fading tailwind – to spending (Chart I-7 and Chart I-8). Chart I-6Housing Comprises By Far The Largest Part Of Our Wealth Housing Comprises By Far The Largest Part Of Our Wealth Housing Comprises By Far The Largest Part Of Our Wealth Chart I-7Chinese House Prices Have Stagnated, US House Prices Have Surged The World Is $20 Trillion Poorer. Why That Matters The World Is $20 Trillion Poorer. Why That Matters Chart I-8The Chinese Housing Wealth Impulse Is Negative, The US Housing Wealth Impulse Is Fading The Chinese Housing Wealth Impulse Is Negative, The US Housing Wealth Impulse Is Fading The Chinese Housing Wealth Impulse Is Negative, The US Housing Wealth Impulse Is Fading In China, the recent stagnation of house prices means that the housing wealth impulse has turned negative. Still, as we explained in The Global Housing Boom Is Over, As Buying Becomes More Expensive Than Renting, the disappearance of homebuyers combined with a flood of home-sellers is a tried and tested indicator that US and European home prices will cool over the next 6 months. US new home prices have already suffered a significant decline in June (Chart I-9). Some of this is because US homebuilders are building smaller and less expensive homes. Nevertheless, it seems highly likely that the non-China housing wealth impulse will also turn negative later this year. Chart I-9US New Home Prices Fell Sharply In June US New Home Prices Fell Sharply In June US New Home Prices Fell Sharply In June To be clear, the wealth impulse is just one driver of spending growth. Nevertheless, it does have the potential to amplify the growth cycle in either direction. With global growth clearly slowing, and central banks willing to enter recession to slay inflation, the rapidly fading global wealth impulse will amplify the slowdown. Therefore, the optimal asset allocation over the next 6-12 months is: Overweight bonds. Neutral stocks. Underweight commodities. A variation on this theme is: Overweight conventional bonds and stocks versus inflation-protected bonds and commodities. Fractal Trading Watchlist After a 35 percent decline since March, copper has hit a resistance point on its short-term fractal structure, from which it could experience a countertrend move. Hence, we are adding copper to our watchlist. Of note also, the underperformance of US telecoms versus utilities has reached the point of fragility on its 260-day fractal structure that has signalled previous major turning points in 2012, 2014, and 2017 (Chart I-10). Hence, the recommended trade is long US telecoms versus utilities, setting a profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 8 percent. Chart I-10US Telecoms Versus Utilities Are At A Potential Turnaround US Telecoms Versus Utilities Are At A Potential Turnaround US Telecoms Versus Utilities Are At A Potential Turnaround Fractal Trading Watchlist: New Additions Copper’s Selloff Has Hit Short-Term Resistance Copper's Selloff Has Hit Short-Term Resistance Copper's Selloff Has Hit Short-Term Resistance Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1     The value of global equities has dropped by $20tn to $80tn, the value of global bonds by $20tn to around $100tn, while the value of global real estate has increased by $20tn to an estimated $370tn. 2     Strictly speaking, housing wealth should be measured net of the mortgage debt that is owed on our homes. But as the wealth impulse is a change of a change, and mortgage debt changes very slowly, it does not matter whether we calculate the impulse from gross or net housing wealth. Chart 1CNY/USD At A Potential Turning Point CNY/USD At A Potential Turning Point CNY/USD At A Potential Turning Point Chart 2Copper's Selloff Has Hit Short-Term Resistance Copper's Selloff Has Hit Short-Term Resistance Copper's Selloff Has Hit Short-Term Resistance Chart 3US REITS Are Oversold Versus Utilities US REITS Are Oversold Versus Utilities US REITS Are Oversold Versus Utilities Chart 4CAD/SEK Is Reversing CAD/SEK Is Reversing CAD/SEK Is Reversing Chart 5Financials Versus Industrials Has Reversed Financials Versus Industrials Has Reversed Financials Versus Industrials Has Reversed Chart 6The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Biotech Has Ended The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Biotech Has Ended The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Biotech Has Ended Chart 7The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Healthcare Has Ended The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Healthcare Has Ended The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Healthcare Has Ended Chart 8FTSE100 Outperformance Vs. Euro Stoxx 50 Is Vulnerable To Reversal FTSE100 Outperformance Vs. Euro Stoxx 50 Is Vulnerable To Reversal FTSE100 Outperformance Vs. Euro Stoxx 50 Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 9Netherlands' Underperformance Vs. Switzerland Has Ended Netherlands' Underperformance Vs. Switzerland Has Ended Netherlands' Underperformance Vs. Switzerland Has Ended Chart 10The Sell-Off In The 30-Year T-Bond At Fractal Fragility The Sell-Off In The 30-Year T-Bond At Fractal Fragility The Sell-Off In The 30-Year T-Bond At Fractal Fragility Chart 11The Sell-Off In The NASDAQ Is Approaching Fractal Fragility The Sell-Off In The NASDAQ Is Approaching Fractal Fragility The Sell-Off In The NASDAQ Is Approaching Fractal Fragility Chart 12Food And Beverage Outperformance Is Exhausted Food And Beverage Outperformance Is Exhausted Food And Beverage Outperformance Is Exhausted Chart 13German Telecom Outperformance Has Started To Reverse German Telecom Outperformance Has Started To Reverse German Telecom Outperformance Has Started To Reverse Chart 14Japanese Telecom Outperformance Vulnerable To Reversal Japanese Telecom Outperformance Vulnerable To Reversal Japanese Telecom Outperformance Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 15ETH Is Approaching A Possible Capitulation ETH Is Approaching A Possible Capitulation ETH Is Approaching A Possible Capitulation Chart 16The Strong Trend In The 18-Month-Out US Interest Rate Future Has Ended The Strong Trend In The 18-Month-Out US Interest Rate Future Has Ended The Strong Trend In The 18-Month-Out US Interest Rate Future Has Ended Chart 17The Strong Downtrend In The 3 Year T-Bond Has Ended The Strong Downtrend In The 3 Year T-Bond Has Ended The Strong Downtrend In The 3 Year T-Bond Has Ended Chart 18A Potential Switching Point From Tobacco Into Cannabis A Potential Switching Point From Tobacco Into Cannabis A Potential Switching Point From Tobacco Into Cannabis Chart 19Biotech Is A Major Buy Biotech Is A Major Buy Biotech Is A Major Buy Chart 20Norway's Outperformance Has Ended Norway's Outperformance Has Ended Norway's Outperformance Has Ended Chart 21Cotton Versus Platinum Has Reversed Cotton Versus Platinum Has Reversed Cotton Versus Platinum Has Reversed Chart 22Switzerland's Outperformance Vs. Germany Is Exhausted Switzerland's Outperformance Vs. Germany Is Exhausted Switzerland's Outperformance Vs. Germany Is Exhausted Chart 23USD/EUR Is Vulnerable To Reversal USD/EUR Is Vulnerable To Reversal USD/EUR Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 24The Outperformance Of MSCI Hong Kong Versus China Has Ended The Outperformance Of MSCI Hong Kong Versus China Has Ended The Outperformance Of MSCI Hong Kong Versus China Has Ended Chart 25A Potential New Entry Point Into Petcare A Potential New Entry Point Into Petcare A Potential New Entry Point Into Petcare Chart 26GBP/USD At A Potential Turning Point GBP/USD At A Potential Turning Point GBP/USD At A Potential Turning Point Chart 27US Utilities Outperformance Vulnerable To Reversal US Utilities Outperformance Vulnerable To Reversal US Utilities Outperformance Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 28The Outperformance Of Oil Versus Banks Is Exhausted The Outperformance Of Oil Versus Banks Is Exhausted The Outperformance Of Oil Versus Banks Is Exhausted   Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades The World Is $20 Trillion Poorer. Why That Matters The World Is $20 Trillion Poorer. Why That Matters The World Is $20 Trillion Poorer. Why That Matters The World Is $20 Trillion Poorer. Why That Matters 6-12 Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - 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 - Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - 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    

Executive Summary Dollar Still The Largest Global Reserve Currency Dollar Still Dominating Global Reserves Dollar Still Dominating Global Reserves The rise of cryptocurrencies like stablecoins theoretically pose risks to fiat currencies and their general use. In the US, the Federal Reserve will look to adopt a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) – a digital dollar – this decade, to stave off these risks and usher in a new era of central bank money. A digital dollar would likely be integrated as seamlessly as possible into the current monetary regime, thereby maintaining an intermediated role played by existing financial sector actors as well as operating alongside existing circulating currency. The US dollar will eventually face rising competition from digital currencies, both at home and abroad. While other central banks make headway into developing their own CBDCs, China is by far the most advanced. China’s digital yuan will not resolve all of China’s problems with internationalizing its currency but it will create new opportunities. Public and political pushback will occur and will slow adoption of a digital dollar. Gridlock in 2023 may prove to be another headwind. To adopt a digital dollar, politicians will need to work along bipartisan lines to ensure the US remains at the forefront of digital and monetary innovation, especially as foreign competition on CBDCs rises. Recommendation (Tactical) Initiation Date  Return Long DXY (Dollar Index) 23-FEB-22 10.7% Bottom Line: Policymakers will adopt a CBDC – a digital dollar – this decade. Political pushback may slow adoption, but foreign competition will overcome domestic constraints. Feature Technological innovation over the past decade has given rise to a new asset class – digital assets. Investors are most familiar with cryptocurrencies, and to a lesser extent, non-fungible tokens and decentralized finance-based lending, among others. These assets have witnessed a boom and bust over the past few years (Chart 1). Chart 1Manias: Then And Now Manias: Then And Now Manias: Then And Now Cryptocurrencies have been touted to have money-like characteristics, the most popular being Bitcoin, and others like stablecoins. Stablecoins are mostly used as a medium of exchange between fiat money and cryptocurrencies and vice versa. They are pegged to fiat money and often backed by highly liquid traditional assets1 to maintain their pegs. But cryptocurrencies do not exhibit the traits of durable money today. However, the technological innovation of digital currency represents a natural evolution of money that is irreversible and could someday possess the main characteristics of money: a medium of exchange, a unit of account, and store of value. Cryptocurrencies with money-like qualities theoretically pose a challenge to fiat currencies, i.e. those issued by governments that are not backed by any underlying real asset but rather by trust in government institutions, including the treasury and central bank. Not that trust is a poor basis for a currency. But that trust could fail and new trust could be placed in cryptocurrencies. Governments could eventually lose control of the money supply and payments system, suffer from financial instability, fail to provide regulatory oversight, or fail to prevent the illicit use of digital assets for criminal gain. The same technology driving growth in digital assets has led central banks the world around to research and in some cases develop CBDCs. For an introductory guide to CBDCs, see BCA’s “The Investor’s Guide To Central Bank Digital Currencies.” CBDC research and development are at varying stages across the world’s central banks.2 In the US, the Federal Reserve (Fed) continues to research a CBDC (digital dollar) and its use-case, or justification for being. The Fed has made no commitment to designing a digital dollar anytime soon. But we bet that the Fed’s position will change in coming years. Introducing a digital dollar will reduce the various risks associated with cryptocurrencies whilst also creating efficiencies in the US economy. These efficiencies will also transverse into cross-border efficiencies. Globally, central banks are showing increasing activity in developing CBDCs and introducing a digital dollar would help the Fed maintain monetary dominance across the world while staving off cryptocurrencies, especially stablecoins. The Fed won’t sit idle as a global monetary revolution unfolds. But the policy front is fraught with challenges. Policy makers in the US have expressed mixed views on adopting a digital dollar. Some suggest the Fed would exercise even more control over monetary policy than it does today. Others note risks to consumer data privacy, which could be exploited by government. Public opinion is also mixed with no clear understanding of or need for a digital dollar. Commercial bank business interests may come under attack too, with a digital dollar scalping profit margins from banks, depending on the type and extent of the CBDC operating model employed. Ultimately, the US will want to maintain its position as the global monetary leader. Continued dollar dominance in the global economy is strategically advantageous for the US, especially in a hypo-globalizing world (Chart 2). Ensuring ongoing monetary dominance while rooting out domestic competition from stablecoins will be aided by adopting a digital dollar. Chart 2Dollar Still Dominating Global Reserves Dollar Still Dominating Global Reserves Dollar Still Dominating Global Reserves Bottom Line: The Fed will most likely adopt a digital dollar within the decade. The Fed And A Digital Dollar The Fed has been actively researching a digital dollar for several years with growing research on design, implementation, and necessity. As it stands, the Fed has not committed to introducing a digital dollar in the foreseeable future. But what would a digital dollar look like and what role would it play in the economy if the Fed decided to introduce one? CBDC Model Briefly, the Fed could choose from three different CBDC operating models: unilateral, synthetic, or intermediated (Diagram 1). A unilateral model would mean the Fed performs all CBDC related functions including direct interaction with end-users. A synthetic model would mean non-Fed actors issuing money backed by Fed assets. Diagram 1Three CBDC Operating Models Digital Dollar, Will US Policymakers Launch One Soon? Digital Dollar, Will US Policymakers Launch One Soon? Realistically, a unilateral and synthetic digital dollar are unlikely. The former would crowd out traditional banking services, while the latter would let actors other than the Fed issue money, violating the Federal Reserve Act. Hence the Fed will most likely pursue an intermediated CBDC model. This model entails digital dollar issuance by the Fed but includes a role for private sector firms to interact with end-users. The intermediary role would be filled by financial firms but also other types of companies such as payment service providers and mobile phone operators. This means the Fed would not totally crowd out existing players across the payment and financial services space. An intermediated model would require the central bank to regulate and oversee other actors, which adds an extra layer of legal and operational complexity to implementation. But it is the model most consistent with the US’s combination of federal government and liberal capitalism, and the model cited by the Fed to most likely be adopted.3 The intermediated model will align with the current two-tier system currently in place (Diagram 2). Digital dollars will feature in both wholesale and retail transactions. Wholesale involves commercial banks and regulated financial intermediaries, while retail involves individuals and non-financial businesses. The model would also operate alongside existing paper money. A digital dollar would be a liability on the Fed, denominated in dollars, and would form an integral part of base money supply (M0). It would be distributed like, and act as a complement to, dollar bills and could be used in transactions conducted in currency and reserves. It would be legal tender just like the paper dollar. Diagram 2Two-Tier Monetary Regime System Digital Dollar, Will US Policymakers Launch One Soon? Digital Dollar, Will US Policymakers Launch One Soon? Digital Dollar Needs The Fed has stated that a digital dollar should, among other things, meet certain criteria before adoption (Table 1). Some of these criteria are already met. Others will be met with adoption. A digital dollar will benefit households, businesses, and the economy at large. For example, a digital dollar would enhance payment transparency, thereby supporting the Fed’s objective to promote safe and efficient payments. And depending on design choices, digital transactions could offer degrees of traceability and aggregate payment data could be analyzed in real time to provide insights into economic health and activity. Table 1Fed Criteria For CBDC Adoption Digital Dollar, Will US Policymakers Launch One Soon? Digital Dollar, Will US Policymakers Launch One Soon? Further, a digital dollar would promote diversification of the payments system, thereby increasing the safety and efficiency of US payment infrastructure. It may also attract new actors offering services related to the digital dollar, spurring financial innovation and fostering financial integration. The payments system is already broadly efficient but adding another layer of digitization with a digital dollar would mean that the US economy would be better positioned for the evolution of the digital economy over the next decade and beyond. The need for broad stakeholder support will be a difficult criterion to meet, however. There would need to be more engagement with the public, inter-government agencies, and Congress. For now, these “needs” outlined by the Fed are more than half met, signaling that a digital dollar could come to fruition within the decade from a policy perspective. International advances on this front will spur US policy makers into action even if they are disinclined. Bottom Line: The needs outlined by the Fed to adopt a digital dollar have been mostly met which ticks off one of the policy implementation checkboxes. There are gains to be had across the economy by introducing a digital dollar, ranging from a more efficient payments system to financial inclusion and decreasing transactions costs. Domestic Competition The proliferation of stablecoins has been noted by government agencies around the world. The Fed too has been keeping note. By the end of 2021, stablecoins had a relatively small market capitalization compared to the broader cryptocurrency market, approximately 6%. Now, stablecoins account for almost 16% of cryptocurrency market capitalization. But trading volumes point to stablecoins having a much larger role in transactions (Chart 3). Stablecoins resolve some of the problems of faith and trust that bedevil cryptocurrencies not backed by traditional assets. Chart 3Stablecoins Rise In Popularity Stablecoins Rise In Popularity Stablecoins Rise In Popularity Stablecoins pose two key threats that a digital dollar will essentially nullify: Systemic risk: A growing stablecoin market that is increasingly backed by traditional, high liquid assets could create systemic risk in traditional asset markets. An excessive rise or fall in demand for stablecoins would cause volatility in the liquid assets that back them. Moreover, for example, a fire sale in the stablecoin market would cause demand to fall excessively relative to the backing asset. Prices between stablecoins and the backing asset would diverge, potentially breaking the peg and resulting in further price divergence. And more broadly, high volatility from crypto markets can penetrate traditional or risk-free markets. A digital dollar would render stablecoins unnecessary, allowing cryptocurrency users to transact and convert digital dollars to cryptocurrency while enjoying the backing of the Fed on the value of digital dollars. Cross-border transactions: Stablecoins are also increasingly used for cross-border transactions. According to Fed data, the US pays 5.4% in fees on average per cross-border transaction, which also takes several days to settle. Stablecoins settle almost instantaneously and have much lower transaction fees. So too can a digital dollar. It would settle just as quickly as a stablecoin, if not quicker, and reduce transaction costs for cross-border payments. And because stablecoins are designed to maintain their pegs, they have more potential than cryptocurrencies to act as mediums of exchange outside of the crypto market and economy, potentially threatening the ongoing use of fiat money. Bottom Line: The Fed will design a CBDC around its existing monetary and payments system to allow for seamless integration. There are not many reasons holding back digital dollar adoption from a point of need and benefit. By adopting a digital dollar, the Fed will also fight off the growing risk of stablecoins, which could pose a threat to the use-case of fiat money in everyday life. Other Central Banks On The March The authority to issue money is an important element of economic power. History is replete with examples of currency competition both within countries and between them. CBDC research and development are picking up speed across central banks (Charts 4A and 4B). China is the world leader with its digital yuan, as we discuss below. Design and implementation of CBDCs will follow in coming years just like in the case of the digital yuan. If the theoretical payoffs to adopting a CBDC are met by real-world green shoots, then foreign CBDCs could pose a threat to continued dollar dominance in the global monetary and economic system, namely if countries can draw down their dependence on dollar reserves. Chart 4ACentral Banks Paying More Attention To CBDCs Digital Dollar, Will US Policymakers Launch One Soon? Digital Dollar, Will US Policymakers Launch One Soon? Chart 4BCentral Banks Paying More Attention To CBDCs Digital Dollar, Will US Policymakers Launch One Soon? Digital Dollar, Will US Policymakers Launch One Soon? Central Bank Competition Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has noted this challenge in recent remarks explaining that any implementation of a “US central bank digital currency must support the prominent role the dollar plays in the global financial system.”4 The Fed is on the same page as the Treasury noting that any CBDC should be used to preserve the dominant international role of the dollar. The dollar is the world’s most widely used currency for payments and investments and serves as the world’s premier reserve currency. The dollar’s international role allows the US to influence the practices and standards of the global monetary and economic system. Basically, when the US constricts the supply of dollars in response to domestic conditions, the rest of the world suffers tighter monetary conditions, and when the US expands the supply, the rest of the world enjoys looser conditions, almost regardless of what other nations want or need. Central banks have made their policy goals clear in respect to developing a CBDC. Some central banks look to expand financial inclusion, market access, and their payments system while others are looking to compete with one another (Table 2). Canada, China, and Sweden want to gain a local and international market advantage for their currencies by introducing CBDCs. Table 2CBDC Policy Goals Of Central Banks Digital Dollar, Will US Policymakers Launch One Soon? Digital Dollar, Will US Policymakers Launch One Soon? China Leading CBDC Race, But… At this early stage, China’s digital yuan poses the largest threat to a digital dollar on the international stage. It is the most prominent CBDC project at this current juncture. The digital yuan entered beta testing at the end of 2020 in parts of the country. Wider testing across provinces is being phased in. China’s monetary endeavors began with the Cross-Border Inter-Bank Payment Service in 2015. The digital yuan will be positioned as an extension of this system to promote the national currency and fight global dollar dominance. But how big of a challenge could a digital yuan mount? The answer is not much, not now. China is the world’s largest trading partner but the renminbi accounts for less than 3% of the world’s reserve currency (Chart 5). The disparity between trade and currency status in the global economy reflects a lack of global trust in the renminbi and is a cause for concern for China. China is structurally invested in the dollar-dominated financial system and hence vulnerable to American influence by means of that system. Chart 5Global Renminbi Reserves Are Low Global Renminbi Reserves Are Low Global Renminbi Reserves Are Low The digital yuan would support more debt issuance based on cost and payment incentives to debt holders when financing BRI projects. This will help drive the use of the digital yuan going forward. For example, China can assert its influence over countries with Chinese debt by having them accumulate digital yuan reserves to pay back loans. China can even provide countries with concessions on loans to promote its digital yuan. Concessions on Chinese debt may lead to easier uptake, therefore promoting issuance. If the cost of switching to the digital yuan is low, countries will see no benefit in continuing their trade transactions with China in US dollars. Using the digital yuan as the currency of invoice to disburse loans can make these transactions more transparent and manageable. This could also allow for more state control over funds, an attractive scenario for China. However, China’s monetary ambitions face serious constraints. Lack of trust in the currency is the most critical challenge for internationalization of the yuan, digital or otherwise. Even if the digital yuan project is five to ten years ahead of the curve, countries still opt to hold the dollar over the yuan in any type of crisis, as has been amply demonstrated in history, and over a range of global shocks since 2019. Hence digital yuan adoption will require guarantees from Chinese institutions. But these same institutions have struggled to internationalize the paper renminbi. Lack of openness, transparency, and convertibility are persistent problems. Bottom Line: Central banks around the world are gearing up to introduce CBDCs in coming years. Some are looking to promote financial inclusivity. Others like China’s digital yuan want to chip away at the dollar’s global dominance. Digital versions of fiat currencies will have to demonstrate substantial economic and trade efficiencies in order to encourage diversification away from the US dollar, since there is no inherent reason a digital version of a nation’s currency would increase trust beyond what is already established. But those efficiencies could take shape, which would put pressure on the US to respond. The US faces significant monetary challenges over the long run, including from CBDCs. But the US is a technological power and will eventually respond by developing its own CBDC. Pushback Against A Digital Dollar The Fed has stated that it would only pursue a digital dollar in the context of broad public and cross-governmental support. However, neither the public nor congress broadly support one at present. Public opinion is uneducated on the issue and therefore highly malleable depending on leadership and events. Public Opinion Is Non-Supportive Across age groups, people do not know enough about digital currencies and think it is a bad idea to introduce a digital dollar (Chart 6). A 2020 poll found that only 13% of respondents approved of a digital dollar.5 Low approval is becoming a trend. However, the same poll showed that 38% of respondents think the US dollar is backed by gold, bonds, or oil. Addressing poor monetary literacy among the public would help to improve public support of a digital dollar. US households say they are more likely to trust traditional financial institutions than government agencies to safeguard their personal data (Chart 7). A digital dollar will grant the Fed and federal government far-reaching information regarding the everyday financial transactions of households. Trust in government has been declining and a digital dollar underpinned by a central ledger system would provoke consumer privacy lobby groups and government activists to fight and protest adoption (Chart 8). Chart 6Popular Support For A Digital Dollar Is Lacking Digital Dollar, Will US Policymakers Launch One Soon? Digital Dollar, Will US Policymakers Launch One Soon? Chart 7Households Trust Government Less Than Financial Institutions Digital Dollar, Will US Policymakers Launch One Soon? Digital Dollar, Will US Policymakers Launch One Soon? Chart 8Trust In Government Has Been Waning Digital Dollar, Will US Policymakers Launch One Soon? Digital Dollar, Will US Policymakers Launch One Soon? Chart 9Inflation Outbreak Will Limit Big Government Digital Dollar, Will US Policymakers Launch One Soon? Digital Dollar, Will US Policymakers Launch One Soon? About half of the US public already view the government as “doing too much” (Chart 9). The explosive inflation of 2020-22 will slow the underlying ideological shift to the political left, potentially limiting support for a digital dollar. Public opinion has been shifting for decades in favor of more government involvement in people’s day-to-day lives (Chart 10), but that trend may well stall now that excess of government creates tangible negatives for household pocketbooks (inflation). The bigger of a problem the Fed has in taming inflation in 2022-23, the bigger the political backlash will be. Federal solutions will suffer as a result. This is our theme of “Limited Big Government,” since the role of the state will increase relative to the past 40 years but still within an American context of checks and balances. Chart 10People Have Favored Government Involvement Digital Dollar, Will US Policymakers Launch One Soon? Digital Dollar, Will US Policymakers Launch One Soon? Bottom Line: There is no clear public demand for the digitization of the dollar at present. A major financial or economic disruption stemming from the monetary system or digital assets may be necessary to call public attention to the question. Meanwhile the private sector will drive innovation and the federal government will react to try to maintain domestic stability and international competitiveness. These data support the Fed taking an intermediated approach to cbdc when forced to take action. Policymakers Will Resist Policymakers are divided over the idea of a digital dollar. Senator Ted Cruz introduced a bill in March 2022 to “prohibit the Federal Reserve from offering products or services directly to individuals, maintaining accounts on behalf of individuals, or issuing a central bank digital currency directly to an individual.”6 Cruz has yet to receive widespread party support on the bill but he could get the backing from more GOP members if Republicans take over Congress, as expected, this November. Some Republicans and Democrats have favored cryptocurrencies while others have not, advocating for crypto-mining and crypto start-ups in progressive-left and libertarian right states. But the center-left and center-right might lean more toward cryptocurrency regulation and digital dollar adoption. Coalitions may need to be formed on the topic of a digital dollar, in parties and between parties. A digital dollar will cause a level of disruption, which will affect both the Democrats and Republicans. Government gridlock will create challenges to digital dollar adoption too. The upcoming mid-term elections favor the GOP. Both the House and the Senate are expected to flip in favor of the GOP in 2023. The “Blue Sweep” policy setting will end and only the White House will remain in Democrat control. Republicans have a shot at flipping the White House in 2024, which could see a “Red Sweep.” This scenario may slow adoption of a digital dollar but it will only preclude the unilateral cbdc model, not the intermediated model. The period of 2023-24 is too soon for adoption of a digital dollar anyway but the fact is that gridlock will delay the process until external factors force US action. Bottom Line: Public and political pushback will slow the adoption of a digital dollar. Politicians will need to work along bipartisan lines to ensure the US remains at the forefront of digital and monetary innovation but this will be difficult in a highly polarized country and will likely depend on foreign competition. Investment Takeaways We avoided cryptocurrencies during the irrational exuberance over the past two years. We expect governments to regulate the sector in order to preserve a monopoly over money supply and hence geopolitical interests. With monetary conditions tightening, we expect continued volatility in the crypto space. The US dollar remains strong tactically but is nearing its peak cyclically. We remain long but have put the currency on downgrade watch as the market more fully prices a range of bad news this year. On the global stage, the US dollar will remain the premier reserve currency despite cyclical ups and downs. The current macroeconomic backdrop is negative for the US financial sector (Chart 11). Mergers and acquisitions are drying up while regulatory risks loom. Initial public offerings are also slowing, while trading volume is low. Consumers had already accumulated debt earlier in the cycle and with rising interest rates amid a more challenging job environment, growth in loans and ultimately bank profits will slow. The commercial banking sector faces challenges during the upcoming transitional period of disruptive innovation and regulatory uncertainty. We believe the Fed and policymakers in general will want to cause as little disruption as possible, by integrating any digital dollar with the traditional finance sector as seamlessly as possible. However, transitions, especially those digital in nature, bring with them high uncertainty in the financial sector and elsewhere. Chart 11Financial Sector Facing Macro Headwinds Financial Sector Facing Macro Headwinds Financial Sector Facing Macro Headwinds     Guy Russell Senior Analyst guyr@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1     Stablecoins are backed by various assets and means. Fiat money, commodities, other cryptocurrencies and by algorithmic means are some examples. 2     See The Bank For International Settlements, Central Bank Digital Currencies: Executive Summary, September 2021, bis.org. 3    See The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Money and Payments: The U.S.Dollar in the Age of Digital Transformation, January 2022, federalreserve.gov. 4    See U.S. Department Of The Treasury, Remarks from Secretary of the Treasury Janet L. Yellen on Digital Assets, April 2022, treasury.gov. 5    See Cointelegraph, Most Americans are against a digital dollar CBDC, survey reveals,september 25, 2020, cointelegraph.com 6    See Ted Cruz’s Proposed Bill to amend the Federal Reserve Act to prohibit the Federal reserve banks from offering certain products or services directly to an individual, and for other purposes, March 2022, cruz.senate.gov.   Strategic View Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months)   Table A2Political Risk Matrix Digital Dollar, Will US Policymakers Launch One Soon? Digital Dollar, Will US Policymakers Launch One Soon? Table A3US Political Capital Index Digital Dollar, Will US Policymakers Launch One Soon? Digital Dollar, Will US Policymakers Launch One Soon? Chart A1Presidential Election Model Third Quarter US Political Outlook: Last Ditch Effort Third Quarter US Political Outlook: Last Ditch Effort Chart A2Senate Election Model Third Quarter US Political Outlook: Last Ditch Effort Third Quarter US Political Outlook: Last Ditch Effort  Table A4House Election Model Will Trump Run Again? What About Biden? Will Trump Run Again? What About Biden? Table A5APolitical Capital: White House And Congress Digital Dollar, Will US Policymakers Launch One Soon? Digital Dollar, Will US Policymakers Launch One Soon? Table A5BPolitical Capital: Household And Business Sentiment Digital Dollar, Will US Policymakers Launch One Soon? Digital Dollar, Will US Policymakers Launch One Soon? Table A5CPolitical Capital: The Economy And Markets Digital Dollar, Will US Policymakers Launch One Soon? Digital Dollar, Will US Policymakers Launch One Soon?

Executive Summary   More Tightening To Come More Tightening To Come More Tightening To Come In the following report we answer the most asked questions from our recent “Bear Market 2.0” webcast. Macroeconomic backdrop and inflation: While commodity prices falling, the wage-price spiral is in full force, implying that it will take many months to reach the level of PCE inflation palatable to the Fed. The Fed will continue to tighten monetary conditions until entrenched inflation reaches its target, which may take longer than the market expects. Earnings outlook: Q2-2022 results show that an earnings slowdown has already commenced and is bound to get worse over the next couple of quarters. However, earnings forecasts are still too optimistic and a slowdown in earnings growth is not yet priced in. Investment themes: We recommend topping up allocation to Tech as it benefits from rate stabilization.  However, be judicious in your choices, staying away from the more cyclical areas, such as Hardware and Equipment, and Semiconductors.  We are overweight Software and Services, which is dominated by profitable and stable growth companies. Bottom Line: We continue to recommend that investors remain patient and prudent in range-bound markets. Earnings growth is likely to deteriorate into the year end. Feature Last Monday, July 18, I hosted a webcast called “Bear Market 2.0.” A total of 675 people dialed in, and I was honored. The webcast generated a significant number of client questions which I aim to address in this weekly publication. Broadly speaking, questions fell under each of the three rubrics of the webcast: Macroeconomic backdrop, earnings outlook, and investment themes, with the latter generating the lion’s share of questions. In today’s report, we will discuss inflation and rates, earnings season results, potential S&P 500 targets, whether the S&P 500 rally is sustainable, and if it is a good idea to top up Tech. We will address remaining questions on Energy and Materials, and Semiconductor in the near future. And as always, we are looking forward to more questions! Macroeconomic Backdrop How do you reconcile your inflation outlook with an assumption that long yields may have peaked? In the “Fat and Flat” and “Adaptive Expectations” reports, we outline our view that the market’s focus is shifting away from concerns about inflation and the hawkish Fed toward worries about growth. Indeed, the 10-year rate has stabilized at 2.78% on fears of impending slowdown (Chart 1). How does this reconcile with our view that inflation is entrenched and broadening (Chart 2), especially in light of the recent pullback in energy and commodities prices? Chart 1Yields Are Stabilizing Yields Are Stabilizing Yields Are Stabilizing Chart 2Inflation Is Entrenched Inflation Is Entrenched Inflation Is Entrenched Even if energy and commodities prices are falling, the latest wage survey from the Atlanta Fed demonstrates wage growth is not letting up, and labor costs, at over 50% of sales as per NIPA accounts, are a more important component of the US corporate cost structure than the cost of energy. Inflation is embedded as, companies pass on wage increases to customers by increasing prices – and, voilà, the wage-price spiral is becoming pervasive. This dynamic implies the following: Even if inflation peaks over the next several months, it will take many months to reach the level of PCE inflation palatable to the Fed. After having mismanaged inflation over the past 18 months, the Fed will err on the side of tighter policy. In fact, in its official statement, the Fed has asserted that its commitment to bringing inflation to its 2% target is unconditional. Therefore, we are still in the early innings of the monetary tightening cycle (Chart 3), where elevated inflation coexists with slowing growth and range-bound long rates. Bottom Line: The Fed will continue to tighten monetary conditions until entrenched inflation reaches its target, which may take longer than the market expects. Chart 3More Tightening To Come More Tightening To Come More Tightening To Come Earnings Outlook What are your takeaways from the earnings seasons so far? In the Daily Insight, which we published on July 21, we offer our initial reaction to the results. In short, so far earnings have been good, but margins are under pressure (Chart 4) from rising wages and fading pricing power (Chart 5). We have also heard quite a few negative comments from companies concerning the effects of inflation and rising costs, a strong dollar, and withdrawal from Russia. Some of the largest Technology companies announced slowdowns in hiring as they anticipate falls in demand. Forward guidance has also been concerning. Most companies talk about deteriorating economic conditions. Chart 4Margins Are Expected To Contract Margins Are Expected To Contract Margins Are Expected To Contract Chart 5Pricing Power Turning Pricing Power Turning Pricing Power Turning We are still convinced that street forecasts of earnings growing at about a 10% rate over the next 12 months and 11% into year-end (Table 1), despite ubiquitous negative corporate guidance, are unrealistically high. Even in this reporting season for Q2-22, earnings growth is -3%, excluding Energy. Table 1S&P 500 EPS: Actual And Expected What Our Clients Are Asking: The Bear Market 2.0 Webcast Follow Up What Our Clients Are Asking: The Bear Market 2.0 Webcast Follow Up It is unlikely that, over the next several months, macro headwinds, such as slowing growth, the hawkish Fed, stubborn inflation, and rising wages will dissipate. There is little consensus among analysts on forecasts (Chart 6) and downgrades are likely. We take it a step further, and call an earnings recession in three to six months. Chart 6Analysts Have Little Confidence In Their Forecasts Analysts Have Little Confidence In Their Forecasts Analysts Have Little Confidence In Their Forecasts Bottom Line: Q2-2022 results show that an earnings slowdown has most likely already commenced and is bound to get worse over the next couple of quarters. However, earnings forecasts are still too optimistic and a slowdown in earnings growth is not yet priced in. Do you think that the slowdown in earnings might trigger multiple expansion? Earnings contraction, everything else equal, translates into multiple expansion, as the denominator of the fraction gets smaller. For example, according to our back-of-the-envelope estimates, earnings contracting by 10% will increase the forward multiple from the current 16x to 19x. Therefore, the key question here is how likely is it that everything else will indeed stay equal, as opposed to the market selling off in line with earnings? Multiples will expand if the market is able to see past negative earnings growth, identifying a catalyst for an imminent rebound. That was the case in 2020 as investors anticipated earnings bouncing back helped by easy monetary and fiscal policy, and COVID receding. What will be a catalyst for earnings rebound in, say, 2023? We can only speculate but one of the potential reasons for faster earnings growth is perhaps normalization of growth outside of the US: A weaker dollar, peace in Ukraine, resolution of the energy crisis, or ultra-loose monetary and fiscal policy in China. At home, the anticipation of a soft landing and a more dovish monetary policy coupled with a positive real wage growth boosting consumers’ spending power may be sufficient to reassure investors that earnings growth turning positive is imminent. However, all of these developments are probably months away. And we expect the market to sell off if earnings growth disappoints. Where do you see the S&P 500 by the end of the year? Broadly speaking, BCA Research does not provide targets but rather aims to offer insights into market trends. However, in the “Is Earnings Recession In The Cards?” report, we presented a matrix outlining different scenarios of earnings growth vs. forward multiples to arrive at a potential range of the outcomes for the index. We assume that the forward multiple stays at 16x, as the multiple contraction stage of the bear market is likely completed, but there is still no clear catalyst for earnings rebound. We will approximate CY 2022 results using the Next Twelve Months Matrix (Table 2). Table 2The S&P 500 Price Target Scenarios What Our Clients Are Asking: The Bear Market 2.0 Webcast Follow Up What Our Clients Are Asking: The Bear Market 2.0 Webcast Follow Up We can distill the matrix into three likely scenarios: Earnings growth delivered by companies in line with analyst expectations of 11% over the six months; flat earnings (0% growth) broadly in line with the forecast based on our earnings model; and the worst-case scenario of a severe earnings contraction of -10% into year-end. We assign 25% to both extreme cases and about 50% to earnings staying flat for the next six months (earnings recession commencing in 2023). Best-case scenario: Earnings grow into year-end by 11%, and by 9.7% over the next 12 months. In that case, the S&P 500 will end the year at 3,837 or 3% off the current level. This is what is being priced in. Most likely scenario: Earnings growth trends to zero by the end of the year with the S&P 500 hitting 3500 or downshifting roughly 10% from here. Worst-case scenario: Earnings contract by 10%, and with the multiple staying at 16x, the S&P 500 price target will be 3287 or about 17% lower than today. With “E” falling so much, perhaps the multiple expands to 17x, in which case the market will fall “only” 11% from here. Bottom Line: We expect flagging earnings to cause another leg of the bear market, which is likely to be 5-10% into year-end, and perhaps another 5-10% in 2023. Equity Market Outlook And Key Investment Themes Are investors capitulating? Are we near or even past the bottom? The decline in oil and food prices and the easing of supply-side bottlenecks have alleviated market worries about US inflation. This, coupled with oversold risk assets, and apparent extreme pessimism in investor sentiment, has resulted in the S&P 500 rebounding 8% from its June lows. Sectors that have sold off the most over the past six months have bounced back the hardest (Chart 7). Naturally, the question that is top of mind for investors is whether this rebound is sustainable. Should they add beaten-down cyclicals to their portfolios to partake in the rally? Of course, no one can predict what Mr. Market will do with 100% certainty but here are some thoughts: Chart 7Sector Performance Overview What Our Clients Are Asking: The Bear Market 2.0 Webcast Follow Up What Our Clients Are Asking: The Bear Market 2.0 Webcast Follow Up Positives Many risk assets are severely oversold, and for long-term investors, an entry point is attractive valuation-wise. So far, many investors find earnings season results somewhat encouraging: Netflix soared on what its CEO Hawkins called “less bad results.” Multiples have contracted and priced in most of the primary effects of high inflation and rising rates. Negatives The Fed is determined to extinguish inflation, and this hiking cycle may end up much longer and steeper than the market is pricing in. We do not anticipate monetary easing in the first half of 2023. Financial markets are currently underrating the risk of a seriously hawkish Fed. Economic growth is slowing, and consensus forecasts of earnings growth are still overly optimistic. Earnings contraction over the next several quarters is likely but is certainly not priced in, and disappointment may rock markets. The catalyst for this summer’s rebound is two-fold: The market is celebrating the end of inflation worries and is rebounding from severely oversold conditions. Black swan “generators” such as China and Russia, may have more surprises in stock (Table 3). We continue to stick to “fat and down” expectations for the equities outlined in the “Adaptive Expectations” report and anticipate a range-bound market where relief rallies are alternated with pullbacks, mostly triggered by growth disappointments and realizations that the Fed has dug in its heels and is unlikely to let up anytime soon. The “down” leg will ensue if earnings contract. Yet we recommend investors take a granular approach to industry selection and start tilting portfolios away from assets that benefit from rising inflation, such as Energy and Materials, towards the “growthy” assets that benefit from rate stabilization and falling growth. We picked up on the turning point and upgraded Growth to overweight in early July, funding it from Value.   Table 3Scorecard What Our Clients Are Asking: The Bear Market 2.0 Webcast Follow Up What Our Clients Are Asking: The Bear Market 2.0 Webcast Follow Up   Bottom Line: We consider the recent rebound in US equities a bear market rally, and don’t believe that it is sustainable. The Fed and the stock market are on a collision course – easier financial conditions will make the Fed even more aggressive. Is it time to buy Tech? As we have highlighted in the “Are We There Yet?!” report back in January, Tech’s worst performance is two to three months prior to the first rate hike, and the rebound is two to three months after the beginning of the monetary cycle. The slump and a recent rally are perfectly in line with history (Chart 8). Rates have stabilized and “growthy” Tech has pounced (Chart 9). Another issue that was holding the sector back earlier in the year was a slowdown in demand for Tech investment (Chart 10). Recently, business demand for Tech has picked up. However, US consumer spending on Tech is falling, as demand for consumer goods, pulled forward by the pandemic, is fading (Chart 11). Therefore, we need to be judicious in our selection of technology stocks. Chart 8Tech Performance During A Hiking Cycle What Our Clients Are Asking: The Bear Market 2.0 Webcast Follow Up What Our Clients Are Asking: The Bear Market 2.0 Webcast Follow Up Chart 9Technology Rebounded On The Back Of Yields Peaking Technology Rebounded On The Back Of Yields Peaking Technology Rebounded On The Back Of Yields Peaking Chart 10Corporate Demand For Tech Has Picked Up… Corporate Demand For Tech Has Picked Up… Corporate Demand For Tech Has Picked Up… We reiterate our overweight in Software and Services, which is least exposed to consumer demand. Our thesis is that this industry group represents “defensive growth” thanks to the key trends of digitization of the US economy and migration to cloud. Spending on digitization and the cloud are pervasive across non-tech companies and capture a large swath of corporate America by both size and industry. Also, software and services companies tend to have stable earnings growth throughout the cycle, as software improves productivity and cuts costs (Chart 12). Chart 11...But Consumer Spending Slowed ...But Consumer Spending Slowed ...But Consumer Spending Slowed Chart 12Software Is Defensive Growth Software Is Defensive Growth Software Is Defensive Growth We are underweight more cyclical Hardware and Equipment, and Semiconductors industry groups as they are more exposed to the slowing economy and the flagging demand for hardware and chips. We will take a close look at the Semiconductor Industry Group in the near future. Bottom Line: We recommend topping up allocation to tech as it benefits from rate stabilization. However, be judicious in your choices, staying away from the more cyclical areas, such as Hardware and Equipment, and Semiconductors. We are overweight Software and Services, which is dominated by profitable and stable growth companies.   Irene Tunkel Chief Strategist, US Equity Strategy irene.tunkel@bcaresearch.com   Recommended Allocation Recommended Allocation: Addendum What Our Clients Are Asking: The Bear Market 2.0 Webcast Follow Up What Our Clients Are Asking: The Bear Market 2.0 Webcast Follow Up  

Executive Summary Iran Reaches Nuclear Breakout Biden And Putin Court The Middle East Biden And Putin Court The Middle East The next geopolitical crisis will stem from the Middle East. The US, Russia, and China are striving for greater influence there and Iran’s nuclear quest is reaching a critical juncture. The risk of US-Israeli attacks against Iran remains 40% over the medium term and will rise sharply if Iran attempts to construct a deliverable nuclear device. Saudi Arabia may increase oil production but only if global demand holds up, which OPEC will assess at its August 3 meeting. Global growth risks will prevail in the short term and reduce its urgency. Russia will continue to squeeze supplies of energy and food for the outside world. The restart of Nord Stream 1 and the Turkey-brokered grain export proposal are unreliable signals. Russia’s aim is victory in Ukraine and any leverage will be used. The US may be done with the Middle East but the Middle East may not be done with the US. Structurally we remain bullish on gold and European defense stocks but we are booking 17% and 18% gains on our current trades. The deterioration in global growth and likely pullback in inflation will temporarily undercut these trades. Tactical Recommendation Inception Date Return LONG GOLD (CLOSED) 2019-06-12 17.1% LONG EUROPEAN AEROSPACE & DEFENSE / EUROPEAN TECH EQUITIES (CLOSED) 2022-03-18 17.9% Bottom Line: Global demand is weakening, which will weigh on bond yields and commodities. Yet underlying oil supply constraints persist – and US-Iran conflict will exacerbate global stagflation. Feature Chart 1Equity Volatility And Oil Price Volatility Equity Volatility And Oil Price Volatility Equity Volatility And Oil Price Volatility US President Joe Biden visited Saudi Arabia last week in a belated attempt to make amends with OPEC, increase oil production, and reduce inflation ahead of the midterm election. Biden also visited Israel to deter Iran, which is the next geopolitical crisis that markets are underrating. Meanwhile Russian President Vladimir Putin went to Iran on his second trip outside of Russia since this year’s invasion of Ukraine. Putin sought an ally in his conflict with the West, while also negotiating with Turkish President Recep Erdogan, who sought to position himself as a regional power broker. In this report we analyze Biden’s and Putin’s trips and what they mean for the global economy and macro investors. Macroeconomics is bearish for oil in the short term but geopolitics is bullish for oil in the short-to-medium term. The result is volatility (Chart 1). OPEC May Pump More Oil But Not On Biden’s Time Frame Here are the important developments from Biden’s trip: A credible threat against Iran: The US and Israel issued a joint declaration underscoring their red line against Iranian nuclear weaponization.1 Meanwhile the Iranians claimed to have achieved “nuclear breakout,” i.e. enough highly enriched uranium to construct a nuclear device (Chart 2). A balance-of-power coalition to contain Iran: Israel and Saudi Arabia improved relations on the margin. Each took action to build on the strategic détente between Israel and various Arab states that is embodied in the 2020 Abraham Accords.2 This strategic détente has staying power because it is a self-interested attempt by the various nations to protect themselves against common rivals, particularly Iran (Chart 3). Biden also tried to set up a missile defense network with Israel and the Arabs, although it was not finalized.3 Chart 2Iran Reaches Nuclear Breakout Biden And Putin Court The Middle East Biden And Putin Court The Middle East A reaffirmed US-Saudi partnership: The US and Saudi Arabia reaffirmed their partnership despite a rocky patch over the past decade. The rocky patch arises from US energy independence, China’s growth, and US attempts to normalize ties with Iran (Chart 4). These trends caused the Saudis to doubt US support and to view China as a strategic hedge. Chart 3Iran: Surrounded And Outgunned Biden And Putin Court The Middle East Biden And Putin Court The Middle East ​​​​​​ President Biden came into office aiming to redo the Iran deal and halt arms sales to Saudi Arabia. Since then he has been chastened by high energy prices, a low approval rating, and hawkish Iranian policy. On this trip he came cap in hand to the Saudis in a classic example of geopolitical constraints. If the US-Iran deal is verifiably dead, then US-Saudi ties will improve sustainably. (Though of course the Saudis will still do business with China and even start trading with China in the renminbi.) What global investors want to know is whether the Saudis and OPEC will pump more oil. The answer is maybe someday. The Saudis will increase production to save the global business cycle but not the Democrats’ election cycle. They told Biden that they will increase production only if there is sufficient global demand. Global Brent crude prices have fallen by 6% since May, when Biden booked his trip, so the kingdom is not in a great rush to pump more. Its economy is doing well this year (Chart 5). Chart 4Drivers Of Saudi Anxiety Drivers Of Saudi Anxiety Drivers Of Saudi Anxiety ​​​​​ Chart 5Saudis Won't Pump If Demand Is Weak Saudis Won't Pump If Demand Is Weak Saudis Won't Pump If Demand Is Weak ​​​​​​ At the same time, if global demand rebounds, the Saudis will not want global supply constraints to generate punitive prices that cap the rebound or kill the business cycle. After all, a global recession would deplete Saudi coffers, set back the regime’s economic reforms, exacerbate social problems, and potentially stir up political dissent (Chart 6). Related Report  Geopolitical StrategyThird Quarter Geopolitical Outlook: Thunder And Lightning Hence the Saudis will not increase production substantially until they have assessed the global economy and discussed the outlook with the other members of the OPEC cartel in August and September, when the July 2021 agreement to increase production expires. We expect global demand to weaken as Europe and China continue to struggle. Our Commodity & Energy Strategist Bob Ryan argues that further escalation in the energy war between the EU and Russia could push prices above $220 per barrel by Q4 2023, whereas an economic collapse could push Brent down to $60 per barrel. His base case Brent price forecast remains $110 per barrel on average in 2022 and $117 per barrel in 2023 (Chart 7). Chart 6Saudis Will Pump To Prevent Recession Saudis Will Pump To Prevent Recession Saudis Will Pump To Prevent Recession ​​​​​​ Chart 7BCA's July 2022 Oil Price Forecast BCA's July 2022 Oil Price Forecast BCA's July 2022 Oil Price Forecast ​​​​​​ The geopolitical view suggests upside oil risks over the short-to-medium time frame but the macroeconomic view suggests that downside risks will be priced first. Bottom Line: Saudi Arabia may increase production but not at any US president’s beck and call. The Saudis are not focused on US elections, they benefit from the current level of prices, and they do not suffer if Republicans take Congress in November. The downside risk in oil prices stems from demand disappointments in global growth (especially China) rather than any immediate shifts in Saudi production discipline. Volatility will remain high. US-Iran Talks: Dying But Not Dead Yet In fact the Middle East underscores underlying and structural oil supply constraints despite falling global demand. While Iran is a perennial geopolitical risk, the world is reaching a critical juncture over the next couple of years. Investors should not assume that Iran can quietly achieve nuclear arms like North Korea. Since August 2021 we have argued that the US and Iran would fail to put back together the 2015 nuclear deal (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPA). This failure would in turn lead to renewed instability across the Middle East and sporadic supply disruptions as the different nations trade military threats and potentially engage in direct warfare. This forecast is on track after Biden’s and Putin’s trip – but we cannot yet say that it is fully confirmed. Biden’s joint declaration with Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid closed any daylight that existed between the US and Israel. Given that there was some doubt about the intentions of Biden and the Democrats, it is now crystal clear that the US is determined to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons even if it requires military action. The US specifically said that it will use “all instruments of national power” to prevent that outcome. Chart 8Iran Not Forced To Capitulate Iran Not Forced To Capitulate Iran Not Forced To Capitulate Judging by the tone of the statement, the Israelis wrote the document and Biden signed it.4 Biden’s foreign policy emphasizes shoring up US alliances and partnerships, which means letting allies and partners set the line. Israel’s Begin Doctrine – which says that Israel is willing to attack unilaterally and preemptively to prevent a hostile neighbor from obtaining nuclear weapons – has been reinforced. The US is making a final effort to intimidate Iran into rejoining the deal. By clearly and unequivocally reiterating its stance on nuclear weapons, and removing doubts about its stance on Israel, there is still a chance that the Iranian calculus could change. This is possible notwithstanding Ayatollah Khamenei’s friendliness with Putin and criticisms of western deception.5 After all, why would the Iranians want to be attacked by the US and Israeli militaries? Iran will need to think very carefully about what it does next. Khamenei just turned 83 years old and is trying to secure the Islamic Republic’s power transition and survival after his death. Here are the risks: Iran’s economy, buoyed by the commodity cycle, is not so weak as to force Khamenei to capitulate. Back in 2015 oil prices had collapsed and his country was diplomatically isolated. Today the economy has somewhat weathered the storm of the US’s maximum pressure sanctions (Chart 8). Iran is in bad shape but it has not been brought to its knees. Another risk is that Khamenei believes the American public lacks the appetite for war. Americans say they are weary of Middle Eastern wars and do not feel particularly threatened by Iran. However, this would be a miscalculation. US war-weariness is nearing the end of its course. The US engages in a major military expedition roughly every decade. Americans are restless and divided – and the political elite fear populism – so a new foreign distraction is not as unlikely as the consensus holds. Moreover a nuclear Iran is not an idle threat but would trigger a regional nuclear arms race and overturn the US grand strategy of maintaining a balance of power in the Middle East (as in other regions). In short, the US government can easily mobilize the people to accept air strikes to prevent Iran from going nuclear because there is latent animosity toward Iran in both political parties (Chart 9). Chart 9Risk: Iran Overrates US War-Weariness Biden And Putin Court The Middle East Biden And Putin Court The Middle East Another risk is that Iran forges ahead believing that the US and Israel are unwilling or unable to attack and destroy its nuclear program. The western powers might opt for containment like they did with North Korea or they might attack and fail to eliminate the program. This is hard to believe but Iran clearly cannot accept US security guarantees as an alternative to a nuclear deterrent when it seeks regime survival. At the same time Russia is courting Iran, encouraging it to join forces against the American empire. Iran is planning to sell drones to Russia for use in Ukraine, while Russia is maintaining nuclear and defense cooperation with Iran. Putin’s trip highlighted a growing strategic partnership despite a low base of economic ties  (Chart 10).6 Chart 10Russo-Iranian Ties Russo-Iranian Ties Russo-Iranian Ties ​​​​​​ Chart 11West Vulnerable To Middle East War Biden And Putin Court The Middle East Biden And Putin Court The Middle East While Russia does not have an interest in a nuclear-armed Iran, it is not afraid of Iran alone, and it would benefit enormously if the US and Israel got bogged down in a new war that destabilized the Middle East. Oil prices would rise, the US would be distracted, and Europe would be even more vulnerable (Chart 11). Chart 12China's Slowdown And Dependency On Middle East China's Slowdown And Dependency On Middle East China's Slowdown And Dependency On Middle East China’s interest is different. It would prefer for Iran to undermine the West by means of a subtle and long-term game of economic engagement rather than a destabilizing war in the region that would upset China’s already weak economy. However, Beijing will not join with the US against Iran, especially if Iran and Russia are aligned. Ultimately China needs to access Iranian energy reserves via overland routes so that it gains greater supply security vis-à-vis the American navy (Chart 12). Since June 2019, we have maintained 40% odds of a military conflict with Iran. The logic is outlined in Diagram 1, which we have not changed. Conflict can take various forms since the western powers prefer sabotage or cyber-attacks to outright assault. But in the end preventing nuclear weapons may require air strikes – and victory is not at all guaranteed. We are very close to moving to the next branch in Diagram 1, which would imply odds of military conflict rise from 40% to 80%. We are not making that call yet but we are getting nervous. Diagram 1Iran Nuclear Crisis: Decision Tree Biden And Putin Court The Middle East Biden And Putin Court The Middle East Moreover it is the saber rattling around this process – including an extensive Iranian campaign to deter attack – that will disrupt oil distribution and transport sooner rather than later. Bottom Line: The US and Iran could still find diplomatic accommodation to avoid the next step in our decision tree. Therefore we are keeping the odds of war at a subjective 40%. But we have reached a critical juncture. The next step in the process entails a major increase in the odds of air strikes. Putin’s Supply Squeeze Will Continue As we go to press, financial markets are reacting to President Putin’s marginal easing of Russian political pressure on food and energy supplies. First, Putin took steps toward a deal, proposed by Turkish President Erdogan, to allow Ukrainian grain exports to resume from the Black Sea. Second, Putin allowed a partial restart of the Nord Stream 1 natural gas pipeline, after a total cutoff occurred during the regular, annual maintenance period. However, these moves should be kept into perspective. Nord Stream 1 is still operating at only 40% of capacity. Russia reduced the flow by 60% after the EU agreed to impose a near-total ban on Russian oil exports by the end of the year. Russia is imposing pain on the European economy in pursuit of its strategic objectives and will continue to throttle Europe’s natural gas supply. Russia’s aims are as follows: (1) break up European consensus on Russia and prevent a natural gas embargo from being implemented in future (2) pressure Europe into negotiating a ceasefire in Ukraine that legitimizes Russia’s conquests (3) underscore Russia’s new red line against NATO military deployments in Finland and Sweden. Europe, for its part, will continue to diversify its natural gas sources as rapidly as possible to reduce Russia’s leverage. The European Commission is asking countries to decrease their natural gas consumption by 15% from August to March. This will require rationing regardless of Russia’s supply squeeze. The collapse in trust incentivizes Russia to use its leverage while it still has it and Europe to try to take that leverage away. The economic costs are frontloaded, particularly this winter. The same goes for the Turkish proposal to resume grain exports. Russia will continue to blockade Ukraine until it achieves its military objectives. The blockade will be tightened or loosened as necessary to achieve diplomatic goals. Part of the reason Russia invaded in the first place was to seize control of Ukraine’s coast and hold the country’s ports, trade, and economy hostage. Bottom Line: Russia’s relaxation of food and energy flows is not reliable. Flows will wax and wane depending on the status of strategic negotiations with the West. Europe’s economy will continue to suffer from a Russia-induced supply squeeze until Russia achieves a ceasefire in Ukraine. So will emerging markets that depend on grain imports, such as Turkey, Egypt, and Pakistan. Investment Takeaways The critical juncture has arrived for our Iran view. If Iran does not start returning to nuclear compliance soon, then a fateful path of conflict will be embarked upon. The Saudis will not give Biden more oil barrels just yet. But they may end up doing that if global demand holds up and the US reassures them that their regional security needs will be met. First, the path for oil over the next year will depend on the path of global demand. Our view is negative, with Europe heading toward recession, China struggling to stimulate its economy effectively, and the Fed unlikely to achieve a soft landing. Second, the path of conflict with Iran will lead to a higher frequency of oil supply disruptions across the Middle East that will start happening very quickly after the US-Iran talks are pronounced dead. In other words, oil prices will be volatile in a stagflationary environment. In addition, while inflation might roll over for various reasons, it is not likely to occur because of any special large actions by Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are waiting on global cues. Of these, China is the most important. We are booking a 17% gain on our long gold trade as real rates rise and China’s economy deteriorates (Chart 13). This is in line with our Commodity & Energy Strategy, which is also stepping aside on gold for now. Longer term we remain constructive as we see a secular rise in geopolitical risk and persistent inflation problems. Chart 13Book Gains On Gold ... For Now Book Gains On Gold ... For Now Book Gains On Gold ... For Now We are booking an 18% gain on our long European defense / short European tech trade. Falling bond yields will benefit European tech (Chart 14). We remain bullish on European and global defense stocks. Chart 14Book Gains On EU Defense Vs Tech ... For Now Book Gains On EU Defense Vs Tech ... For Now Book Gains On EU Defense Vs Tech ... For Now ​​​​​​ Chart 15Markets Underrate Middle East Geopolitical Risk Biden And Putin Court The Middle East Biden And Putin Court The Middle East ​​​​​ Stay long US equities relative to UAE equities. Middle Eastern geopolitical risk is underrated (Chart 15). Matt Gertken Chief Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      The White House, “The Jerusalem U.S.-Israel Strategic Partnership Joint Declaration,” July 14, 2022, whitehouse.gov. 2     Israel and the US will remove international peacekeepers from the formerly Egyptian Red Sea islands of Tiran and Sanafir, which clears the way for Saudi Arabia to turn them into tourist destinations. Saudi Arabia also removed its tight airspace restrictions on Israel, enabling civilian Israeli airlines to fly through Saudi airspace on normal basis. Of course, Saudi allowance for Israeli military flights to pass through Saudi airspace would be an important question in any future military operation against Iran. 3     The US has long wanted regional missile defense integration. The Biden administration is proposing “integrated air defense cooperation” that would include Israel as well as the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). A regional “air and missile defense architecture” would counter drones and missiles from rival states and non-state actors such as Iran and its militant proxies. Simultaneously the Israelis are putting forward the proposed Middle East Air Defense Alliance (MEAD) in meetings with the same GCC nations. Going forward, Iran’s nuclear ambitions will give more impetus to these attempts to cooperate on air defense. 4     This is apparent from the hard line on Iran and the relatively soft line on Russia in the document. Israel is wary of taking too hard of a line against Russia because of its security concerns in Syria where Russian forces are present. See footnote 1 above. 5     Khamenei called for long-term cooperation between Russia and Iran; he justified Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as a defense against NATO encroachment; he called for the removal of the US dollar as the global reserve currency. See “Khamenei: Tehran, Moscow must stay vigilant against Western deception,” Israel Hayom, July 20, 2022, israelhayom.com. 6     Russia’s natural gas champion Gazprom signed an ostensible $40 billion memorandum of understanding with Iran’s National Oil Company to develop gas fields and pipelines. See Nadeen Ebrahim, “Iran and Russia’s friendship is more complicated than it seems,” CNN, July 20, 2022, cnn.com. However, while there are longstanding obstacles to Russo-Iranian cooperation, the West’s tough new sanctions on Russia and EU diversification will make Moscow more willing to invest in Iran. Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Regional Geopolitical Risk Matrix