United States

Highlights Jackson Hole: The message from Jackson Hole is that the majority of the FOMC – including Fed Chair Powell - is ready to begin tapering asset purchases before year-end. There is less unanimity within the FOMC over the timing of interest rate increases following the taper. Fed Policy: The Fed is trying to communicate a separation of the balance sheet and interest rate components of its monetary policy, hoping to limit bond volatility stemming from markets pulling forward the timing of rate hikes during the taper. A tightening US labor market will make that separation difficult given the shallow path for interest rates currently discounted in the US yield curve - particularly if the current surge in US inflation proves not to be as transitory as the Fed is expecting. US Treasury Yields: Expect higher Treasury yields over the next 12-18 months as the Fed transitions from talking about tapering to actual tapering and, eventually, to rate hikes starting in H2/2022. A September To Remember? Chart 1The Fed Faces Some Tough Decisions The much anticipated Jackson Hole speech from Fed Chair Jerome Powell offered a balanced tone.1 Powell did say that the Fed could begin tapering asset purchases by the end of this year, given the “substantial further progress” on the Fed’s 2% average inflation goal, if the US economy evolved in line with the Fed’s forecasts. However, Powell also noted that rate hikes would not occur without greater improvements in the US labor market, particularly given the Fed’s view that the current surge in US inflation will not prove lasting. Several other Fed officials speaking to the media before Powell’s speech hinted at a much more accelerated timetable, with tapering to begin in September and rate hikes potentially starting as soon as mid-2022. The Fed’s messaging is part of an extended conversation with financial markets to prepare for a withdrawal of pandemic-era policy stimulus from quantitative easing (QE). The FOMC is well aware that valuations on asset prices of all stripes have been boosted by loose monetary settings. Powell’s Jackson Hole comments were more nuanced than those of his FOMC colleagues, but this is no surprise as the words of the Fed Chair carry the greatest weight among investors. The Fed Chair does not want to risk a repeat of the 2013 Taper Tantrum in Treasury yields, or the December 2018 plunge in US equity prices, by sounding unexpectedly hawkish and triggering a market rout that tightens US financial conditions (Chart 1). Our baseline assumption has been that the Fed would signal a tapering at the December FOMC meeting and begin to slow asset purchases in January 2022, leading to an eventual liftoff of the fed funds rate by the end of next year. The comments from Powell and others have raised the risk that the Fed moves a bit faster than our expectations on tapering, and perhaps even for liftoff (Chart 2). This would also be faster than the expectations among bond investors. Chart 2The Fed May Be Set To Move Faster Than Our Expected Timeline The New York Fed’s Survey of Primary Dealers in July showed that tapering is expected by Q1 of next year but a rate hike was not projected until the latter half of 2023 (Table 1). Current pricing in the US overnight index swap (OIS) forward curve is a bit more hawkish than that, with a full 25bp rate hike discounted by January 2023. Table 1Primary Dealers Expect A Taper, Not Rate Hikes The Fed’s next move will depend on how the questions regarding the Delta variant, the true state of the US labor market and underlying US inflation momentum are resolved. Dismissing The Delta Threat? There has been a clear hit to US economic confidence from the spread of the variant. The August readings from the University of Michigan consumer sentiment survey, the Philadelphia Fed business outlook survey and the ZEW survey of US growth expectations all showed sharp declines (Chart 3). The August flash estimate of the Markit PMIs fell to 8-month and 4-month lows, respectively, indicating that the pace of US economic activity slowed. Higher frequency data like restaurant reservations and hotel bookings have also dipped in recent weeks, potentially a sign of US consumers turning more cautious on leaving home during the Delta surge. Yet there is some tentative positive news on the spread of the variant. The 7-day moving average of new COVID-19 cases in the US appears to be rolling over (Chart 4). In the more stricken states in the US south like Florida, Texas and Louisiana, the effective reproduction number has fallen below one and cases are clearly peaking, suggesting that the transmission of Delta is slowing. If these trends continue, the full hit to US growth from the variant could prove to be minimal and potentially contained to only August data Chart 3A Hit To US Confidence From The Delta Variant Chart 4Has The US Delta Wave ##br##Peaked? Fed officials have been highlighting Delta as a potential near-term risk to the economy, but some comments made last week suggested only a modest level of concern that would not derail tapering plans. For example: Dallas Fed President Robert Kaplan: “[…] what I'm seeing is, in certain sectors, as you would expect, travel-related, you're seeing weakness in some other sectors but by and large, predominantly, what we're seeing is resilience across the indicators that we look at.”2 Kansas City Fed President Esther George: “[…] by and large, I think, unlike what we experienced last year, people have mechanisms to continue to interact with the economy in a way that we didn't before. And so that gives me some confidence in the outlook that we see, that we could continue to push through this.”3 Atlanta Fed President Raphael Bostic: “What I have seen is some suggestion that things are slowing down, but they are still just slowing from extremely high levels. I have not seen big changes in the underlying dynamic.”4 Even Powell himself noted in his speech that “while the Delta variant presents a near-term risk, the prospects are good for continued progress toward maximum employment.” If the hit to the domestic US economy from Delta proves to be modest and short-lived, the Fed will want to see confirmation of this in the US employment data. Labor market slack overestimated? It is clear from other comments made last week that FOMC officials will be watching the August payrolls report very closely, especially given the perception that the US job market may be a lot tighter than the headline unemployment rate suggests. For example, Fed Governor Christopher Waller noted that “when you adjust the labor force for early retirements, if we get another million [jobs in August] we will recover about 85% of the jobs that were lost and that took almost seven years after the last recession.”5 Kaplan noted that “we do think that the labor market is much tighter than the headline statistics indicate. We've had 3 million retirements since February 2020.” Our colleagues at BCA Research’s The Bank Credit Analyst came to a similar conclusion on labor market tightness in a report published last week.6 They determined that the single largest factor driving the US labor force participation rate lower since the onset of the pandemic has been individuals choosing to retire (Chart 5). Only some of that decline has been related to early retirement decisions made in response to COVID. There has been a structural trend of a falling participation rate, by an average of 0.3 percentage points per year, since 2008 due to demographic factors. The labor force participation rate does not need to fully return to pre-pandemic levels for the Fed to conclude that its maximum employment goal has been reached, after accounting for retirements and other demographic shifts (Chart 6). This fits with the comments from Waller and Kaplan indicating that there has likely been enough labor market improvement to begin tapering asset purchases. Chart 5Most Of The Pandemic Decline In Labor Force Participation Has Occurred Due To Retirement Chart 6Full Employment Without A Pre-COVID Participation Rate Transitory or persistent inflation? In his Jackson Hole speech, Fed Chair Powell downplayed many of the factors that have driven US headline inflation higher in 2021 as “[…] the product of a relatively narrow group of goods and services that have been directly affected by the pandemic and the reopening of the economy.” He also noted that the current surge in durable goods inflation, which has contributed “about one percentage point to the 12-month measures of headline and core inflation”, was likely to end once current supply chain disruptions fade. Durables would then return to the deflationary trend of the past 25 years and help cool off current overheated US inflation. Chart 7US Inflation Is Not Slowing Down Powell also noted the absence of significant US wage growth as reason not to be overly worried about a sustained period of high inflation. He also highlighted that “there is little reason to think” that ongoing structural disinflationary forces like technology and globalization “have suddenly reversed or abated” and that “it seems more likely that they will continue to weigh on inflation as the pandemic passes into history.” This is the message that the Fed has consistently communicated over the past several months, that high inflation was merely “transitory” and the inevitable result of year-over-year base effect comparisons and temporary supply squeezes. The problem with this interpretation is that we are now well into the summer months of 2021, past the period where base effects would be expected to boost US year-over-year inflation rates (the level of both the CPI and PCE deflator indices fell between January and May 2020 before starting to climb again in June). The July 2021 readings on annual headline and core PCE inflation were 4.2% and 3.6%, respectively, the highest rates seen since 1991 (Chart 7, top panel). The year-over-year increase appears to have been concentrated in a few components, with the Dallas Fed’s trimmed mean PCE 12-month inflation for July only climbing to 2.0%. However, the 6-month annualized measure was a more rapid 2.6% - the fastest such pace in 13 years - suggesting that the momentum of US inflation is both broadening and accelerating on the margin (second panel). Chart 8A Sustainable, Not Transitory, Rise In Global Inflation Powell, like many other developed market central bankers, is making a big bet that the “transitory” inflation narrative will prove to be correct and the current surge in inflation will soon subside. Yet already, global supply chain disruptions have lingered longer than the Fed has been expecting. There are also deeper underlying trends in inflation that are challenging the “transitory” narrative. The NFIB small business survey showed that a net 52% of respondents reported raising selling prices in July, while a net 44% planned future price hikes (third panel), both readings last seen during the days of double-digit US inflation in the late 1970s. US firms are successfully passing on rising input costs to US consumers, which is influencing US consumer inflation expectations. The University of Michigan consumer survey for August showed that US households expect inflation over the next year of 4.6% and over the next 5-10 years of 2.9%, with both series well above pre-pandemic lows (bottom panel). The trends in higher inflation seen in the US, and elsewhere, are not just limited to commodity prices where supply squeezes were most prevalent earlier this year and where price momentum is peaking (Chart 8). A GDP-weighted average of core inflation rates for 14 developed market economies reached 2.50% in June and 2.4% in July, levels last seen in the mid-1990s. Higher core inflation readings are consistent with intensifying price pressures stemming from diminished economic slack. The broad swings in our global core inflation measure correlate strongly with the IMF’s estimate of the output gap for the advanced economies (bottom panel). The current acceleration in global core inflation is entirely consistent with the rapid narrowing of the global output gap projected by the IMF for 2021 and, more importantly, 2022. This suggests that underlying inflation pressures, both within and outside the US, will linger into next year, providing an offset the expected drag on “non-core” inflation from slowing commodity price momentum. Already, lingering supply squeezes and stubbornly high US inflation are causing concern among some FOMC members, as noted in these comments last week: Robert Kaplan: “[…] headline PCE inflation next year, we think is going to be in the neighborhood of 2.5%, and there's risk that could be higher. And so we think some of these supply-demand imbalances for materials, some of them will not moderate, but some of them are going to persist longer than people think.” Esther George: “[…] if you continue to have supply constraints and strong demand, you might expect that those will persist more through this year or longer than we originally anticipated.” Chris Waller: “I do think it’s going to be more persistent than I may have thought back in May.” Chart 9Fed Tapering To Deal With Financial Stability Risks? Importantly, the senior FOMC leadership - Powell, Lael Brainard, Richard Clarida – has been sticking with the “transitory” narrative. However, even Clarida noted in a speech in early August that he would consider core PCE inflation at or above 3% at year-end to be “much more than a “moderate” overshoot” of the Fed’s 2% inflation objective.7 In his role as Fed Chair, Powell must speak on behalf of the entire FOMC, even if those views are not necessarily his own. Given the growing chorus of Fed voices expressing concern that US inflation could remain higher for longer, it will be increasingly difficult for Powell to do what he did at Jackson Hole – sound more dovish than the individual FOMC members with regards to inflation risks. What about financial stability risks from QE? Fed officials have been understandably cautious in their comments about how QE (and a 0% funds rate) could be influencing asset prices (Chart 9). However, with equity markets at record highs, corporate bond yields near record lows despite high levels of corporate leverage, and US house prices soaring – the S&P CoreLogic Case-Shiller national index rose 18.6% on a year-over-year basis in June, the fastest pace in its 35-year history - it is difficult not to see the role of the Fed’s easy money policies in boosting risk seeking, yield chasing activities. Stimulative financial conditions are also creating future upside growth risks, with the Conference Board leading economic indicator now reaccelerating (bottom panel). Robert Kaplan, Boston Fed President Eric Rosengren and St. Louis Fed President James Bullard have voiced concerns that QE, particularly the Fed’s buying of agency mortgage-backed securities (MBS), have played a significant role in the current US housing boom. The senior FOMC leadership has avoided any such comments for obvious reasons – imagine the market reaction if Powell expressed concerns about high house prices or equity market valuations. However, for those at the Fed already looking to begin tapering sooner, booming asset prices are an additional reason to vote that way as soon as the September FOMC meeting. Separating Tapering From Rate Hikes It seems clear that the majority of the FOMC is now leaning towards starting to taper before year-end, if US growth and employment maintain recent strength. The common message of Fed officials, from Powell on down, is that enough progress has been made on the Fed’s 2% average inflation target objective to justify tapering. Market-based inflation expectations from the TIPS and CPI swap markets are consistent with that interpretation, with breakevens and forward inflation rates within the 2.3-2.5% range consistent with the Fed’s 2% inflation mandate (Chart 10). Yet while our Fed Monitor continues to flag the need for tighter US monetary policy, only 100bps of rate hikes are discounted in the US OIS curve by the end of 2024 – and only after a first rate hike not expected to occur until January 2023. Despite the common messaging on the start of the taper, the Fed voices were singing a bit less in harmony about the potential timing of the first interest rate hike post-taper. Powell went out of his way to note in his Jackson Hole speech that “the timing and pace of the coming reduction in asset purchases will not be intended to carry a direct signal regarding the timing of interest rate liftoff, for which we have articulated a different and substantially more stringent test.” That test, of course, is when the Fed deems that its maximum employment objective has been reached. Can the Fed continue to successfully separate guidance on balance sheet decisions from guidance on future interest rate moves? Current pricing from US OIS and CPI swap forward curves indicates that the market is discounting negative real policy rates, with the Fed never raising rates above inflation, for the next decade (Chart 11). This goes a long way to explain the persistence of negative real US Treasury yields at a time of elevated inflation readings. Although a decade of negative real interest rates is also consistent with the market believing the equilibrium real interest rate (i.e. r-star) is negative – a view currently expressed by no one on the FOMC. Chart 10Too Few Rate Hikes Discounted In The US OIS Curve Chart 11Markets Believe The Fed Will Never Raise Rates Above Inflation That persistent pricing of negative real rates make sense when there is modest headline inflation and ample spare capacity in the US economy and labor markets. However, that complacency on future rate hikes will be shaken if the US economy approaches full employment and inflation remains above the Fed’s 2% target – outcomes that we expect to occur by the second half of next year. That will lead to the first fed rate hike of the next cycle in Q4 2022, but only after the taper that we expect to start in either December 2021 or January 2022 is completed in Q3 2022. Bottom Line: A tightening US labor market will make the Fed’s current guidance on the separation of tapering from rate hikes increasingly unconvincing, given the shallow path for interest rates currently discounted in the US yield curve - particularly if the current surge in US inflation proves not to be as transitory as the Fed is expecting. Jackson Hole Investment Conclusion – Expect Higher US Treasury Yields Chart 12Stay Below-Benchmark On US Duration With such a modest path for future rate hikes, and bond yields, discounted in US forward interest rate curves, we continue to advocate positioning for higher US Treasury yields on a strategic (6-18 months) basis (Chart 12). We see the benchmark 10-year Treasury yield eventually reaching a peak in the 2-2.25% range by the end of 2022. We recommend maintaining a below-benchmark duration stance in the US, while staying underweight US Treasuries in US and global bond portfolios. There is even a case to be made for a more tactical (i.e. shorter-term) bearish stance on US Treasuries with the US data surprise cycle set to turn towards upside surprises, especially if the negative impact of the Delta variant on confidence and spending begins to wane as case numbers start to decline in the coming weeks. Bottom Line: Expect higher Treasury yields over the next 12-18 months as the Fed transitions from talking about tapering to actual tapering and, eventually, to rate hikes starting in H2/2022.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 A transcript of Powell’s speech can be found here: https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/powell20210827a.htm 2 https://finance.yahoo.com/news/dallas-fed-president-robert-kaplan-yahoo-finance-transcript-august-2021-215700082.html 3 https://finance.yahoo.com/news/kansas-city-fed-president-esther-george-yahoo-finance-transcript-august-2021-113024734.html 4 https://www.reuters.com/business/exclusive-feds-bostic-says-reasonable-begin-bond-buying-taper-october-2021-08-27/ 5 https://finance.yahoo.com/news/fed-gov-waller-strong-august-jobs-report-will-be-green-light-for-taper-202340105.html 6 Please see BCA Research The Bank Credit Analyst September 2021 Section II, “The Return To Maximum Employment: It May Be Faster Than You Think”, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 7 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/clarida20210804a.htm Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Special Report

Highlights Gen Z Is Coming Of Age And Has Money To Spend Generation Z in the US includes 62 million people born between the 1997 and 2012. With $143B in buying power in the US alone, making up nearly 40% of all consumer sales, Gen Z wields increasing influence over consumer trends. This is the first generation of digital natives—they simply can’t remember the world without the internet. They are the early adopters of the new digital ways to bank, get medical treatments, and learn. Gen Z is joining the workforce and replacing retiring baby boomers. Gen Z Investment Themes Fintech: Gen Z loves seamless connectivity, online banking, and digital wallets. They are also the early adopters of semi-autonomous digital and non-traditional banking and insurance: PayPal (PYPL), Square (SQ), Lemonade (LMND), and Social Finance (Sofi). Investing And Crypto: Gen Z are avid investors: They opened 20% of all new investment accounts in 2020. Crypto is also very popular among the digital natives: Coinbase (COIN), Paypal (PYPL), and Square/Cash App (SQ). Alternative Reality And Online Gaming: Members of Gen Z will become the key gaming demographic in the decade ahead. E-sports betting is also gaining prominence. Two online gaming ETFs capture the theme: GAMR and ESPO. Quality-Over-Price Shoppers: Gen Z was found to be less price-sensitive when buying products, choosing quality over price. Lululemon (LULU) is among the Gen Z’s favorites. Finally, Gen Zers won’t have any qualms about buying a car online: Vroom (VRM). Online Dating: Gen Zers have whole-heartedly accepted online dating: Match (MTCH) and Bumble (BMBL). Pet Ownership: The Gen Z cohort often feels lonely and loves their furry friends: They are more than happy to spend time and money on them: Chewy (CHWY), Trupanion (TRUP), and IDEXX Labs (IDXX). PAWZ is the ETF. Healthy Lifestyle: Gen Z is a “green” generation that deeply cares about the planet, loves outdoors and traveling, with many identifying as vegans. This is also a generation that prizes a healthy lifestyle and working out: Beyond Meat (BYND), Planet Fitness (PLNT), and Yeti (YETI). Generation Sober Chooses Cannabis: Gen Zers perceive hard liquor and tobacco as bad for their health. Curiously, marijuana is perceived as “healthy.” CNBS, YOLO, and THCX are the biggest ETFs in this space. How To Invest In Gen Z Gen Z is a nascent investment theme, so there are no ETFs available in the market yet. We propose investors follow our Gen Z investment themes or replicate fully or partially our Gen Z basket (Table 1). Table 1Gen Z Basket Constituents Feature ​​​​​​​Gen Z Is Coming Of Age And Has Money To Spend Generation Z in the US includes 62 million people born between the years of 1997 and 2012 – a cohort starting to come of age now, with the oldest members hitting 25 this year (Chart 1). Gen Z-ers now outrank Millennials as the majority generation on the planet. With $143B in buying power in the US alone, making up nearly 40% of all consumer sales, Gen Z commands an increasing influence over consumer trends. Chart 1Gen Zers Are Taking Over Furthermore, while most Gen Zers are still in high school and college, their parents, who have padded their savings accounts after a series of stimulus checks, are ready to step in and foot the bill, fortifying the financial impact of this new generation. In this report, we have outlined the Gen Z investment themes and most representative stocks. The Gen Z basket is a compilation of these themes and stocks. However, we are not stock-pickers - our selections are for illustration only. Digital Natives This is the first cohort that has grown up with a phone in one hand and a computer mouse in the other. Dubbed “digital natives,” they simply can’t remember a world without the internet. Gen Z, often referred to as “Zoomers” or “Centennials,” are connected nearly every waking hour of the day and are deeply social, even if considerable interaction may take place in cyberspace. The average Gen Z got their first smartphone just before their twelfth birthday, communicates primarily through social media and texts, and spends as much time on their cell phones as their parents on television. Because tech made Gen Z’s personal lives easier, faster, and more efficient, they emphasize customization and optimization as users and consumers. One of the most educated generations, they are more likely to pursue college than earlier generations. Among 18- to 21-year-olds no longer in high school in 2018, 57% were enrolled in two- or four-year college (that number was 52% for Millennials). The last year has also blurred the lines between work and home: Many college graduates have never met their new colleagues in person. Generation Z students had unprecedented exposure and experience using technology to continue their education outside the traditional brick-and-mortar school setting. They are also most likely to adopt new ways to bank, get medical treatments, and learn. Zoomers are future entrepreneurs (72% of high schoolers want to start their own business)1 and evangelists of the gig economy. Demographics & Macro Trends Chart 2 displays US demographic trends. Until 2018, baby boomers dominated the labor force; but, over the past three years, they have passed the baton to Gen Z. Moreover, during the pandemic, the retirements of baby boomers have accelerated. With more Zoomers graduating from high school and college, their proportion in the labor force is rising and their spending patterns are becoming increasingly more prominent in the economy. Gen Z wage data also reveals an interesting trend. Since 2014, median weekly earnings for the coming generation noticeably outpaced one of the departing generations—by 14.5%, to be exact (Chart 3). Chart 2Generational Shifts In The Labor Force Chart 3They Also Have Money To Spend Investment Themes A host of investment themes reflects the retail preferences of Gen Z, collectively called the Gen Z basket. While some of the themes are ubiquitous (most of the US middle class aspire to maintain a healthy lifestyle), it is the quirks specific to Gen Z that we focus on. The oldest Zoomers turned 18 in 2015. Since then, the Gen Z basket has outperformed the S&P 500 Growth index by 46% (Chart 4). A word of caution: As any emerging investment theme, the basket remains volatile. Chart 4Solid Performance Since 2015 Fintech Gen Z is financially minded and risk averse. Many watched parents struggle during the Great Recession. They’re often leery of debt and credit, and thus stick to debit cards. Digital natives expect seamless connectivity, and their finances are no exception. They can't live without their digital wallets and online banking. Generation Z members are early adopters of semi-autonomous digital banking, which deploys digital cognitive agents or AI systems to help with financial decisions. It provides Zoomers with the right degree of personalization and autonomy to make smarter, faster, and better money moves. And, when it comes to money movements, 75% of Zoomers are using peer-to-peer (P2P)2 banking methods, with easy-to-use apps like Zelle and Venmo taking the lead in downloads. Similar fintech trends apply to other financial transactions, like loans and insurance. This theme may be expressed through Paypal (PYPL), Square (SQ), Lemonade (LMND) online insurance, and Social Finance (Sofi)—an online platform for student loan refinancing, private student loans, and a host of other financial products. Interest In Investing And Cryptocurrencies Zoomers are avid investors. They opened 20% of all the new investment accounts in 2020 — impressive, considering that half of the cohort are underage (Chart 5). Crypto is also very popular among digital natives. Last year, Business Insider (BI) released a survey asking if Zoomers are “likely to purchase cryptos in the next six months”. What is telling is that approximately 1/4 of responders indicated that they are likely to purchase crypto, which correlates to the percentage of Zoomers who are currently age 18 or older (Chart 6). We can play the crypto theme in the equity space by investing in Coinbase (COIN), Paypal (PYPL)—which recently started accepting crypto as a payment—and Square/Cash App (SQ). Chart 5Gen Zers Are Avid Investors... Chart 6...Including In The Crypto Space Alternative Reality And Online Gaming Members of Gen Z will become a key gaming demographic in the decade ahead. 91% of Gen Z males regularly play video games, compared to 84% of Millennials. In a recent study, “From Nerdy to Norm: Gen Z Connects Via Gaming” conducted by Whistle, 68% of Gen Z males agreed that gaming is an important part of their identity. The industry has responded to the mores of this incoming generation by shifting its focus towards highly stylized immersive mobile games, live dealers, and interactive experiences rather than the traditional click-to-spin style slot games. E-sports betting is also getting prominence. We have very little doubt that the proliferation of e-sports will accelerate, especially as Gen Z comes of age. The upcoming 2021 e-sports “world cup” event for just one game already has more than $40,000,000 in prize pool money secured. To express the online gaming theme, we included six stocks in our basket: Online game developers, such as Take Two Interactive (TTWO), Electronic Arts (EA), and Activision Blizzard (ATVI); Zinga (ZNGA), which develops apps for phone games; DraftKings (DKNG), a leader in online sports betting; and finally, Nvidia (NVDA), a graphic chip manufacturer that thrives as a market leader in gaming computing. There are also a couple of online gaming ETFs: GAMR and ESPO. Quality-Over-Price Shoppers As consumers, tech-savvy Zoomers are pragmatic shoppers who rely on social networks to make informed purchasing decisions. They were also found to be less price-sensitive when buying products, choosing quality over price as their top purchasing factor, while sustainability was also highlighted as an important issue. As a result, brick-and-mortar shops with a strong online presence, such as Urban Outfitters (URBN) and Lululemon(LULU) are Gen Z favorites. Vintage clothing has also recently been in vogue among these teens. Companies like Poshmark (POSH) capture this trend. High-end outdoor clothes brands also have a Zoomer following. Canadian Goose (GOOS) is one of them: For many, a “goose” jacket is a winter campus uniform. Lastly, Zoomers won’t have any qualms about buying a car online: Vroom (VRM). Online Dating Gen Z is different from any other generation in their whole-hearted acceptance of online dating. For example, Zoomers represent 40% of all Tinder users. The online dating landscape3 in the US is dominated by just two companies, Match/Tinder (MTCH) and Bumble (BMBL), an app whereby only a female can make initial contact. Pet Ownership Zoomers are lonely – 3 million adolescents had a major depressive episode,4 and there is an increase in anxiety and depression among high schoolers. Many feel isolated as a result of too much screen time. Zoomers are also known to avoid long-term relationships. It is not surprising that this cohort loves their furry friends and is more than happy to spend time and money on them. Since the worst of the pandemic, PAWZ pet care ETF has outperformed the S&P 500 growth index by 24%, while the US pet & vet services CPI series rose by 5.6%, compared to 4.6% for core CPI (Chart 7). While the love of pets is certainly not a unique characteristic of this cohort, it is a significant part of their spending basket. The following stocks capture this trend: PAWZ ETF; Chewy (CHWY), online pet supplies; Trupanion (TRUP), pet insurance; and IDEXX Labs (IDXX), the vet pharma company. Chart 7Pet Ownership Is On The Rise Healthy Lifestyle Aside from gaming, pet ownership, and online dating, there are some other Gen Z behavioral shifts. This is a “green” generation that deeply cares about the planet, loves outdoors and traveling, and has a soft spot for animals, with many Zoomers identifying as vegans. This generation also prizes a healthy lifestyle and working out. Stocks like Beyond Meat (BYND), makers of meat substitute products; Planet Fitness (PLNT), a gym favored by the Zoomers; and Yeti (YETI), high-end hiking equipment (indeed, this generation chooses quality over price) are the stocks that provide exposure to these new tastes and preferences. Generation Sober Chooses Cannabis Gen Z certainly cares about their health, and most Zoomers perceive hard liquor and tobacco as harmful. Gen Z drinks 20%5 less alcohol than Millennials did at their age. Curiously, marijuana is perceived as “healthy.” BusinessWeek commissioned a survey through the polling firm Morning Consult, which found Zoomers were more than twice as likely to be regular or occasional cannabis users than the national average (Chart 8). They concluded, “It’s always hard to generalize about an entire age group, but early signs suggest it will be a generation of marijuana consumers.” CNBS, YOLO, and THCX are the biggest ETFs in this space. Other Themes Finally, our discussion about Gen Z wouldn’t be complete without mentioning economic digitalization (Amazon, Teladoc, Zoom), proliferation of social media (SNAP, PINS, FB), and the sharing economy (UBER, ABNB, FVRR). Please refer to Table 1 at the beginning of the report for a complete list of Gen Z basket constituents. Chart 8Cannabis Is Not Considered A Drug For Gen Z Chart 9Expensive... Fundamentals And Valuations The Gen Z basket is certainly not cheap, trading at 28x forward earnings and 5.5x sales. This is rich but on par with the S&P 500 Growth index, which trades at 28x and 5.7x respectively (Charts 9 & 10). This basket has strong sales growth and has had a healthy post-COVID recovery bounce (Chart 11 ). Chart 10...But On Par... Chart 11...With The S&P 500 Growth Index How To Invest In Gen Z Gen Z presents an untapped investment opportunity. We have created our own Gen Z basket, as there is no direct way to play the Gen Z theme: There are no ETFs nor dedicated active funds in this space. While we used our entire basket in our analysis, it should not be viewed as an optimal investment vehicle. Instead, we advise using the basket as a helpful starting point and then filtering through its constituents to choose stocks that better meet one’s investment mandate. We emphasize that we are not stock pickers and that our company selections are mere illustrations of the investment thesis. We recommend investors to initiate a position in Gen Z themes, as they have a tremendous runway and are yet to go through their peak growth phase. Gen Z is a cyclical and structural investment idea and offers prospects for growth. Bottom Line Gen Z is coming of age and, being one of the largest cohorts in the US with $143B in buying power, wields increasing influence over consumer trends. The Gen Z investment thesis captures a host of nascent themes that reflect new generational preferences and spending patterns, such as fintech and online gaming, and a keen interest in investing and crypto, among others. Our Gen Z basket of stocks captures these investment themes, which are yet to go through their peak growth phase and provides investors with an opportunity to profit from them over short- and long-term investment horizons.     Irene Tunkel Chief Strategist, US Equity Strategy irene.tunkel@bcaresearch.com Arseniy Urazov Senior Analyst ArseniyU@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1    Sean McDowell, "6 Trends Among Gen Z in 2016" (Nov 23, 2016) 2    https://www.pymnts.com/news/payments-innovation/2020/why-digital-payments-innovation-sticks-to-gen-z/ 3    https://www.statista.com/statistics/426066/tinder-age-distribution/ 4    Susanna Schrobsdorff, “The Kids Are Not All Right,” Time (Nov 7, 2016): 47. 5    https://www.businessinsider.com/millennials-gen-z-drag-down-beer-sales-2018-2   Recommended Allocation

Special Report

Highlights The US dollar’s reserve status will remain intact for the foreseeable future. While this privilege is fraying at the edges, there are no viable alternatives just yet. There is an overarching incentive for any country to hold onto its currency’s power. For the US, it is still well within their ability to keep this “exorbitant privilege.” That said, there will be rolling doubts about the ability of the US to maintain its large currency sphere. This will create tidal waves in the currency’s path, providing plenty of trading opportunities for investors. China is on track to surpass the US in economic size, but it is far from dethroning the US in the military realm. However, it is gradually gaining the ability to deny the US access to its immediate offshore areas and may already be capable of winning a war over nearby islands like Taiwan. Watch the RMB over the next few decades. From a macro and cyclical perspective, the dollar is likely to decline as global growth picks up and the Fed lags market expectations in raising rates. From a geopolitical perspective, however, the backdrop is neutral-to-bullish for the dollar over the next three to five years. Feature Having the world’s reserve currency comes with a few advantages, which any governments would be loath to give up. The most important advantage is the ability to settle one’s balance of payments in one’s own currency. This not only facilitates trade for the reserve nation, it also reinforces the turnover of the reserve currency internationally. The value of this privilege is as much symbolic as economic. This “first mover advantage” or adoption of one’s currency internationally automatically ordains the resident central bank as the world’s bank. The primary advantage here is being able to dictate global financial conditions, expanding and contracting money supply to address domestic and global funding pressures. As compensation for this task, the world provides one with non-negligible seigniorage revenue. Being the world’s central bank also comes with another crucial advantage: being able to choose which international projects will be funded, while using cheaply issued local debt to finance these investments. Of course, any sensible society will earn more on its investments than it pays on the debt issued. There is a geopolitical angle to having the world’s reserve currency. A nation’s currency is widely held because of strategic depth—its ability to secure the people who trade in that currency and the property denominated in it. Deposits and transactions can be monitored, secured, or even halted at the behest of the sovereign. Holding the currency means one can maintain one’s purchasing power, given that it is backed by the most powerful country in the world. As the reserve currency becomes the de facto international medium of exchange, having stood the test of time through various crises, this allows the resident country to alter its purchasing power to achieve both national and international goals. Throughout history, having the world’s reserve currency has been the pursuit of many governments and kingdoms. In the current paradigm, the US enjoys this privilege. But could that change? And if so, how and when? Our goal in this report is threefold. First, why would any country want to maintain reserve status? Second, does the US still possess the apparatus to keep the dollar as a reserve asset over the next decade? And finally, are there any identifiable threats to the US dollar reserve status beyond a ten-year horizon? The Imperative To Maintain Status Quo Global trade is still largely conducted in US dollars. According to the BIS triennial central bank survey, 88.3% of transactions globally were in dollars just before the pandemic, a percentage that has been rather resilient over the last two decades (Chart I-1). It is true that currencies such as the Chinese renminbi have been gaining international acceptance, but displacing a currency that dominates almost 90% of global transactions is a herculean task. Surprisingly, the world has been transacting less often in euros and Japanese yen, currencies that also commanded international appeal in recent history. Chart I-1The US Dollar Still Dominates Global Transactions The big benefit for the US comes from being able to settle its balance of payments in dollars. This not only lowers transaction costs (by lowering exchange rate risk), but it also provides the ability to cheaply borrow in your own currency to pay for imports. Having global trade largely denominated in US dollars also establishes a network of systems that make it much easier to settle trade in that currency. It is remarkable that, despite running a persistent current account deficit, the US dollar has tended to appreciate during crises, a privilege other deficit countries do not enjoy (Chart I-2). Strong network effects make the US dollar the currency of choice during crises. Chart I-2Despite Running A Current Account Deficit, The Dollar Tends To Rise During Crises Chart I-3The US Generates Non-Negligible Seignorage Revenue Being at the center of the global financial architecture comes with an important benefit beyond trade: the ability to dictate financial conditions both domestically and globally. Consider a scenario in which the US and the global economy are facing a downturn. In this scenario, the Federal Reserve can be instrumental in turning the tide: To stimulate the US economy, the Fed lowers interest rates and/or runs a wider fiscal deficit. The central bank helps finance this fiscal deficit by expanding the monetary base (benefitting from seigniorage revenue). As the Fed drops interest rates, the yield curve steepens. Banks use the positive term structure to borrow at the short end of the curve and lend at the longer end. This boosts the US money supply. As firms borrow to invest, this increases demand for imports (machinery, commodities, consumer goods), widening the US current account deficit. US trade is settled in dollars, increasing the international supply of the greenback. To maintain competitiveness, other central banks purchase these dollars from the private sector, in exchange for their local currency. As global USD reserves rise, they can be reinvested back into Treasuries and held in custody at the Fed. In essence, the US can finance its budget deficit through a strong capital account surplus. The seigniorage revenue that the US enjoys by easing both domestic and international financing conditions is about $100 billion a year or roughly 0.5% of GDP (Chart I-3). But the goodwill from being able to dictate both domestic and international financial conditions is far greater. At BCA, one of our favorite measures of global dollar liquidity is the sum of the Fed’s custody holdings together with the US monetary base. Every time this measure has severely contracted in the past, the shortage of dollars has triggered a financial crisis somewhere, typically among other countries running deficits (Chart I-4), a highlight of the importance of the US as a global financier. Chart I-4US Money Supply And Global Liquidity Chart I-5Despite A Liability Shortfall, US Assets Generate A Net Profit Beyond seigniorage revenue, the US enjoys another advantage—being able to earn much more on its international investments than it pays on its liabilities. The US generates an excess return of 1% of GDP from its external assets, despite having a net liability shortfall of 67% of GDP (Chart I-5). The ability to issue debt that will be gobbled up by foreigners, and in part use these proceeds to generate a higher overall return on investments made abroad, does indeed constitute an “exorbitant privilege.” In a nutshell, there is a very strong incentive for the US to keep the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. One short-term implication is that the Fed might only taper asset purchases and/or raise interest rates in an environment in which both global and US growth are strong, or it could otherwise trigger a global liquidity crisis. This will be particularly the case given the Delta variant of COVID-19 is still hemorrhaging global economic activity. An Overreach In The Dollar’s Influence There is a political advantage to the US dollar’s reserve status that is often overlooked: transactions conducted in US dollars anywhere in the world fall under US law. In simple terms, if a company in any country buys energy from Iran and the transaction is done in US dollars, the Treasury has powers to sanction the parties involved. Since most companies across the world cannot afford to be locked out of the US financial system, they will tend to comply with US sanctions. Even companies that operate under the umbrella of great powers, such as China and Russia, still tend to adhere to US sanctions, because they do not want to jeopardize their trade with US allies, such as the European Union. Of course, China, Russia, and Iran are actively seeking alternative transaction systems to bypass the dollar and US sanctions. But they do not yet trust each other’s currencies. Chart I-6A Deep And Liquid Pool Of Treasurys The euro is the only viable alternative; however, the euro’s share of global transactions has fallen, despite the EU’s solidification as a monetary union over the past decade and despite the unprecedented deterioration of US relations with China and Russia. The EU could do great damage to the USD’s standing if it joined Russia’s and China’s efforts wholeheartedly, but the EU is still a major trading partner of the US and shares many of the same foreign policy aims. It is also chronically short of aggregate demand and runs trade and current account surpluses, depriving trade partners of euro savings or a debt market to recycle those savings (Chart I-6). Historically, having the world’s reserve currency allows the US to conduct international accords that serve both domestic and foreign interests. The Plaza Accord, signed in the 1980s to depreciate the US dollar, served both US interests in rebalancing the deficit and international interests in financing global trade. The 1980s were golden years for Japan and the Asian tigers on the back of a weak USD, allowing entities to borrow in greenbacks and profitably invest in Asian growth. Once the US dollar had depreciated by a fair amount, threatening its store of value, the US engineered the Louvre Accord to stabilize exchange rates. Ultimately, when various Asian bubbles popped, investors thought of nowhere better to flee than to the safety of the US dollar. The same thing happened after the emerging market boom of the 2000s and the eventual bust of the 2010s. Today, the US may not be able to organize an international intervention, if one should be necessary in the coming years. Past experience shows that countries act unilaterally and coordinated interventions lack staying power. Neither Europe nor Japan is in the position today to allow currency appreciation, as they were in the past. And the US has shown itself unable to combat its trading partners’ depreciation, as in the case of China, whose renminbi remains below 2014 levels. The bottom line is that there is nothing to stop the US from attempting to stretch its overreach too far, which would create a backlash that diminishes the dollar’s status. This is especially the case given trust in the US government is quite low by historical standards, which for now points to a lower dollar cyclically (Chart I-7). Chart I-7Trust In The US Government And The Dollar This is not to say that other countries with reserve aspirations can tolerate sustained appreciation. China has recommitted to manufacturing supremacy in its latest five-year plan, as it fears the political consequences of rapid deindustrialization. As such, the renminbi will be periodically capped to maintain competitiveness. Can The US Maintain Status Quo? Chart I-8A Lifespan Of Reserve Currencies Over the last few centuries, reserve currencies have tended to have a lifespan of about 100 years (Chart I-8). The reason is that global wars tend to knock the leading power off its geopolitical pedestal, devaluing its currency and giving rise to a new peace settlement with a new ascendant country whose currency then becomes the basis for international trade. Such was the case for Spain, France, the UK, and the United States in a pattern of war and peace since the sixteenth century. Granting that the US dollar took the baton from sterling in the 1920s and that the post-World War II peace settlement is eroding in the face of escalating geopolitical competition, it is reasonable to ask whether or not the US might lose its grip on this power. To assess this possibility, it is instructive to revisit the anatomy of a reserve currency: Typically, a reserve currency tends to be that of the “greatest” nation. For the same reason, the reserve nation tends to be the wealthiest, which ensures that its currency is a store of value and that it can act as a buyer of last resort during crisis (Chart I-9). This reasoning is straightforward when a global empire is recognizable and unopposed. But in the current context of multipolarity, or great power competition, the paradigm could start to shift. Global trade is slowing globally, but it is accelerating in Asia (Chart I-10). China is a larger trading partner than the US for many emerging markets and is slated to surpass the US economy over the next decade. The renminbi has a long way to go to rival the dollar, but it is gradually rising and its place within the global reserve currency basket is much smaller than its share of global trade or output, implying room for growth (Chart I-11). Chart I-9Wealth And Reserve Currency Status Go Hand-In-Hand Chart I-10Trade In Asia Is Booming Chart I-11Adoption Of The RMB Has Room To Grow To maintain hegemonic power (especially controlling the vital supply routes of prosperity), the reserve nation needs military might above and beyond everyone else. It helps that US military spending remains the biggest in the world, in part financed by US liabilities (Chart I-12). China is far from dethroning the US in the military realm. But it is gradually gaining the ability to deny the US access to its immediate offshore areas and may already be capable of winning a war over nearby islands like Taiwan. Moreover, its naval power is set to grow substantially between now and 2030 (Table I-1). Already, over the past decade, the US stood helplessly by when Russia and China annexed Crimea and the reefs of the South China Sea. It is possible to imagine a series of events that erode US security guarantees in the region, even as the US loses economic primacy. Chart I-12The US Still Maintains Military Might Table I-1China’s Economic And Naval Growth Slated To Reduce American Primacy In Asia Pacific The reserve currency nation needs to run deficits to finance activity in the rest of the world. That requires having deep and liquid capital markets to absorb global savings. There is considerable trust or “goodwill” that makes the US Treasury market the most liquid debt exchange pool in the world. This remains the case today (previously mentioned Chart I-6). Even so, this trend is shifting. The growth in euro- and yen-denominated debt is exploding. This mirrors the gradual shift in the allocation of FX reserves away from dollars into other currencies. If the US began to use the dollar as a geopolitical weapon recklessly, foreign entities may have no other choice but to rally into other currency blocks, including the euro (and perhaps eventually the yuan). This will take years, but it is worth noting that global allocation to FX reserves have fallen from around 80% toward USDs in the 70s to around 60% today (Chart I-13). Chart I-13The Dollar Reserve Status Has Been Ebbing On the political front, there is some evidence that public opinion on the dollar is fading, although it is far from damning. A Pew survey on the trust in the US government is near decade lows and has tracked the ebb and flow of changes in the dollar (previously shown Chart I-7). Trust in government will probably not get much worse in the coming years, as the pandemic will wane and stimulus will secure the economic recovery, but too much stimulus could conceivably ignite an inflation problem that weighs on trust. True, populism has driven the US government under two administrations into extreme deficit spending. With the pandemic as a catalyst, US deficits have reached WWII levels despite the absence of a war. However, the Biden administration’s $3.5 trillion spending bill will be watered down heavily – and the 2022 midterms will likely restore gridlock in Congress, freezing fiscal policy through at least 2025. In other words, fiscal policy is negative for the dollar in the very near term, but the fiscal outlook is not yet so extravagant as to suggest a loss of reserve currency status. After all, there is some positive news for the US. The US demonstrated its leadership in innovation with the COVID-19 vaccines; it survived its constitutional stress test in the 2020 election; it is now shifting from failed “nation building” abroad to nation building at home; and its companies remain the most innovative and efficient, judging by global equity market capitalization (Chart I-14). China, meanwhile, is facing the most severe test of its political and economic system since it marketized its economy in 1979. Investors should not lose sight of the fact that, since the rise of President Xi Jinping and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, global policy uncertainty has tended to outpace US policy uncertainty, attracting flows into the dollar (Chart I-15). Given that China and Russia are both pursuing autocratic governments at the expense of the private economy, it would not be surprising to see global policy uncertainty take the lead once again, confirming the decade trend of global flows favoring the US when uncertainty rises. Chart I-14American Primacy Still Clear In Equity Market Chart I-15Higher Policy Uncertainty Good For Dollar The bottom line is that the US dollar is gradually declining as a share of the global currency reserve basket, just as the US economy and military are gradually declining as a share of global output and defense spending. Yet the US will remain the first or second largest economy and premier military power for a long time, and the dollar still lacks a viable single replacement. A major war or geopolitical crisis is probably necessary to precipitate a major breakdown. The Iranian Revolution and September 11 attacks both had this kind of effect (see 1979 and 2001 in Chart I-13 above). But COVID-19 is less clear. If China and Europe emerge as more stable than the US, then the post-pandemic aftermath will bring more bad news for the dollar. Investment Implications From a geopolitical perspective, the backdrop is neutral for the dollar beyond the next twelve to eighteen months. An escalating conflict with Iran—which is possible in the near term—would echo the early 2000s and weigh on the currency. But a deal with Iran and a strategic pivot to Asia would compound China’s domestic political problems and likely boost the greenback. Chart I-16US Twin Deficits And The Dollar From a macro and cyclical perspective, however, the view is clearly negative for the dollar. Over the next five years, the U.S. Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the U.S. budget deficit will shrink and then begin expanding again to -5% of GDP. If one assumes that the current account deficit will widen somewhat, then stabilize, the twin deficits will be pinned at around -10% of GDP. Markets have typically punished the dollar on rising twin deficits (Chart I-16). This suggests near-term pressure on the dollar’s reserve status is to the downside. EM currencies may hold a key to the performance of the dollar. While most EM economies remain hostage to the virus, a coiled-spring rebound cannot be ruled out as populations become vaccinated. China’s Politburo signaled in July that it will no longer tighten monetary and fiscal policy. We would expect policy easing over the next twelve months to ensure the economy is stable in advance of the fall 2022 party congress. If the virus wanes and China’s economy is stimulated, global growth will improve and the dollar will fall.   Chester Ntonifor Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com

FAANGs, have become the new age “staples” and provide downside protection during equity market drawdowns which are usually accompanied by falling rates and spikes in volatility.  FAANGS are expensive, and falling rates justify their valuation premium.  Further, the tech titans are defensive because of their sheer size and liquidity, predictable cash flows, and sound balance sheets. In short, these stocks are no longer just Growth, but rather High Quality Growth.  The chart on the right illustrates relative performance of FAANGs with respect to the S&P 500 excluding FAANGs across different time frames. The message is consistent across time, with FAANGs outperforming the SPX ex-FAANGs during VIX spikes. While the outperformance magnitude varies, it seems to average 0.2% per day. Recent market developments also confirm this analysis with FAANGs outperforming the SPX ex-FAANGs by 11%+ from May 10 local trough, which also coincides with the date when the recent mini-bull market in bonds began. Bottom Line: FAANGs offer a safe harbor during SPX drawdowns.

Special Report

Highlights Commodity markets will face growing supply challenges over the next decade as the US and China prepare for war, if only to deter war. Chinese President Xi Jinping's push for greater self-reliance at home and supply chain security abroad is reinforced by the West’s focus on the same interests. The erosion of a single rules-based global trade system increases the odds of economic and even military conflict. The competition for security is precipitating a reforging of global supply chains and a persistent willingness to use punitive measures, which can escalate into boycotts, embargoes, and even blockades (i.e. not only Huawei). The risk of military engagements will rise, particularly along global chokepoints and sea lanes needed to transport vital commodities. Import dependency and supply chain risk are powerful drivers of decarbonization efforts, especially in China. On net, geopolitical trends will keep the balance of commodity-price risks tilted to the upside. Commodity and Energy Strategy remains long commodity index exposure on a strategic basis via the S&P GSCI and the COMT ETF.  Note: Even in the short term, a higher geopolitical risk premium is warranted in oil prices due to US-Iran conflict. Feature The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) under President Xi Jinping has embarked on a drive toward autarky, or economic self-sufficiency, that has enormous implications, especially for global commodities. Beijing believes it can maintain central control, harness technology, enhance its manufacturing prowess, and grow at a reasonable rate, all while bulking up its national security. The challenge is to maintain social stability and supply security through the transition. China lives in desperate fear of the chaos that reigned throughout most of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, which also enabled foreign domination (Chart 1). The problem for the rest of the world is that Chinese nationalism and assertive foreign policy are integral aspects of the new national strategy. They are needed to divert the public from social ills and deter foreign powers that might threaten China’s economy and supply security. Chart 1China Fears Any Risk Of Another ‘Century Of Humiliation’ The chief obstacle for China is the United States, which remains the world leader even though its share of global power and wealth is declining over time. The US is formally adopting a policy of confrontation rather than engagement with China. For example, the Biden administration is co-opting much of the Trump administration's agenda. Infrastructure, industrial policy, trade protectionism, and the “pivot to Asia” are now signature policies of Biden as well as Trump (Table 1).1 Table 1US Strategic Competition Act Highlights Return Of Industrial Policy, Confrontation With China Many of these policies are explicitly related to the strategic aim of countering China’s rise, which is seen as vitiating the American economy and global leadership. Biden’s Trump-esque policies are a powerful indication of where the US median voter stands and hence of long-term significance (Chart 2). Thus competition between the US and China for global economic, military, and political leadership is entering a new phase. China’s drive for self-reliance threatens the US-led global trade system, while the US’s still-preeminent geopolitical power threatens China’s vital lines of supply. Chart 2US Public’s Fears Are China-Centric Re-Ordering Global Trade The US’s and China’s demonstrable willingness to use tariffs, non-tariff trade barriers, export controls, and sanctions cannot be expected to abate given that they are locked in great power competition (Chart 3). More than likely, the US and China will independently pursue trade relations with their respective allies and partners, which will replace the mostly ineffective World Trade Organization (WTO) framework. The WTO is the successor to the rules-based and market-oriented system known as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which was formed following World War II. The GATT’s founders shared a strong desire to avoid a repeat of the global economic instability brought on by World War I, the Great Crash of 1929, and the retreat into autarky and isolationism that led to WWII. Chart 3US and China Imposing Trade Restrictions This inter-war period saw domestically focused monetary policies and punishing tariffs that spawned ruinous bouts of inflation and deflation. Minimizing tariffs, leveling the playing field in trading markets, and reducing subsidization of state corporate champions were among the GATT's early successes. The WTO, like the GATT before it, has no authority to command a state to change its economy or the way it chooses to organize itself. At its inception the GATT's modus vivendi was directed at establishing a rules-based system free of excessive government intrusion and regulation. If governments agreed to reduce their domestic favoritism, they could all improve their economic efficiency while avoiding a relapse into autarky and the military tensions that go with it.2 The prime mover in the GATT's founding and early evolution – the USA – firmly believed that exclusive trading blocs had created the groundwork for economic collapse and war. These trading blocs had been created by European powers with their respective colonies. During the inter-war years the revival of protectionism killed global trade and exacerbated the Great Depression. After WWII, Washington was willing to use its power as the global hegemon to prevent a similar outcome. Policymakers believed that European and global economic integration would encourage inter-dependency and discourage protectionism and war. The fall of the Soviet Union reinforced this neoliberal Washington Consensus. Countries like India and China adopted market-oriented policies. The WTO was formed along with a range of global trade deals. Ultimately the US and the West cleared the way for China to join the trading bloc, hoping that the transition from communism to capitalism would eventually be coupled with social and even political liberalization. The world took a very different turn as the United States descended into a morass of domestic political divisions and foreign military adventures. China seized the advantage to expand its economy free of interference from the US or West. The West failed to insist that liberal economic reforms keep pace.3 Moreover, when China joined the WTO in 2001, the organization was in a state of "regulatory stalemate," which made it incapable of dealing with the direct challenges presented by China.4 Today President Xi has consolidated control over the Communist Party and directs its key economic, political, and military policymaking bodies. He has deepened party control down to the management level of SOEs – hiring and firing management. SOEs have benefited from Xi’s rule (Chart 4). But now the West is also reasserting the role of the state in the economy and trade, which means that punitive measures can be brought to bear on China’s SOEs. Chart 4State-Owned Enterprises Benefit From Xi Administration What Comes After The WTO? The CCP has shown no interest in coming around to the WTO's founding beliefs of government non-interference in the private sector. For example, it is doubling down on subsidization and party control of SOEs, which compete against firms in other WTO member states. Nor has the party shown any inclination to accept a trade system based on the GATT/WTO founding members' Western understanding of the rule of law. These states represent market-based economies with long histories of case law for settling disputes. Specifically, China’s fourteenth five-year plan and recent policies re-emphasize the need to upgrade the manufacturing sector rather than rebalancing the economy toward household consumption. The latter would reduce imbalances with trade deficit countries like the US but China is wary of the negative social consequences of too rapidly de-industrializing its economy. It wants to retain its strategic and economic advantage in global manufacturing and it fears the social and political consequences of fully adopting consumer culture (Chart 5). Chart 5China’s Economic Plans Re-Emphasize Manufacturing, Not Consumption The US, EU, and Japan have proposed reform measures for the WTO aimed at addressing “severe excess capacity in key sectors exacerbated by government financed and supported capacity expansion, unfair competitive conditions caused by large market-distorting subsidies and state owned enterprises, forced technology transfer, and local content requirements and preferences.”5 But these measures are unlikely to succeed. China disagrees with the West’s characterization. In 2018-19, during the trade war with the US, Beijing contended that WTO members must “respect members’ development models.” China formally opposes “special and discriminatory disciplines against state-owned enterprises in the name of WTO reform.”6 In bilateral negotiations with the US this year, China’s first demand is that the US not to oppose its development model of “socialism with Chinese characteristics” (Table 2). Table 2China’s Three Diplomatic Demands Of The United States (2021) Yet it is hard for the US not to oppose this model because it involves Beijing using the state’s control of the economy to strengthen national security strategy, namely by the fusion of civil and military technology. Going forward, the Biden administration will violate the number one demand that Chinese diplomats have made: it will attempt to galvanize the democracies to put pressure on China’s development model. China’s demand itself reflects its violation of the US primary demand that China stop using the state to enhance its economy at the expense of competitors. If a breakdown in global trading rules is replaced by the US and China forming separate trading blocs with their allies and partners, the odds of repeating the mistakes of the inter-bellum years of 1918-39 will significantly increase. Tariff wars, subsidizing national champions, heavy taxation of foreign interests, non-tariff barriers to trade, domestic-focused monetary policies, and currency wars would become more likely. China’s Strategic Vulnerability The CCP has delivered remarkable prosperity and wealth to the average Chinese citizen in the 43 years since it undertook market reforms, and especially since its accession to the WTO in 2001 (Chart 6). China has transformed from an economic backwater into a $15.4 trillion (2020) economy and near-peer competitor to the US militarily and economically.7 This growth has propelled China to the top of commodity-importing and -consuming states globally for base metals and oil. We follow these markets closely, because they are critical to sustaining economic growth, regardless of how states are organized. Production of and access to these commodities, along with natural gas, will be critical over the next decade, as the world decarbonizes its energy sources, and as the US and China address their own growth and social agendas while vying for global hegemony. Decarbonization is part of the strategic race since all major powers now want to increase economic self-sufficiency and technological prowess. Chart 6CCPs Remarkable Success In Growing Chinas Economy Over recent decades China has become the largest importer of base metals ores (Chart 7) and the world's top refiner of many of these metals. In addition, it is the top consumer of refined metal (Chart 8). Chart 7China Is World’s Top Ore Importer Chart 8China Is Worlds Top Refined Metal Consumer By contrast, the US is not listed among ore importers or metals consumers in the Observatory of Economic Complexity (OEC) databases we used to map these commodities. This reflects not only domestic supplies but also the lack of investment and upgrades to the US's critical infrastructure over 2000-19.8 Going forward, the US is trying to invest in “nation building” at home. An enormous change has taken shape in strategic liabilities. In the oil market, the US went from being the world's largest importer of oil in 2000, accounting for more than 24% of imports globally, to being the largest oil and gas producer by 2019, even though it still accounted for more than 12% of the world's imports (Chart 9). In 2000, China accounted for ~ 3.5% of the world's oil imports and by 2019 it was responsible for nearly 21%. China is far behind per capita US energy consumption, given its large population, but it is gradually closing the gap (Chart 10). Overall energy consumption in China is much higher than in the US (Chart 11). Chart 9US Oil Imports Collapse As Shale Production Grows Chart 10Energy Use Per Capita In China Far From US Levels... Chart 11China Is World’s Largest Primary Energy Consumer China's impressive GDP growth in the twenty-first century is primarily responsible for China's stunning growth in imports and consumption of oil (Chart 12) and copper (Chart 13), which we track closely as a proxy for the entire base-metals complex. Chart 12Global Oil Demand Forecast Remains Steady Chinas GDP Drives Oil Consumption, Imports Chart 13Global Oil Demand Forecast Remains Steady Chinas GDP Drives Refined Copper Consumption And Ore Imports China’s importance in these markets points to an underlying strategic weakness, which is its dependency on imports. This in turn points to the greatest danger of the breakdown in US-China relations and the global trade system. The Road To War? China is extremely anxious about maintaining supply security in light of these heavy import needs. Its pursuit of economic self-sufficiency, including decarbonization, is driven by its fear of the US’s ability to cut off its key supply lines. China’s first goal in modernizing its military in recent years was to develop a naval force capable of defending the country from foreign attack, particularly in its immediate maritime surroundings. Historically China suffered from invaders across the sea who took advantage of its weak naval power to force open its economy and exploit it. Today China is thought to have achieved this security objective. It is believed to have a high level of capability within the “first island chain” that surrounds the coast, from the Korean peninsula to the Spratly Islands, including southwest Japan and Taiwan (Map 1).9 China’s militarization of the South China Sea, suppression of Hong Kong, and intimidation of Taiwan shows its intention to dominate Greater China, which would put it in a better strategic position relative to other countries. Map 1China’s Navy Likely Achieved Superiority Within The First Island Chain China’s capability can be illustrated by comparing its naval strength to that of the United States, the most powerful navy in the world. While the US is superior, China would be able to combine all three of its fleets within the first island China, while the US navy would be dispersed across the world and divided among a range of interests to defend (Table 3). China would also be able to bring its land-based air force and missile firepower to bear within the first island chain, as opposed to further abroad.10 Table 3China’s Naval Growth Enables Primacy Within First Island Chain In this sense China is militarily capable of conquering Taiwan or other nearby islands. President Xi Jinping had in fact ordered China’s armed forces be capable of doing so by 2020.11 Taiwan continues to be the most significant source of insecurity for the regime. True, a military victory would likely be a pyrrhic victory, as Taiwan’s wealth and tech industry would be destroyed, but China probably has the raw military capability to defeat Taiwan and its allies within this defined space. However, this military capability needs to be weighed against economic capability. If China seized military control of Taiwan, or Okinawa or other neighboring territories, the US, Japan, and their allies would respond by cutting off China’s access to critical supplies. Most obviously oil and natural gas. China’s decarbonization has been impressive but the reliance on foreign oil is still a fatal strategic vulnerability over the next few years (Chart 14). China is rapidly pursuing a Eurasian strategy to diversify away from the Middle East in particular. But it still imports about half its oil from this volatile region (Chart 15). The US navy is capable of interdicting China’s critical oil flows, a major inhibition on China’s military ambitions within the first island chain. Chart 14Chinas Energy Diversification Still Leaves Vulnerabilities Of course, if the US and its allies ever blockaded China, or if China feared they would, Beijing could be driven to mount a desperate attack to prevent them from doing so, since its economic, military, and political survival would be on the line. Chart 15China Still Dependent On Middle East Energy Supplies The obvious historical analogy is the US-Japan conflict in WWII. Invasions that lead to blockades will lead to larger invasions, as the US and Japan learned.12 However, the lesson from WWII for China is that it should not engage the US navy until its own naval power has progressed much further. In the event of a conflict, the US would be imposing a blockade at a distance from China’s naval and missile forces. When it comes to the far seas, China’s naval capabilities are extremely limited. Military analysts highlight that China lacks a substantial naval presence in the Indian Ocean. China relies on commercial ports, where it has partial equity ownership, for ship supply and maintenance (Table 4). This is no substitute for naval basing, because dedicated military facilities are lacking and host countries may not wish to be drawn into a conflict. Table 4China’s Network Of Part-Owned Ports Across The World: Useful But Not A Substitute For Military Bases Further, Beijing lacks the sea-based air power necessary to defend its fleets should they stray too far. And it lacks the anti-submarine warfare capabilities necessary to defend its ships.13 These capabilities are constantly improving but at the moment they are insufficient to overthrow US naval control of the critical chokepoints like the Strait of Hormuz or Strait of Malacca. While China’s naval power is comparable to the US’s Asia Pacific fleet (the seventh fleet headquartered in Japan), it is much smaller than the US’s global fleet and at a much greater disadvantage when operating far from home. China’s navy is based at home and focused on its near seas, whereas US fleet is designed to operate in the far seas, especially the Persian Gulf, which is precisely the strategic area in question (Chart 16).14 China is gradually expanding its navy and operations around the world, so over time it may gain the ability to prevent the US from cutting off its critical supplies in the Persian Gulf. But not immediately. The implication is that China will have to avoid direct military conflict with the United States until its military and naval buildup has progressed a lot further. Chart 16China’s Navy At Huge Disadvantage In Distant Seas Meanwhile Beijing will continue diversifying its energy sources, decarbonizing, and forging supply chains across Eurasia via the Belt and Road Initiative. What could go wrong? We would highlight a few risks that could cause China to risk war even despite its vulnerability to blockade: Chart 17China’s Surplus Of Males Undergirds Rise In Nationalism Domestic demographic pressure. China is slated to experience a dramatic bulge in the male-to-female ratio over the coming decade (Chart 17).15 A surfeit of young men could lead to an overshoot of nationalism and revanchism. This trend is much more important than the symbolic political anniversaries of 2027, 2035, and 2049, which analysts use to predict when China’s military might launch a major campaign. Domestic economic pressure. China’s turn to nationalism reflects slowing income growth and associated social instability. An economic crisis in China would be worrisome for regional stability for many reasons, but such pressures can lead nations into foreign military adventures. Domestic political pressure. China has shifted from “consensus rule” to “personal rule” under Xi Jinping. This could lead to faulty decision-making or party divisions that affect national policy. A leadership that carefully weighs each strategic risk could decay into a leadership that lacks good information and perspective. The result could be hubris and belligerence abroad. Foreign aggression. Attempts by the US or other powers to arm China’s neighbors or sabotage China’s economy could lead to aggressive reaction. The US’s attempt to build a technological blockade shows that future embargoes and blockades are not impossible. These could prompt a war rather than deter it, as noted above. Foreign weakness. China’s capabilities are improving over time while the US and its allies lack coordination and resolution. An opportunity could arise that China’s strategists believe they cannot afford to miss. Afghanistan is not one of these opportunities, but a US-Iran war or another major conflict with Russia could be. The breakdown in global trade is concerning because without an economic buffer, states may resort to arms to resolve disputes. History shows that military threats intended to discourage aggressive behavior can create dilemmas that incentivize aggression. The behavior of the US and China suggests that they are preparing for war, even if we are generous and assume that they are doing so only to deter war. Both countries are nuclear powers so they face mutually assured destruction in a total war scenario. But they will seek to improve their security within that context, which can lead to naval skirmishes, proxy wars, and even limited wars with associated risks of going nuclear. Investment Takeaways The pursuit of the national interest today involves using fiscal means to create more self-sufficient domestic economies and reduce international supply risks. Both China and the West are engaged in major projects to this end, including high-tech industrialization, domestic manufacturing, and decarbonization. These trends are generally bullish for commodities, even though they include trends like military modernization and naval expansion that could well be a prelude to war. War itself leads to commodity shortages and commodity price inflation, but of course it is disastrous for the people and economies involved. Fortunately, strategic deterrence continues to operate for the time being. The underlying geopolitical trend will put commodity markets under continual pressure. A final urgent update on oil and the Middle East: The US attempt to conduct a strategic “pivot” to Asia Pacific faces a critical juncture. Not because of Afghanistan but because of Iran. The Biden administration will have trouble unilaterally lowering sanctions on Iran after the humiliating Afghanistan pullout. The new administrations in both Iran and Israel are likely to establish red lines and credible threats. A higher geopolitical risk premium is thus warranted immediately in global oil markets. Beyond short-term shows of force, everything depends on whether the US and Iran can find a temporary deal to avoid the path to a larger war. But for now short-term geopolitical risks are commodity-bullish as well as long-term risks.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1     There are also significant differences between Biden and Trump in other areas such as redistribution, immigration, and social policy. 2     See Ravenhill, John (2020), Regional Trade Agreements, Chapter 6 in Global Political Economy, which he edited for Oxford University Press, particularly pp. 156-9. 3    “As time went by, the United States realized that Communism not only did not retreat, but also further advanced in China, with the state-owned economy growing stronger and the rule of the Party further entrenched in the process." See Henry Gao, “WTO Reform and China Defining or Defiling the Multilateral Trading System?” Harvard International Law Journal 62 (2021), p. 28, harvardilj.org.  4    See Mavroidis, Petros C. and Andre Sapir (2021), China and the WTO, Why Multilateralism Still Matters (Princeton University Press) for discussion.  See also Confronting the Challenge of Chinese State Capitalism published by the Center for Strategic & International Studies 22 January 2021. 5    Gao (2021), p. 19. 6    Gao (2021), p. 24. 7     Please see China's GDP tops 100 trln yuan in 2020 published by Xinhuanet 18 January 2021. 8    We excluded 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic's effects on supply and demand for these ores, metals and crude oil. 9    See Captain James Fanell, “China’s Global Navy Strategy and Expanding Force Structure: Pathway To Hegemony,” Testimony to the US House of Representatives, May 17, 2018, docs.house.gov. 10   Fanell (2018), p. 13. 11    He has obliquely implied that his vision for national rejuvenation by 2035 would include reunification with Taiwan. Others suggest that the country’s second centenary of 2049 is the likely deadline, or the 100th anniversary of the People’s Liberation Army. 12    The US was a major supplier of oil to Japan, and in 1941 it froze Japan's assets in the US and shut down all oil exports, in response to Japan's military incursion into China in the Second Sino-Japanese War of 1937-45.  Please see Anderson, Irvine H. Jr. (1975), "The 1941 De Facto Embargo on Oil to Japan: A Bureaucratic Reflex," Pacific Historical Review, 44:2, pp. 201-231.  13   See Jeffrey Becker, “Securing China’s Lifelines Across the Indian Ocean,” China Maritime Report No. 11 (Dec 2020), China Maritime Studies Institute, digital-commons.usnwc.edu. 14   See Rear Admiral Michael McDevitt, “Becoming a Great ‘Maritime Power’: A Chinese Dream,” Center for Naval Analyses (June 2016), cna.org. 15   For discussion see Major Tiffany Werner, “China’s Demographic Disaster: Risk And Opportunity,” 2020, Defense Technical Information Center, discover.dtic.mil.