Europe

Highlights The ongoing transition to a post-pandemic state and fiscal policy are either positive or net-neutral for risky asset prices. Fiscal thrust will turn to fiscal drag over the coming year, but the negative impact this will have on goods spending will likely be offset by a significant improvement in services spending, and thus is not likely to cause a concerning slowdown in overall economic activity. A modestly hawkish shift in the outlook for monetary policy is likely over the coming year, potentially occurring over the late summer or early fall in response to outsized jobs growth. However, such a shift is not likely to become a negative driver for risky asset prices over the coming 6-12 months, barring a major rise in market expectations for the neutral rate of interest. This may very well occur once the Fed begins to raise interest rates, but not likely before. Investors should overweight risky assets within a multi-asset portfolio, and fixed-income investors should maintain a below-benchmark duration position. We continue to favor value over growth on a 6-12 month time horizon, although growth may outperform in the near term. A bias toward value over the coming year supports an overweight stance toward global ex-US equities, and an overall pro-risk stance favors bearish US dollar bets. Feature Three factors continue to drive our global macroeconomic outlook and our cyclical investment recommendations. The first factor is our assessment of the global progress that is being made on the path to a post-pandemic state, and the return to pre-COVID economic conditions; the second is the likely contribution to growth from fiscal policy over the coming year; and the third is the outlook for monetary policy and whether or not monetary conditions will remain stimulative for both economic activity and financial markets. If the world continues to progress meaningfully on the path to a post-pandemic state, and if the impact of fiscal and monetary policy remains in line with market expectations, then we see no reason to alter our recommended investment stance. Equity market returns will be modest over the coming 6 to 12 months in this scenario given how significantly stocks have rebounded from their low last year, but we would still expect stocks to outperform bonds and would generally be pro-cyclically positioned. We present below our assessment of these three factors and their potential to deviate from consensus expectations over the coming year, to determine their likely impact on economic activity and financial markets. The Ongoing Transition To A Post-Pandemic World Chart I-1Enormous Progress Has Been Made In The Fight Against COVID-19 Chart I-1 highlights that meaningful progress continues to be made in vaccinating the world's population against COVID-19. North America and Europe continue to lead the rest of the world based on the share of people who have received at least one dose, but South America continues to make significant gains, and recent data updates highlight that Asia and Oceania are also making meaningful progress. Africa is the clear laggard in the war against SARS-COV-2 and its variants, but progress there has been delayed, at least in part, by India’s export restrictions of the Oxford-AstraZeneca/COVISHIELD vaccine. This suggests that, while Africa will continue to lag, the share of Africans provided with a first dose of vaccine will begin to rise once India resumes its exports and deliveries to African countries under the COVAX program continue. If variants of the disease were not a source of concern, Chart I-1 would highlight that the full transition to a post-pandemic economy over the next several months would be near certain. However, as evidenced by the recent decision in the UK to postpone the lifting of COVID-19 restrictions by 4 weeks due to the spreading of the Delta variant, the global economy is not entirely out of the woods yet. Encouragingly, the delay in the UK genuinely appears to be temporary. Chart I-2 highlights that while the number of confirmed UK COVID-19 cases has been rising over the past month, the uptick in hospitalizations and fatalities has so far been quite muted. Importantly, the rise in hospitalizations appears to be occurring among those who have not yet been fully vaccinated, underscoring that variants of the disease are only truly concerning if they are vaccine-resistant. The evidence so far is that the Delta variant is more transmissible and may increase the risk of hospitalization, but that two doses of COVID-19 vaccine offer high protection. Of course, vaccines only offer protection if you get them, and evidence of vaccination hesitancy in the US is thus a somewhat worrying sign. Chart I-3 shows that the daily pace of vaccinations in the US has slowed significantly from mid-April levels, resulting in a slower rise in the share of the population that has received at least one dose (second panel). On this metric, the US has recently been outpaced by Canada, and the gap between the UK and the US is now widening. Germany and France are close behind the US and may surpass it soon. Chart I-2The UK Delay In Removing Restrictions Seems Genuinely Temporary Chart I-3Recent Vaccination Progress In The US Has Been Underwhelming   Sadly, Chart I-4 highlights that there is a political dimension to vaccine hesitancy in the US. The chart shows that state by state vaccination rates as a share of the population are strongly predicted by the share of the popular vote for Donald Trump in the 2020 US presidential election. Admittedly, part of this relationship may also be capturing an urban/rural divide, with residents in less-dense rural areas (which typically support Republican presidential candidates) perhaps feeling a lower sense of urgency to become vaccinated against the disease. Chart I-4The US Politicization Of Vaccines Raises The Risk From COVID-19 Variants But given the clear politicization that has already occurred over some pandemic control measures, such as the wearing of masks, Chart I-4 makes it difficult to avoid the conclusion that the same thing has occurred for vaccines. This is unfortunate, and seemingly raises the risk that the Delta variant may spread widely in red states over the coming several months, potentially delaying economic reopening, or risking the reintroduction of pandemic control measures. However, there are two counterarguments to this concern. First, non-vaccine immunity is probably higher in red than blue states, and CDC data suggest that this effect could be large. While this figure is still preliminary and subject to change (and likely will), the CDC estimates that only 1 out of 4.3 cases of COVID-19 were reported from February 2020 to March 2021. Taken at face value, this implies that there were approximately 115 million infections during that period, compared with under 30 million reported cases. That gap accounts for 25% of the US population, and given that red states were slower to implement pandemic control measures last year and their residents often more resistant to the measures, it stands to reason that a disproportionate share of unreported cases occurred in these states. Second, as noted above, the evidence thus far suggests that the Delta variant is not vaccine resistant, at least for those who are fully vaccinated. This is significant because if Delta were to spread widely in red states over the coming several months, the resulting increase in hospitalizations would likely convince many vaccine hesitant Americans to become vaccinated out of fear and self-interest – two powerfully motivating factors. Thus, the Delta variant may become a problem for the US in the fall, but if that occurs a solution is not far from sight. And, in other developed countries where vaccine hesitancy rates appear to be lower, it would seem that a new, vaccine-resistant variant of the disease would likely be required in order to cause a major disruption in the transition to a post-pandemic state. Such a variant could emerge, but we have seen no evidence thus far that one will before vaccination rates reach levels that would slash the odds of further widespread mutation. Fiscal Policy: Passing The Baton To Services Spending Chart I-5 highlights that US fiscal policy is set to detract from growth over the coming 6-12 months, reflecting the one-off nature of some of the fiscal response to the pandemic. This is true outside of the US as well, as Chart I-6 highlights that the IMF is forecasting a two percentage point increase in the Euro Area’s cyclically-adjusted primary budget balance, representing a significant amount of fiscal drag relative to the past two decades. Chart I-5Fiscal Thrust Will Eventually Turn To Fiscal Drag In The US… Should investors be concerned about the impact of fiscal drag on advanced economies over the coming year? In our view, the answer is no. The reason is that much of the fiscal response in the US and Europe has been aimed at supporting income that has been lost due to a drastic reduction in services spending, which will continue to recover over the coming months as the effect of the pandemic continues to ebb. Chart I-7 underscores this point by highlighting the “gap” in US consumer goods and services spending relative to its pre-pandemic trend. The chart highlights that US goods spending is running well above what would be expected, whereas there is a sizeable gap in services spending (which accounts for approximately 70% of US personal consumption expenditures). Goods spending will likely slow as fiscal thrust turns to fiscal drag, but services spending will improve meaningfully – aided not just by a post-pandemic normalization in economic activity, but also by the sizeable amount of excess savings that US households have accumulated over the past year (Chart I-7, panel 2). Chart I-6... And In Europe Chart I-7But Reduced Transfers Will Only Impact Spending On Goods, Not Services While some of these savings have already been deployed to pay down debt and some may be permanently saved in anticipation of higher future taxes, the key point for investors is that the negative impact on goods spending from reduced fiscal thrust will be offset by a significant improvement in services spending, and thus is not likely to cause a concerning slowdown in overall economic activity. Monetary Policy: A Modestly Hawkish Shift Is Likely This leaves us with the question of whether or not monetary policy will become a negative driver for risky asset prices over the coming 6-12 months, which is especially relevant following last week’s FOMC meeting. The updated “dot plot” following the meeting shows that 7 of the 18 FOMC participants anticipate a rate hike in 2022, and the majority (13 members) expect at least one rate hike before the end of 2023, raising the median forecast for the Fed funds rate to 0.6% by the end of that year. Chart I-8 highlights that while 10-year Treasury yields remains mostly unchanged following the meeting, yields moved higher at the short-end and middle of the curve. Chart I-8The FOMC Meeting Resulted In Higher Short- And Mid-Term Yields Investor fears that the Fed may shift in a significantly hawkish direction at some point over the next year have been far too focused on inflation, and far too little focused on employment. It is not a coincidence that the Fed’s guidance was updated following the May jobs report, which saw a stronger pace of jobs growth relative to April. Table I-1 updates our US Bond Strategy service’s calculations showing the average monthly nonfarm payroll growth that will be required for the unemployment rate to reach 3.5-4.5% assuming a full recovery in the participation rate, which is the range of the Fed’s NAIRU estimates. May’s payroll growth number of 560k implies that the Fed’s maximum employment criterion will be met sometime between June and September next year, if monthly payroll growth continues at that pace. Table I-1Calculating The Distance To Maximum Employment Chart I-9Lighter Restrictions In Blue States Will Push Down The Unemployment Rate It is currently difficult to assess with great confidence what average payroll growth will prevail over the coming year, but we noted in last month’s report that there were compelling arguments in favor of outsized jobs growth this fall.1 In addition to those points, we note the following: Blue states have generally been slower to reopen their economies, and Chart I-9 highlights that these states have consequently been slower to return to their pre-pandemic unemployment rate. Among blue states, California and New York are the largest by population, and it is notable that both states only lifted most COVID-19 restrictions on June 15 – including the wearing of masks in most settings. This implies that services jobs are likely to grow significantly in these states over the coming few months. Both consensus private forecasts as well as the Fed’s expectation for real GDP growth imply that the output gap will be closed by Q4 of this year (Chart I-10). These expectations appear to be reasonable, given the substantial amount of excess savings that have been accumulated by US households and the fact that monetary policy remains extremely stimulative. When the output gap turned positive during the last economic cycle, the unemployment rate was approximately 4% – well within the Fed’s NAIRU range. Chart I-10 also shows that the Fed’s 7% real GDP growth forecast for this year would put the output gap above its pre-pandemic level, when the unemployment rate stood at 3.5%. In fact, it is possible that annualized Q2 real GDP growth will disappoint current consensus expectations of 10%, due to the scarcity of labor supply (scarcity that will be eased by labor day when supplemental unemployment insurance benefit programs end). Were Q2 GDP to disappoint due to supply-side limitations, it would strengthen the view that job gains will be very strong this fall ceteris paribus, as it would highlight that real output per worker cannot rise meaningfully further in the short-term and that stronger growth later in the year will necessitate very large job gains. Chart I-11 highlights that US air travel and New York City subway ridership have already returned close to 75% and 50% of their pre-pandemic levels, respectively. Based on the trend over the past three months, the chart implies that air travel will return to its pre-pandemic levels by mid-October of this year, and New York City subway ridership by June 2022. This underscores that travel-related services employment will recover significantly in the fall, and that jobs in downtown cores will rebound as office workers progressively return to work. Chart I-10Expectations For Growth This Year Suggest A Rapid Decline In The Unemployment Rate Chart I-11Services Employment Will Recover In The Fall   On the latter point, one major outstanding question affecting the outlook for monetary policy is the magnitude of the likely permanent impact of work from home policies on employment in central business districts. Fewer office workers commuting to downtown office locations suggests that some jobs in the leisure & hospitality, retail trade, professional & business services, and other services industries will never return or will be very slow to do so, arguing for a longer return to maximum employment (and the Fed’s liftoff date). We examine this question in depth in Section 2 of this month’s report, and find that the “stickiness” of work from home policies will likely cause permanent central business job losses on the order of 575k (or 0.35% of the February 2020 labor force). While this would be non-trivial, when compared with a pre-pandemic unemployment rate of 3.5%, WFH policies alone are not likely to cause a long-term deviation from the Fed’s maximum employment objective. Outsized jobs growth this fall, at a pace that quickly reduces the unemployment rate, argues for a first Fed rate hike that is even earlier than the market expects. Chart I-12 presents The Bank Credit Analyst service’s current assessment of the cumulative odds of the Fed’s liftoff date by quarter; we believe that it is likely that the Fed will have raised rates by Q3 of next year, and that a rate hike in the first half of 2022 is a possibility. These odds are slightly more aggressive than those presented by our fixed-income strategists in a recent Special Report,2 but are consistent with their view that the Fed will raise interest rates by the end of next year. Chart I-12The Bank Credit Analyst’s Assessment Of The Odds Of The First Rate Hike The odds presented in Chart I-12 are also more hawkish than the Fed funds rate path currently implied by the OIS curve, meaning that we expect investors to be somewhat surprised by a shifting monetary policy outlook at some point over the coming year, potentially over the next 3-6 months. Payroll growth during the late summer and early fall will be a major test for the employment outlook, and is the most likely point for a hawkish shift in the market’s view of monetary policy. Is this likely to become a negative driver for risky asset prices over the coming 6-12 months? In our view, the answer is “probably not.” While investors tend to focus heavily on the timing of the first rate hike as monetary policy begins to tighten, the reality is that it is the least relevant factor driving the fair value of 10-year Treasury yields. Investor expectations for the pace of tightening and especially for the terminal Fed funds rate are far more important, and, while it is quite possible that expectations for the neutral rate of interest will eventually rise, it seems unlikely that this will occur before the Fed actually begins to raise interest rates given that most investors accept the secular stagnation narrative and the view that “R-star” is well below trend rates of growth (we disagree).3 Chart I-13 highlights the fair value path of 10-year Treasury yields until the end of next year, assuming a 2.5% terminal Fed funds rate, no term premium, and a rate hike pace of 1% per year. The chart highlights that while government bond yields are set to move higher over the coming 6-12 months, they are likely to remain between 2-2.5%. This would drop the equity risk premium to a post-2008 low (Chart I-14), which would further reduce the attractiveness of stocks relative to bonds. But we doubt that this would be enough of a decline to cause a selloff, and it would still imply a stimulative level of interest rates for households and firms. Chart I-1310-Year Yields Will Rise Over The Coming Year, But Not Sharply Chart I-14Rising Yields Will Cause An Unwelcome But Contained Decline In The ERP   Investment Conclusions Among the three factors driving our global macroeconomic outlook and our cyclical investment recommendations, continued progress on the path toward a post-pandemic state and fiscal policy remain either positive or mostly neutral for risky assets. A potentially hawkish shift in the outlook for monetary policy this fall remains the chief risk, but we expect the rise in bond yields over the coming year to remain well-contained barring a sea change in investor expectations for the terminal Fed funds rate – which we believe is unlikely to occur before the Fed begins to raise interest rates. Consequently, we continue to recommend that investors should overweight risky assets within a multi-asset portfolio, and that fixed-income investors should maintain a below-benchmark duration position. We expect modest absolute returns from global equities, but even mid-single digit returns are likely to beat those from long-dated government bonds and cash positions. While value stocks may underperform growth stocks over the coming 3-4 months,4 rising bond yields over the coming year will ultimately favor value stocks and will likely weigh on elevated tech sector (and therefore growth stock) valuations (Chart I-15). Chart I-16 highlights that the attractiveness of US value versus growth is meaningfully less compelling for the S&P 500 Citigroup indexes, suggesting that investors should continue to favor MSCI-benchmarked value over growth positions over a 6-12 month time horizon.5 Chart I-15Value Is Extremely Cheap Chart I-16Value Vs. Growth: The Benchmark Matters   The likely outperformance of value versus growth also has implications for regional allocation within a global equity portfolio. The US is significantly overweight broadly-defined technology relative to global ex-US stocks, and financials – which are overrepresented in value indexes – have already meaningfully outperformed in the US this year compared with their global peers and are now rolling over (Chart I-17). This underscores that investors should favor ex-US stocks over the coming year, skewed in favor of DM ex-US given that China’s credit impulse continues to slow (Chart I-18). Chart I-17Favor Global Ex-US Stocks Over The Coming Year Chart I-18Concentrate Global Ex-US Exposure In Developed Markets   Finally, global ex-US stocks also tend to outperform when the US dollar is falling, and we would recommend that investors maintain a short dollar position on a 6-12 month time horizon despite the recent bounce in the greenback. Chart I-19 highlights that the dollar remains strongly negatively correlated with global equity returns, and that the dollar’s performance over the past year has been almost exactly in line with what one would have expected given this relationship. Thus, a bullish view toward global stocks implies both US dollar weakness and global ex-US outperformance over the coming year. Chart I-19A Bullish View Towards Global Stocks Implies A Dollar Bear Market Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst June 24, 2021 Next Report: July 29, 2021   II. Work From Home “Stickiness” And The Outlook For Monetary Policy Work from home policies, originally designed as emergency measures in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, are likely to be “sticky” in a post-pandemic world. This will negatively impact the labor market in central business districts, via reduced spending on services by office workers. The potential impact of working from home is often cited as an example of what is likely to be a lasting and negative effect on jobs growth, but we find that it is not likely to be a barrier to the labor market returning to the Fed’s assessment of “maximum employment.” The size of the impact depends importantly on whether employee preferences or employer plans for WFH prevail, but our sense is that the latter is more likely. A weaker pace of structures investment in response to elevated office vacancy rates will likely have an even smaller impact on growth than the effect of reduced central business district services employment. The contribution to growth from structures investment has been small over the past few decades, office building construction is a small portion of overall nonresidential structures, and there are compelling arguments that the net stock of office structures will stay flat, rather than decline. Our analysis suggests that job growth over the coming year could be even stronger than the Fed and investors expect, possibly resulting in a first rate hike by the middle of next year. This would be earlier than we currently anticipate, but it underscores that fixed-income investors should remain short duration on a 6-12 month time horizon, and that equity investors should favor value over growth positions beyond the coming 3-4 months. The outlook for US monetary policy over the next 12 to 18 months depends almost entirely on the outlook for employment. Many investors are focused on the potential for elevated inflation to force the Fed to raise interest rates earlier than it currently anticipates, but it is the progress in returning to “maximum employment” that will determine the timing of the first Fed rate hike – and potentially the speed at which interest rates rise once policy begins to tighten. In this report, we estimate the extent to which the “stickiness” of working from home (WFH) policies and practices could leave a lasting negative impact on the US labor market. We noted in last month's report that a large portion of the employment gap relative to pre-pandemic levels can be traced to the leisure & hospitality and professional and business services industries, both of which – along with retail employment – stand to be permanently impaired if the office worker footprint is much lower in a post-COVID world.6 Using employee surveys and a Monte Carlo approach, we present a range of estimates for the permanent impact of WFH policies on the unemployment rate, and separately examine the potential for lower construction of office properties to weigh on growth. We find that the impact of reduced office building construction is likely to be minimal, and that WFH policies may structurally raise the unemployment rate by 0.3 to 0.4%. While non-trivial, when compared with a pre-pandemic unemployment rate of 3.5%, WFH policies alone are not likely to cause a long-term deviation from the Fed’s maximum employment objective. Relative to the Fed’s expectations of a strong, lasting impact on the labor market from the pandemic, this suggests that job growth over the coming year could be even stronger than the Fed and investors expect, possibly resulting in a first rate hike by the middle of next year. This would be earlier than we currently anticipate, but it underscores that fixed-income investors should remain short duration on a 6-12 month time horizon, and that equity investors should favor value over growth positions beyond the coming 3-4 months (a period that may see outperformance of the latter). Quantifying The Labor Market Impact Of The New Normal For Work In a January paper, Barrero, Bloom, and Davis (“BBD”) presented evidence arguing why working from home will “stick.” The authors surveyed 22,500 working-age Americans across several survey “waves” between May and December 2020, and asked about both their preferences and their employer’s plans about working from home after the pandemic. Chart II-1 highlights that the desired amount of paid work from home days (among workers who can work from home) reported by the survey respondents is to approximately 55% of a work week, suggesting that a dramatic reduction in office presence would likely occur if post-pandemic WFH policies were set fully in accordance with worker preferences. Chart II-1Employee Preferences Imply A Dramatic Reduction In Post-COVID Office Presence However, Table II-1 highlights that employer plans for work from home policies are meaningfully different than those of employees. The table highlights that employers plan for employees to work from home for roughly 22% of paid days post-pandemic, which essentially translates to one day per week on average.7 BBD noted that CEOs and managers have cited the need to support innovation, employee motivation, and company culture as reasons for employees’ physical presence. Managers believe physical interactions are important for these reasons, but employees need only be on premises for about three to four days a week to achieve this. Table II-1 also shows that employers plan to allow higher-income employees more flexibility in terms of working from home, and less flexibility to employees whose earnings are between $20-50k per year. Table II-1Employer Plans, However, Imply Less Working From Home Than Employees Prefer Based on the survey results, BBD forecast that expenditure in major cities such as Manhattan and San Francisco will fall on the order of 5 to 10%. In order to understand the national labor market impact of work from home policies and what implications this may have on monetary policy, we scale up BBD’s calculations using a Monte Carlo approach that incorporates estimate ranges for several factors: The percent of paid days now working from home for office workers The amount of money spent per week by office workers in central business districts (“CBDs”) The number of total jobs in CBDs The percent of CBD jobs in industries likely to be negatively impacted by reduced office worker expenditure The average weekly earnings of affected CBD workers The average share of business revenue not attributable to strictly variable expenses The percent of affected jobs likely to be recovered outside of CBDs Our approach is as follows. First, we calculate the likely reduction in nationwide CBD spending from reduced office worker presence by multiplying the likely percent of paid days now permanently working from home by the number of total jobs in CBDs and the average weekly spending of office workers. This figure is then increased due to the estimated acceleration in net move outs from principal urban centers in 2020 (Chart II-2); we assume a 5% savings rate and an average annual salary of $50k for these resident workers, and assume that all of their spending occurred within CBDs. We also assume that roughly 50% of jobs connected to this spending are recovered. Chart II-2Fewer Residents Will Also Lower Spending In Central Business Districts Then, we calculate the gross number of jobs lost in leisure & hospitality, retail trade, and other services by multiplying this estimate of lost spending by an estimate of non-variable costs as a share of revenue for affected industries, and dividing the result by average weekly earnings of affected employees. For affected CBD employees in the administrative and waste services industry, we simply assume that the share of jobs lost matches the percent of paid days now permanently working from home. Finally, we adjust the number of jobs lost by multiplying by 1 minus an assumed “recovery” rate, given that some of the reduction in spending in CBDs will simply be shifted to areas near remote workers’ residences. We assume a slightly lower recovery rate for lost jobs in the administrative and waste services industry. Table II-2 highlights the range of outcomes for each variable used in our simulation, and Charts II-3 and II-4 present the results. The charts highlight that the distribution of outcomes based on employer WFH intensions suggest high odds that nationwide job losses in CBDs due to reduced office worker presence will not exceed 400k. Based on average employee preferences, that number rises to roughly 800-900k. Table II-2The Factors Affecting Permanent Central Business District Job Losses Chart II-3The Probability Distribution Of CBD Jobs Lost… Chart II-4…Based On Our Monte Carlo Approach   This raises the question of whether employer plans or employee preferences for WFH arrangements will prevail. Our sense is that it will be closer to the former, given that we noted above that employer WFH plans are the least flexible for employees whose earnings are between $20-50k per year (who are presumably employees who have less ability to influence the policy of firms). Chart II-5 re-presents the projected job losses shown in Chart II-4 as a share of the February 2020 labor force, along with a probability-weighted path that assumes a 75% chance that employer WFH plans will prevail. The chart highlights that WFH arrangements would have the effect of raising the unemployment rate by approximately 0.35%. However, relative to a pre-pandemic starting point of 3.5%, this would raise the unemployment rate to a level that would still be within the Fed’s NAIRU estimates (Chart II-6). Therefore, the “stickiness” of WFH arrangements alone do not seem to be a barrier to the labor market returning to the Fed’s assessment of “maximum employment,” suggesting that the conditions for liftoff may be met earlier than currently anticipated by investors. Chart II-5CBD Job Losses Will Not Be Trivial, But They Will Not Be Enormous Chart II-6Sticky WFH Policies Will Not Prevent A Return To Maximum Employment The Impact Of Lower Office Building Construction A permanently reduced office footprint could also conceivably impact the US economy through reduced nonresidential structures investment, as builders of commercial real estate cease to construct new office towers in response to expectations of a long-lasting glut. However, several points highlight that the negative impact on growth from US office tower construction will be even smaller than the CBD employment impact of reduced office worker presence that we noted above. First, Chart II-7 highlights the overall muted impact that nonresidential building investment has had on real GDP growth by removing the contribution to growth from nonresidential structures and for overall nonresidential investment. The chart clearly highlights that the historically positive contribution to real US output from capital expenditures over the past four decades has come from investment in equipment and intellectual property products, not from structures. Chart II-8 echoes this point, by highlighting that US real investment in nonresidential structures has in fact been flat since the early-1980s, contributing positively and negatively to growth only on a cyclical basis (not on a structural basis). Chart II-7Structures Have Not Contributed Significantly To US Growth For Some Time Chart II-8Nonresidential Structures Investment Has Been Flat For Four Decades Second, Table II-3 highlights that office properties make up a small portion of investment in private nonresidential structures. In 2019, nominal investment in office structures amounted to $85 billion, compared with $630 billion in overall structures investment, meaning that office properties amounted to just 13% of structures investment. Table II-3Office Structures Investment Is A Small Share Of Total Structures Investment Table II-4Conceivably, Vacant Office Properties Could Be Converted To Luxury Residential Units Third, it is true that investment is a flow and not a stock variable, meaning that, if the net stock of office buildings were to fall as a result from WFH policies, then the US economy would see a potentially persistently negative rate of growth from nonresidential structures (which would constitute a drag on growth). But if the net stock were instead to remain flat, then gross office property investment should equal the depreciation of those structures. The second column of Table II-3 highlights that current-cost depreciation of office structures was $53 billion in 2019 (versus nominal gross investment of $85 billion). Had office property investment been ~$30 billion lower in 2019, it would have reduced nominal GDP by a mere 14 basis points (resulting in an annual growth rate of 3.84%, rather than 3.98%). Fourth, there is good reason to believe that the net stock of office properties will stay flat, as the economics of converting offices to luxury housing units (whose demand is not substantially affected by factors such as commuting) – either fully or partially into mixed-use buildings – appear to be plausible. Table II-4 highlights that the average annual asking rent for office space per square foot in Manhattan was $73.23 in Q1 2021, and that the recent median listing home price per square foot is roughly $1,400. In a frictionless world where office space could be instantly and effortlessly sold as residential property, existing prices would imply a healthy (gross) rental yield of 5.2%. Thoughts On The Future Of Office Properties Of course, reality is far from frictionless. There are several barriers that will slow office-to-residential conversion as well as construction costs, which will meaningfully lower the net value of existing office real estate in large central business districts such as Manhattan. In a recent article in the Washington Post, Roger K. Lewis, retired architect and Professor Emeritus of Architecture at the University of Maryland, College Park, detailed several of these technical barriers (which we summarize below).8 Office buildings are typically much wider than residential buildings, the latter usually being 60 to 65 feet in width in order to enable windows and natural light in living/dining rooms and bedrooms. This suggests that office-to-residential conversion might require modifying the basic structure of office buildings, including cutting open parts of roof and floor plates on upper building levels to bring natural light into habitable and interior rooms, and other costly structural modifications to address the additional plumbing and infrastructure that will be needed. Lewis noted that floor-to-floor dimensions are typically larger in office buildings, which is beneficial for office-to-residential conversion because increased room heights augments the sense of space and openness, while allowing natural light to penetrate farther into the apartment. It also allows for extra space to place needed additional building infrastructure, such as sprinkler pipes, electrical conduits, light fixtures, and air ducts. But unique apartment layouts are often needed to use available floor space effectively in an office-to-residential conversion, which will increase design costs and raise the risk that nonstandard layouts may result in unforeseen quality-of-living problems that will necessitate additional future construction to correct. Zoning regulations and building code constraints will likely add another layer of costs to office-to-housing conversions, as these rules are written for conventional buildings, meaning that special exceptions or even regulatory changes are likely to be required. So it is clear that the process of converting office space to residential property will be a costly endeavor for office tower owners, which will likely reduce the net present value of these properties relative to pre-pandemic levels. But; this process appears to be feasible and, when faced with the alternative of persistently high vacancy rates and lost revenue, our sense is that office tower owners will choose this route – thus significantly reducing the likelihood that the growth in national gross investment in office properties will fall below the rate of depreciation. In addition, the trend in suburban and CBD office property prices suggests that there are two other possible alternatives to widespread office-to-residential conversion that would also argue against a significant and long-lasting decline in office structures investment. Chart II-9 highlights that the average asking rent has already fallen significantly in most Manhattan submarkets, and Chart II-10 highlights that suburban office prices are accelerating and rising at the strongest pace relative to CBD office prices over the past two decades, possibly in response to increased demand for workspace that is closer to home for many workers who previously commuted to CBDs. Chart II-9Working From The Office Is Getting Cheaper Chart II-10Suburban Offices Are Getting More Expensive Thus, the first alternative outcome to CBD office-to-residential conversion is that an increase in suburban office construction offsets the negative impact of outright reductions in CBD office investment if residential conversions prove to be too costly or too technically challenging. The second alternative is that owners of CBD office properties “clear the market” by dramatically cutting rental rates even further, to alter the cost/benefit calculation for firms planning permissive WFH policies. We doubt that existing rents reflect the extent of vacancies in large cities such as Manhattan, so we would expect further CBD office price declines in this scenario. But if owners of centrally-located office properties face significant conversion costs and a decline in the net present value of these buildings is unavoidable and its magnitude uncertain, owners may choose to cut prices drastically as the simpler solution. Investment Conclusions Holding all else equal, the fact that owners of CBD office properties are likely to experience some permanent decline in the value of these real estate assets is not a positive development for economic activity. But these losses will be experienced by firms, investors, and ultra-high net worth individuals with strong marginal propensities to save, suggesting that the economic impact from this shock will be minimal. And as we highlighted above, a decline in the pace of gross office building investment to the depreciation rate will have a minimal impact on the overall economy. This leaves the likely impact on CBD employment as the main channel by which WFH policies are likely to affect monetary policy. As we noted above and as discussed in Section 1 of our report, the Fed is now focused entirely on the return of the labor market to maximum employment, which we interpret as an unemployment rate within the range of the Fed’s NAIRU estimates (3.5% - 4.5%) and a return to a pre-pandemic labor force participation rate. Chart II-11On A One-Year Time Horizon, Favor Value Over Growth Our analysis indicates that WFH policies may structurally raise the unemployment rate by 0.3 to 0.4%. While non-trivial, when compared with a pre-pandemic unemployment rate of 3.5%, this suggests that WFH policies alone are not likely to cause a long-term deviation from the Fed’s maximum employment objective. The implication is that job growth over the coming year could be even stronger than the Fed and investors expect, which could mean that the Fed may begin lifting rates by the middle of next year barring a major disruption in the ongoing transition to a post-pandemic world. This is earlier than we currently expect, but the fact that it would also be earlier than what is currently priced into the OIS curve underscores that fixed-income investors should remain short duration on a 6-12 month time horizon. In addition, as noted in Section 1 of our report, while value stocks may underperform growth stocks over the coming 3-4 months,9 rising bond yields over the coming year will ultimately favor value stocks and will likely weigh on elevated tech sector valuations. Chart II-11 highlights that the relative valuation of growth stocks remains above its pre-pandemic starting point (Chart II-11), suggesting that investors should continue to favor MSCI-benchmarked value over growth positions over a 6-12 month time horizon. Finally, as also noted in Section 1 of our report, we do not expect rising bond yields to prevent stock prices from grinding higher over the coming year, unless investor expectations for the terminal fed funds rate move sharply higher – an event that seems unlikely, although not impossible, before monetary policy actually begins to tighten. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst III. Indicators And Reference Charts BCA’s equity indicators highlight that the “easy” money from expectations of an eventual end to the pandemic have already been made. Our technical, valuation, and sentiment indicators are very extended, highlighting that investors should expect positive but more modest returns from stocks over the coming 6-12 months. Our monetary indicator has aggressively retreated from its high last year, reflecting a meaningful recovery in government bond yields since last August. The indicator still remains above the boom/bust line, however, highlighting that monetary policy remains supportive for risky asset prices. Forward equity earnings already price in a complete earnings recovery, but for now there is no meaningful sign of waning forward earnings momentum. Net revisions remain very strong, and positive earnings surprises have risen to their highest levels on record. Within a global equity portfolio, there has been a modest tick down in global ex-US equity performance, driven by a rally in growth stocks (which may persist for a few months). EM stocks had previously dragged down global ex-US performance, and they continue to languish. A bias towards value stocks on a 1-year time horizon means that investors should still favor ex-US stocks over the coming year, skewed in favor of DM ex-US given that China’s credit impulse continues to slow. The US 10-Year Treasury yield has trended modestly lower since mid-March, after having risen to levels that were extremely technically stretched. Despite this pause, our valuation index highlights that bonds are still expensive, and we expect that yields will move higher over the cyclical investment horizon if employment growth in Q3/Q4 implies a faster return to maximum employment than currently projected by the Fed. We expect the rise to be more modest than our valuation index would imply, but we would still recommend a short duration stance within a fixed-income portfolio. The extreme rise in some commodity prices over the past several months is beginning to ease. Lumber prices have fallen close to 50% from their recent high, whereas industrial metals and agricultural prices are down roughly 5% and 17%, respectively. We had previously argued that a breather in commodity prices was likely at some point over the coming several months, and we would expect further declines as supply chains normalize, labor supply recovers, and Chinese demand for metals slows. US and global LEIs remain in a solid uptrend, and global manufacturing PMIs are strong. Our global LEI diffusion index has declined significantly, but this likely reflects the outsized impact of a few emerging market countries (whose vaccination progress is still lagging). Strong leading and coincident indicators underscore that the global demand for goods is robust, and that output is below pre-pandemic levels in most economies because of very weak services spending. The latter will recover significantly later this year, as social distancing and other pandemic control measures disappear. EQUITIES: Chart III-1US Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3US Equity Sentiment Indicators   Chart III-4US Stock Market Breadth Chart III-5US Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6US Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance   FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9US Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected US Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets   CURRENCIES: Chart III-16US Dollar And PPP Chart III-17US Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18US Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals   COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning   ECONOMY: Chart III-28US And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29US Macro Snapshot Chart III-30US Growth Outlook Chart III-31US Cyclical Spending Chart III-32US Labor Market Chart III-33US Consumption Chart III-34US Housing Chart III-35US Debt And Deleveraging   Chart III-36US Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China   Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Footnotes 1 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "June 2021," dated May 27, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see US Bond Strategy/Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report "A Central Bank Timeline For The Next Two Years," dated June 1, 2021, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report "R-star, And The Structural Risk To Stocks," dated March 31, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see US Equity Strategy "Rotate Into Growth Stocks, Be Granular In The Selection Of Cyclicals," dated June 14, 2021, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 5 For a discussion of the differences in value and growth benchmarks, please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report “Value? Growth? It Really Depends!” dated September 19, 2019, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "June 2021," dated May 27, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 7 Readers should note that the desired share of paid work from home days post-COVID among employees is shown to be lower in Table II-1 than what is implied by Chart II-1 on a weighted-average basis. This is due to the fact that Table II-1 excludes responses from the May 2020 survey wave, because the authors did not ask about employer intensions during that wave. This underscores that the average desired number of paid days working from home declined somewhat over time, and thus argues for the value shown in Table II-1 as the best estimate for employee preferences. 8 Roger K. Lewis, “Following pandemic, converting office buildings into housing may become new ‘normal,’ Washington Post, April 3, 2021. 9 Please see US Equity Strategy "Rotate Into Growth Stocks, Be Granular In The Selection Of Cyclicals," dated June 14, 2021, available at uses.bcaresearch.com

Highlights Tactically downgrade cyclical equities from overweight in Europe. The shift in global growth drivers, the beginning of the global liquidity withdrawal, and lingering COVID worries create headwinds for the cyclicals-to-defensives ratio this summer. Weaker global inflation expectations, commodity prices, and a dollar rebound will accompany this period of turbulence. The relative technical and valuation backdrop will also contribute to this period. Short consumer discretionary / long telecommunication is a high-octane version of the trade. Short technology / long healthcare is its lower-risk / lower-reward cousin. This temporary portfolio shift is a risk management move to capitalize on our positive 18- to 24- month view on cyclicals. Feature Last week, we recommended investors adopt a more defensive tactical posture.  They should raise cash and shift into defensive quality names in order to weather a summer replete with potential downside risk. This will place investors in a good position to shift back into a more aggressive stance this fall, when cyclical sectors should resume their outperformance. This week, we explore this idea in more detail. The combination of a Chinese credit slowdown, a potential transition in the driver of growth away from goods into services, and a shift in tone from global central banks will feed the expected market volatility this summer. European defensive stocks are set to outperform during this period. Buying telecommunication equities / selling consumer discretionary stocks is a high octane bet on this trend, while going long healthcare / short technology shares is its low-risk incarnation. Summer Storms This summer, three forces will feed some downside risk in the market and, more specifically, an underperformance of cyclical sectors relative to defensive ones: a transition in global growth, preliminary signs that global central banks will begin to take away the punch bowl, and disappointments caused by COVID variants. Growth Transition The global economy is set to cool down as we transition away from the first stage of the post-pandemic recovery. As we showed last week, China’s deteriorating credit impulse is consistent with global industrial activity receding from its extremely robust pace of expansion (Chart 1). The continued decline in China’s banking system excess reserve ratio suggests that total social financing flows will slow further. Consequently, China’s intake of raw materials and industrial goods will decelerate, which will impact global industrial activity negatively. Already, the New Orders component of China’s Manufacturing PMI has rolled over. The disappointment of Chinese retail sales last week further indicates that China will act as a drag on global growth in the coming quarters. We have also highlighted that the combined effect of higher yields and oil prices has become strong enough to alter negatively the path of global industrial activity going forward. Our Global Growth Tax indicator, which includes both variables, shows that the US ISM Manufacturing survey and the global manufacturing PMI have reached their apex and will moderate this summer (Chart 2). Chart 1The China Drag Chart 2Rising Costs Bite The problem for global growth is one of changing leadership. Global economic activity is not about to collapse, but the extraordinary surge in goods consumption that started in 2020 will make room for a catch-up in the service sector. As an example, US retail sales stand 15% above their pre-pandemic trends; however, services spending still lies 7% below its pre-pandemic tendency (Chart 3). Thus, as summer progresses, the recent deceleration in consumer spending on goods will continue and services will progressively pick up the slack. The change in growth leadership will cause some temporary trepidation in global economic activity, because it is happening when the effect of both the Chinese credit slowdown and the previous increase in yields and oil will be most potent. As a result, we expect the G-10 Economic Surprises Index to follow that of China and experience an air pocket this summer (Chart 4). Chart 3From Goods To Services Chart 4Where China Goes, So Will The G-10   The Chaperone Is On The Way More than 65 years ago, former Fed Chair William McChesney Martin noted that the job of central bankers was to be “the chaperone who has ordered the punch bowl removed just as the party was really warming up.” Chart 5The Chaperone Is Waking Up Today, the party is a rager, and central bankers are indicating that they will remove the punch bowl soon. Real estate speculation is worrying the Bank of Canada, and its balance sheet has already shrunk by C$99 billion, to C$476 billion. The Norges Bank has indicted that it will lift interest rates twice this year. The Reserve Bank of New Zealand is set to lift the Official Cash Rate soon. The Bank of England has begun to adjust its asset purchases and could begin a full-fledge tapering this year. The 800-pound gorilla is the Fed, which telegraphed more clearly last week its intention to raise rates twice in 2023, and therefore moved closer to the pricing of the OIS curve (Chart 5). Implied in this forecast, the Fed will start tapering its asset purchase in early 2022 at the latest. This change in tone by global central banks is not a major problem for the business cycle – global rates are still far below any reasonable estimates of the neutral rate of interest, but periods of transition in monetary policy are often associated with transitory market turbulences. This time will not be an exception, especially because it is happening when global growth is downshifting. Delta, Gamma, Epsilon, etc? Chart 6Depressed Macro Volatility With the rapid progress of vaccination, the worst of the COVID tragedy is behind us. Nonetheless, the pandemic is not yet fully in the rear-view mirror, not even in the Western nations that lead the global inoculation campaign. SARS-CoV-2 continues to evolve and will therefore produce new variants over time, some of which will be problematic. The UK illustrates this phenomenon. The government has postponed the so-called Freedom Day, when life returns to normal, by five weeks despite the country’s high vaccination rate. The Delta variant is significantly increasing among the unvaccinated and not fully inoculated Britons. Many countries will also face this problem. These delays will be minor and will not threaten national recoveries. However, they will feed market tensions in a context where global macro volatility is low (Chart 6), global growth is already peaking, and monetary accommodation is receding. Global Market Implications… The confluence of the change in global economic growth leadership, the upcoming liquidity removal, and the potential for short-lived delays to the global economic re-opening point toward a decline in global inflation expectations, a rebound in the US dollar, weaker commodity prices, and an underperformance of global cyclical relative to defensive equities. Over the coming months, inflation breakeven rates are likely to soften, while real yields will rise modestly. In May, US inflation breakeven rates peaked near 2.6%, their highest level in ten years. A weaker global growth impulse in combination with a Fed that is more willing to remove some monetary accommodation will cool inflationary fears among investors and cause inflation expectations to decline further. However, the specter of tighter policy will also support TIPS yields. Bond yields are likely to correct somewhat more over the summer. Bond prices have not yet fully purged their oversold conditions (Chart 7); thus, a decrease in inflation expectations will temporarily support Treasury prices, even if real yields do not fall. Recent market action is moving in this direction. Last week, by Thursday evening, 10-year Treasury yields had already lost their 9 bps rise that followed Wednesday’s FOMC meeting. 30-year Treasury yields have plunged to a four-month low. Bund yields are unable to hang on to their gains either. The dollar has more upside this summer. Higher real US yields offer a potent backing for a DXY that still refuses to drop below 89. Moreover, the greenback is a highly counter-cyclical currency and is particularly sensitive to the gyrations in the global industrial cycle. Thus, the deceleration in the global manufacturing cycle will create a temporary tailwind for the greenback. Over the past three years, the gap between US TIPS yields and the Chinese Economic Surprise index explained the fluctuation of the DXY; it currently points toward a continued rebound in the USD (Chart 8). Even if this move is ephemeral, it will have implications for investors this summer. Chart 7Technical Backdrop For Bonds Chart 8Near-Term Upside For The DXY Commodities will also suffer. Natural resource prices have rallied in a parabolic fashion and our Composite Technical Indicator is massively overbought (Chart 9). Meanwhile, Chinese authorities are verbally jawboning industrial metal prices and have begun to release copper, zinc, aluminum, and nickel from their stockpiles. In this context, the Chinese credit slowdown and the imminent removal of monetary accommodation in various corners of the globe will catalyze a correction in commodities, even if a new supercycle has begun. The recent travails of lumber prices, which have collapsed 47% since May 7 (while they still remain in technical bull market!), may constitute a canary in the coalmine for the wider commodity complex. Global cyclical equities have greater downside against their defensive counterparts. US markets are global trendsetters; while the S&P cyclicals have lost some altitude compared to defensives, they have yet to purge their oversold state and remain very expensive (Chart 10). This backdrop makes them vulnerable to slowing Chinese import growth, a stronger dollar, and weaker commodity prices. Chart 9Will The GSCI Follow Lumber? Chart 10Vulnerable Global Cyclicals   … And European Investment Implications Chart 11European Cyclicals Are Also At Risk The European cyclicals-to-defensives ratio is vulnerable, like it is in the US. Hence, a more defensive portfolio bias makes sense for the summer, which should allow investors to regain maximum cyclical exposure later this year. Short consumer discretionary / long telecommunications and short technology / long healthcare are pair trades with particularly attractive risk profiles. The cyclicals-to-defensives ratio is technically unattractive. The relative share prices stand toward the top of their 16-year trading range (Chart 11). Moreover, their 52-week momentum measure is rolling over at a highly elevated level, while the 13-week rate of change is deteriorating. Meanwhile, the Combined Mechanical Valuation Indicator1 (CMVI) of the cyclicals towers far above that of the defensives and is consistent with a corrective episode (Chart 11, bottom panel). The drivers of the performance of Eurozone cyclical relative to defensive sectors confirm that cyclicals could suffer a turbulent summer. For instance: The potential for further declines in global yields does not bode well for the European cyclicals-to-defensives ratio (Chart 12). Weaknesses in market-based inflation expectations would prove particularly threatening (Chart 12, bottom panel). The deceleration in China’s total social financing flows anticipates an underperformance of European cyclicals (Chart 13). As China’s credit decelerates, so will the earnings revisions of cyclical equities. Moreover, a weaker Chinese TSF is consistent with falling Treasury yields. Chart 12Lower Inflation Expectations Equals Underperforming Cyclicals Chart 13Cyclicals Listen To China The potential for weaker commodity prices is another problem for European cyclical equities (Chart 14). Commodities capture the ebb and flow of global growth sentiment, which is also a driver of the earnings revisions of cyclicals relative to defensives. Moreover, commodity prices greatly affect the earnings of cyclical equities. Unsurprisingly, the momentum of the European cyclicals-to-defensives ratio correlates closely with the BCA Commodity Composite Technical Indicator (Chart 14, bottom panel). Cyclicals perform poorly when the dollar appreciates. The Eurozone’s cyclicals-to-defensives ratio moves in lock-step with the euro and high-beta cyclical currencies (Chart 15). These relationships reflect the counter-cyclicality of the dollar, as well as the negative effect on global financial conditions of its rallies, and thus, on the earnings outlook for cyclicals. Chart 14Beware The Impact Of Weaker Commodities Chart 15A Strong Dollar Hurts European Cyclicals Chart 16Short Consumer Discretionary And Long Telecommunication Based on these observations, we are tactically downgrading cyclicals from our overweight stance for the summer, despite our conviction that cyclicals have upside on an 18- to 24-month basis. We look at this move as risk management. For investors looking to bet on a potential underperformance of cyclical equities in Europe, we recommend two positions: a high-octane pair trade and a lower-risk one. The high-octane version is to sell consumer discretionary stocks and buy telecommunications ones (Chart 16). This pair trade is exposed to lower yields, lower inflation expectations, and the shift in growth drivers from China and goods consumption to services expenditures. Additionally, the relative 52-week momentum measure is overextended, while the 13-week rate of change is already sagging. The CMVI of the consumer discretionary sector is extremely elevated, while that of telecommunication stocks is the most depressed of any Eurozone sector. Consequently, the gap between the two sectors’ CMVI stands at nearly three-sigma, which is concerning because the RoE of consumer discretionary shares lies 7% below that of the telecoms industry (Chart 16, third and fourth panel). Because higher RoEs should justify higher valuations, consumer discretionary and telecommunication stand out as the greatest outliers among European sectors (Chart 17). As an added benefit, this trade enjoys a positive dividend carry of more than 2.5%. Chart 17Spot The Outliers Chart 18Short Technology And Long Healthcare The low octane pair trade is to sell technology stocks and buy healthcare names instead. This position offers lower expected returns but also a lower risk, because both sectors are growth stocks and they will benefit from falling yields and inflation expectations. However, based on their respective CMVI, tech equities are much more expensive than healthcare ones (Chart 18), while they are also extremely overbought. Thus, healthcare should benefit more from falling yields and inflation expectations than tech. Moreover, technology is a more cyclical sector than healthcare; it will therefore be more sensitive to the evolution of global growth. Bottom Line: We remain positive on the outlook for cyclical equities on an 18- to 24-month horizon, but the changing global growth leadership, the imminent removal of global monetary accommodation, and the demanding valuation and technical backdrop of the European cyclicals-to-defensives ratio suggest that a period of turbulence will materialize this summer. Thus, we are tactically downgrading cyclicals. Investors should consider going long telecommunications / short consumer discretionary as a high-octane tactical bet on this portfolio stance. Buying healthcare / selling technology would constitute a lower risk / lower return play. Mathieu Savary, Chief European Investment Strategist Mathieu@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 For a detailed explanation of the Combined Mechanical Valuation Indicator, see Special Report, “Valuation – A Mechanical Approach,” dated May 31, 2021. Currency Performance Fixed Income Performance Government Bonds Corporate Bonds Equity Performance Major Stock Indices Geographic Performance Sector Performance

Highlights Oil demand expectations remain high. Realized demand continues to disappoint. This means OPEC 2.0's production-management strategy – i.e., keeping the level of supply below demand – will continue to dictate oil-price levels. US producers will remain focused on consolidation via M&A and on returning capital to shareholders, in line with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia's (KSA) expectation. Going forward, shale producers will focus on protecting and growing profit margins. The durability of OPEC 2.0's tactical advantage arising from its enormous spare capacity – ~ 7mm b/d – is difficult to gauge: Tightening global oil markets now in anticipation of Iran's return as a bona fide exporter benefits producers globally, and could accelerate the return of US shales if that return is delayed or re-opening boosts demand more than expected. We are raising our average Brent forecast for 2021 to $66.50 vs. $63/bbl earlier, with 2H21 prices averaging $70/bbl. We are moving our 2022 and 2023 forecasts up slightly to $74 and $81/bbl (Chart of the Week). WTI will trade $2-$3/bbl lower. We remain long the S&P GSCI Dynamic Roll Index ETF (COMT) and the S&P GSCI, expecting tight supply-demand balances to further steepen backwardations in forward curves. Feature While the forecasted rebound in global oil demand continues to drive expectations for higher prices, it is the production discipline of OPEC 2.0 and capital discipline imposed on US shale producers that has and will continue to super-charge the recovery of prices. Continued monetary accommodation and fiscal stimulus notwithstanding, realized global oil demand has mostly flatlined at ~ 96mm b/d following its surge in February, as uncertainty over COVID-19 containment keeps governments hesitant about reopening their economies too quickly. Stronger demand in Asia, led by China, has been offset by weaker demand in India and Japan, where COVID-19 remains a deterrent to re-opening and recovery. The recovery in DM demand generally stalled over this period even as vaccine availability increased (Chart 2). Chart of the WeekOPEC 2.0 Comfortable With Higher Prices Chart 2Global Demand Recovery Stalled That likely will change in 2H21, but it is not a given: The UK, which has been among the world leaders in COVID-19 containment and vaccinations, delayed its full reopening by a month – to July 19 – in an effort to gain more time to bolster its efforts against the Delta variant first identified in India. In the US, New York state lifted all COVID-19-induced restrictions and fully re-opened this week. Still, even in the US, unintended inventory accumulation in the gasoline market – just as the summer driving season should be kicking into high gear – suggests consumers remain cautious (Chart 3). Chart 3Unintended Inventory Accumulation in US Gasoline Market We continue to expect the re-opening of the US and Europe (including the UK) will boost DM demand in 2H21, and wider vaccine availability will boost EM oil demand later in the year and in 2022. For all of 2021, we have lifted our demand-growth estimate slightly to 5.3mm b/d from 5.2mm b/d last month. We expect global demand to grow 4.1mm b/d next year and 1.6mm b/d in 2023. Our 2021 estimates are in line with those of the US EIA and the IEA. OPEC is more bullish on demand recovery this year, expecting growth of 6mm b/d. We continue to believe the risk on the demand side remains to the upside; however, given continued uncertainty around global COVID-19 containment, we remain circumspect. Supply-Side Discipline Drives Oil Prices OPEC 2.0 remains committed to its production-management strategy that is keeping the level of supply below demand. Compliance with production cuts in May reportedly was at 115%, following a 114% rate in April.1 Core OPEC 2.0 – i.e., states with the capacity to increase production – is holding ~ 7mm b/d of spare capacity, according to the IEA, which will allow it to continue to perform its role as the dominant supplier in our modeling (Chart 4). Earlier this year, KSA's Energy Minister Abdulaziz bin Salman correctly recognized the turn in the market that likely ensures OPEC 2.0's dominance for the foreseeable future – i.e., the shift in focus of the US shale-oil producers from production for the sake of production to profitability.2 This is a trend that has been apparent for years as capital markets all but abandoned US shale-oil producers. Chart 4OPEC 2.0 Remains Dominant Producers outside OPEC 2.0 – what we refer to as the "price-taking cohort" – have prioritized shareholder interests as a result of this market pressure, and remain focused on sometimes-forced consolidation via M&A, which we have been expecting.3 The significance of this evolution of shale-oil production is difficult to overstate, particularly as the survivors of this consolidation will be firms with strong balance sheets and a focus on profitability, as is the case with any well-run manufacturing firm. We also expect large producers to opportunistically shed production assets to reduce their carbon footprints, so as to come into compliance with court-ordered emission reductions and shareholder demands to reduce pollution.4 With the oil majors like Shell, Equinor and Oxy divesting themselves of shale properties, production increasingly will be in the hands of firms driven by profitability.5 We expect US shale-oil production to end the year at 9.86mm b/d and to average 9.57mm b/d next year; however, as the shales become the marginal global supply, production could become more volatile (Chart 5). The consolidation of US production also will alter the profitability of firms continuing to operate in the shales. We expect breakeven costs to fall as acquired production by stronger firms results in high-grading of assets – only the most profitable will be produced given market-pricing dynamics – while less profitable acreage will be mothballed until prices support development(Chart 6). Chart 5US Producers Focus On Profitability Chart 6Shale Breakevens Likely Fall As Consolidation Picks Up Supply-Demand Balances Tightening The current round of M&A consolidation and OPEC 2.0's continued discipline lead us to expect continued tightening of global oil supply-demand balances this year and next (Chart 7). This will allow inventories to continue to draw, which will keep forward oil curves backwardated (Chart 8). Chart 7Supply-Demand Balances Will Continue To Tighten Chart 8Tighter Markets, Lower Stocks The critical factor here will be OPEC 2.0's continued calibration of supply in line with realized demand and the return of Iran as a bona fide exporter, which we expect later this year. OPEC 2.0's restoration of ~ 2mm b/d of supply will be done by the beginning of 3Q21, when we expect Iran to begin restoring production and visible exports (i.e., in addition to its under-the-radar sales presently). The return of Iranian supply – and a possible increase in Libyan output – will present some timing difficulties for OPEC 2.0's overall strategy, but they will be short-lived. We continue to monitor output to assess the evolution of balances (Table 1). Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) Investment Implications Oil demand will increase over the course of 2H21, as vaccines become more widely distributed globally, and the massive fiscal and monetary stimulus deployed worldwide kicks economic activity into high gear. On the supply side, markets will tighten on the back of continued restraint until Iranian barrels return to the market. The balance of risk is to the upside, particularly if the US and Iran are unable to agree terms that restore Iran as a bona fide exporter. In that case, the market tightening now under way will result in sharply higher prices. That said, realized demand growth has stalled over the past three months, which can be seen in unintended inventory accumulation in the US gasoline markets just as the summer driving season opens. We are raising our average Brent forecast for 2021 to $66.50 vs. $63/bbl earlier, with 2H21 prices averaging $70/bbl. We are moving our 2022 and 2023 forecasts up slightly as well to $74 and $81/bbl (Chart of the Week). WTI will trade $2-$3/bbl lower. We remain long the S&P GSCI Dynamic Roll Index ETF (COMT) and the S&P GSCI, expecting tight supply-demand balances to further steepen backwardations in forward curves. The big risk, as highlighted above, remains an acceleration of COVID-19 infections, hospitalizations and deaths, which force governments to delay re-opening or impose localized lockdowns once again. In this regard, KSA's strategy of calibrating its output to realized – vice forecasted – demand likely will remain in place.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com   Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish China's refinery throughput surged 4.4% to 14.3mm b/d in May, a record high that surpassed November 2020's previous record of 14.26mm b/d, according to S&P Platts Global. The increased runs were not unexpected, and were largely accounted for by state-owned refiners, which operated at 80% of capacity after coming out of turnaround season. Turnarounds will fully end in July. In addition, taxes on niche refined-product imports are due to increase, which will bolster refinery margins as inventories are worked down. China's domestic crude oil production was just slightly more than 4mm b/d. Base Metals: Bullish China's Standing Committee approved the release an undisclosed amount of its copper, aluminum and zinc stockpiles via an auction process in the near future, according to reuters.com. The government disclosed its intent on the website of National Food and Strategic Reserves Administration on Wednesday; however, specifics of the auction – volumes and auction schedule, in particular – were not disclosed. Prices had fallen ~ 9% from recent record highs in the lead-up to the announcement, which we flagged last month.6 Prices rallied from lows close to $4.34/lb on the COMEX Wednesday (Chart 9). Precious Metals: Bullish After a worse-than-expected US employment report, we do not expect the Federal Reserve to lift nominal interest rates in Wednesday’s Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting. The Fed will only raise rates once the US economy reaches a level consistent with its definition of "maximum employment." Wednesday’s interest rate decision will be crucial to gold prices. If the Fed does not mention asset tapering or an interest-rate hike, citing current inflation as a transitory phenomenon, gold demand and prices will rise. On the other hand, if the Fed indicates an interest rate hike sooner than the previously stated 2024, this will weigh on gold prices (Chart 10). Ags/Softs: Neutral As of June 13, 96% of the US corn crop had emerged vs. the five-year average of 91%, according to the USDA. 68% of the crop was rated in good to excellent condition, slightly below the five-year average. In the bean market, 94% of the crop was planted as of 13 June, vs. the five-year average of 88%. The Department reported 86% of the crop had emerged vs. the five-year average of 74%. According to the USDA, 52% of the bean crop was in good-to-excellent condition vs the five-year average of 72%. Chart 9 Chart 10   Footnotes 1     Please see OPEC+ complies with 115% of agreed oil curbs in May - source published by reuters.com on June 11, 2021. 2     Please see Saudis raise U.S. and Asian crude prices for April delivery published by worldoil.com on March 8, 2021. 3    Please see US shale consolidation continues as Independence scoops up Contango Oil & Gas published by S&P Global Platts on June 8, 2021. 4    We discuss this in A Perfect Energy Storm On The Way, published on June 3, 2021.  Climate activism will become increasingly important to the evolution of oil and natural gas production, and likely will lead to greater concentration of supply in the hands of OPEC 2.0 and privately held producers that do not answer to shareholders. 5    Please see Interest in Shell's Permian assets seen as a bellwether for shale demand published by reuters.com on June 15, 2021. 6    Please see Less Metal, More Jawboning, which we published on May 27, 2021.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2021 Summary of Closed Trades

Highlights The ECB did not tighten policy, despite its upgrade to the Euro Area growth outlook. The rise in the Eurozone inflation will be transitory. The Euro Area continues to suffer from excessive slack, and current price pressures are narrow. The ECB rightfully worries about tightening financial conditions by prematurely removing monetary accommodation. The ECB does not want to move ahead of the release of its Strategy Review. Global growth is likely to experience a temporary hiccup this summer. The ECB will only taper its PEPP program in Q1 2022 with no firm announcement until Q4 2021. Stay overweight European peripheral bonds. Despite a favorable 18-month outlook, European cyclical equities face pronounced risks this summer. Investors should raise cash levels for now to keep dry powder for this fall. Feature At its policy meeting last week, the ECB refrained from adjusting policy. While the euro and bund yields barely budged on the news, Italian and Greek spreads narrowed a few basis point, welcoming the dissipating risk of decreased bond purchases. The ECB’s decision is in line with the analysis we published two weeks ago, which argued against the Governing Council hinting at a tapering of asset purchases at its June meeting.  Growing signs that the expected pick-up in the Eurozone inflation will be transitory and that China’s credit slowdown will negatively impact Europe increase our confidence that the ECB will not announce any adjustment to its asset purchases until the fourth quarter of 2021. This setup supports European peripheral bonds. However, it also points to a correction in European cyclical stocks. The ECB Announcement ECB President Christine Lagarde highlighted the need for a steady hand, with no policy change. The risks to growth are now “broadly balanced,” but enough uncertainty remains that removing accommodation too early still creates a much poorer risk/reward trade-off than maintaining the current policy. The ECB boosted its growth forecast in 2021 and 2022. As Table 1A illustrates, 2021 GDP growth was raised to 4.6% from 4% in March, and 2022 GDP growth was raised to 4.7% from 4.1%. Activity was left unchanged at 2.1% in 2023. The ECB and this publication are on the same page; Euro Area domestic activity will enjoy a welcomed fillip as a result of the re-opening of the economy, a response to the improving pace of vaccination across the continent. Moreover, the NGEU program will start disbursing funds this summer and will add another boost to growth. Despite this significant upgrade to anticipated growth, the ECB kept its accelerated pace of asset purchases in place, at least through the summer, because the inflation outlook remains below its target of “close but below 2%” durably. As Table 1B shows, the ECB expects HICP to hit 1.9% in 2021, but it will subsequently slow to 1.5% in 2022 and 1.4% in 2021. Table 1AUpgraded Growth Forecast Table 1BBelow Target Inflation Bottom Line: The ECB did not taper its PEPP purchases, because of uncertainty and below-target inflation. Too Many Deflationary Risks The policy stance of the ECB is appropriate on three levels. First, the case for Eurozone inflation to be transitory is even stronger than it is in the US. Second, financial conditions could easily deteriorate if the ECB were to tighten policy too early. Finally, the Strategy Review due this fall further paralyzes the ECB for now. Transitory Inflation Headline and core CPI in the Eurozone will increase significantly in the coming months but will slow next year. The ECB’s core CPI measure, which excludes food and energy, is set to rise above the levels of the past 15 years. As the US re-opened, core CPI spiked on both yearly and monthly bases. The presence of bottlenecks across domestic and global supply chains indicates that the Euro Area will experience a similar outcome. Assuming that monthly inflation rates will settle between 0.2% and 0.25% for the remainder of 2021, by year’s end, annual inflation will stand between 2% and 2.5% (Chart 1). The European PMI indices confirm the upside for the Euro Area’s core inflation. Service inflation has been more stable than in the US, but goods inflation is rising in line with the higher manufacturing PMI (Chart 2). Services inflation will accelerate according to the services PMI. Chart 1Higher Inflation For 2021 Chart 12Accelerating Goods And Services Inflation   Surveys confirm that this summer’s re-opening will jumpstart inflation. The employment components of both the European Commission’s Retail and Services Surveys are consistent with a rapid pickup in employment (Chart 3). This will support household income and consumption. Additionally, the EC’s Consumer Survey indicates that European households are ready to increase their purchase of homes and cars compared to last year (Chart 3, bottom panel). When stronger demand meets supply bottlenecks, higher prices ensue. Already, the EC’s Retail Survey points to this outcome (Chart 4). Despite these inflationary developments, most economic forces indicate that the Eurozone’s core and headline CPI will not stay elevated for long. Chart 3Stronger Employment In Pandemic-Hit Sectors Chart 4Re-Opening Pricing Pressures Our Trimmed Mean Inflation measure for the Euro Area (which mimics the construction of the Cleveland Fed Trimmed-Mean CPI in the US) has weakened to 0.1% (Chart 5). Hence, underlying inflation trends are still muted and the recent uptick in core CPI reflects outliers, as has been the case in the US. The outlook for the components of CPI confirms that any uptick in Euro Area inflation will be temporary. Shelter inflation, which accounts for 24% of the ECB core CPI, will rise as the unemployment rate declines. However, the strength in the euro is limiting import prices, which will cap non-energy industrial goods inflation (Chart 6). Moreover, the peak in oil price annual increases points toward a rollover in transportation inflation. Together, these two categories represent almost 60% of the core CPI components. Chart 5Inflation Is Not Broad-Based Chart 6Key CPI Components Will Slow Labor market dynamics are also consistent with a temporary inflation spurt. Total hours worked remain 6.5% below their pre-COVID-19 summit and underneath the level congruent with full employment based on the size of the Eurozone’s working-age population (Chart 7). This model understates the slack in the labor market, because the reforms implemented in peripheral economies in the wake of last decade’s Euro Area crisis have brought down structural unemployment. Moreover, the chart shows that, after total hours worked return to their equilibrium, it still takes a few years before negotiated wages firm up. Even if labor shortages materialized earlier than we anticipate, it does not guarantee a pickup in core CPI. From 2016 to 2019, a large proportion of Euro Area businesses cited labor shortages as a key factor limiting production. Yet, despite both this perceived tightness and a trendless euro, core CPI remained flat, averaging 1% per annum (Chart 8). Chart 7Still Too Much Slack Chart 8Labor Shortages Do Not Guarantee Inflation Outside of the labor market, the amount of stimulus injections also argues against a permanent increase in European inflation. BCA’s US Bond Strategy, Global Investment Strategy, and Bank Credit Analyst services believe that the current spurt of US Inflation is temporary, despite vast monetary and fiscal stimuli. In relation to 2019 GDP, the ECB’s liquidity injections have been larger than those of the Fed; however, the US fiscal activism greatly outdid that of the Eurozone (Chart 9). Consequently, the combined monetary and fiscal impulse in the US is larger, and its greater weight toward fiscal policy makes it more inflationary. Thus, if the US is unlikely to see durable inflation, the Eurozone is even less at risk. Chart 9More Timid European Stimulus Chart 10Lower European Inflation Expectations Euro Area inflation expectations are also muted compared to that of the US (Chart 10). This development confirms that Eurozone policy is less inflationary than that of the US. It also creates an anchor for realized inflation, which will constrain the acceleration in the Euro Area CPI. Financial Conditions The ECB is deeply concerned about the impact of the hurried removal of monetary accommodation on the Eurozone’s financial conditions. Chart 11The Euro Is Deflationary The ECB does not want to see a much more rapid pace of appreciation in the euro. If it begins to slow its QE program when the Fed remains reluctant to talk about tapering, EUR/USD will surge. This will feed into weaker core inflation in the region. The ECB’s broad trade-weighted euro, based on 41 currencies, has already rallied to a record high. Thus, an even more rapid euro rally would spell deeper deflationary pressures in the region (Chart 11). Peripheral spreads remain fragile. The ECB will not want to cause a rapid widening of Italian, Spanish, or Greek government bond spreads by decreasing its asset purchases prematurely. Otherwise, the health of the banking sector in the periphery will once again deteriorate, which will both harm the recovery and ignite deflationary tendencies. Strategy Review The ECB’s Strategy Review also prevents the Governing Council from adjusting policy. The ECB will release its Strategy Review in September or October. This exercise could result in a change to the inflation target. In line with the new Fed Average Inflation Target, the ECB objective may become more symmetric. Inflation has not hit the ECB’s target of nearly 2% since 2012, and the level of HICP stands 8% below what the target implies. Therefore, if the ECB adjusts its target this fall, it will become harder to justify the removal of accommodation. Bottom Line: The ECB wants to avoid a repeat of its 2011 policy mistake, when it tightened policy prematurely and catalyzed a period of profound weakness in the European economy. Eurozone inflation will increase this year; however, this bump is transitory and inflation will once again decline in 2022. Moreover, the ECB rightfully worries about tightening financial conditions, because the euro is exerting profound deflationary forces on the continent and peripheral spreads remain fragile. Finally, the ongoing Strategy Review limits what the ECB can do until its results are known. Look Out For Q4 2021 The ECB will keep the PEPP program in place until March 2022, as was originally announced. Therefore, the ECB will only telegraph its intention after the summer and will most likely announce in December its firm commitment to begin tapering. The program size does not constrain the ECB. The total envelope of the PEPP stands at EUR1850 billion, and the ECB has already purchased EUR1100 billion (Chart 12). Based on the current accelerated pace of purchases, the ECB will run out of room in February 2022. Thus, the ECB continues to enjoy great flexibility without adjusting the PEPP program meaningfully. Chart 12Plentiful PEPP Room Chart 13China Will Act As A Drag Chart 14The Global Growth Tax Is Biding The expanding threat of a global growth scare will likely limit the ability of the ECB to tighten policy ahead of Q4. China’s credit impulse is decelerating, which portends an imminent peak in our BCA Global Industrial Activity Nowcast (Chart 13). Moreover, the rise in global yields since August 2020 and the rapid rally in oil prices since April 2020 are consistent with a meaningful deceleration in global manufacturing activity. The collapse in our Global Leading Economic Indicator Diffusion Index also hints at a coming global soft patch (Chart 14). Hence, the heightened sensitivity of the Euro Area economy to the global manufacturing sector  points toward softer-than-anticipated growth this summer. Historically, a deceleration of the Chinese PMI New Orders components warns of a decline in the 1-year forward EONIA (Chart 15). While the ECB is unlikely to flag a rate reduction in response to the upcoming global deterioration, it could respond by delaying its tapering decision. Ultimately, the accumulation of constraints and risks suggests that, even after the PEPP taper starts in 2022, the ECB will roll it into the older PSPP program. The ECB will want to keep a lid on peripheral spreads and guarantee that the euro does not melt up. Germany is unlikely to block this initiative, because its large Target 2 surplus means that problems in the periphery will percolate to the German banking system (Chart 16). Moreover, Germany’s export sector will benefit from a euro whose appreciation is contained. Chart 15Chinese New Orders Are Inconsistent With A Tighter ECB Chart 16Germany Does Not Want Italian Troubles Bottom Line: The ECB will not formally announce its tapering until December 2021. The ECB still has considerable room to continue using the PEPP program, and the global economy is likely to generate a negative growth surprise this summer. Instead, once the PEPP taper begins in 2022, the program will be rolled into the PSPP rather than being completely discarded. European policy, therefore, will remain accommodative. Investment Implications A dovish ECB is consistent with a continued overweight in European peripheral bonds. Chart 17European Peripheral Bonds Remain Attractive Portuguese, Greek, Spanish, and Italian bonds offer much more attractive valuations than the global or the European averages (Chart 17). The robust pace of ECB bond purchases, along with the increased fiscal risk-sharing created by the NGEU programs, will allow this value to continue to generate excess returns for investors. The growth scare, however, threatens our positive stance on European equities and cyclical stocks. We expect a correction to take place this summer or early fall. Thus, investors should raise cash now to buy cyclicals stocks once they correct. First, a deceleration in global growth catalyzed by a Chinese credit slowdown is consistent with an underperformance of cyclical stocks and European stocks in general. Second, the ECB Central Bank Monitor currently sports an elevated 2.1 reading, which is negative for cyclicals. A high reading for the monitor materializes when the Eurozone economy is experiencing strong momentum. However, markets are forward looking, and they rapidly internalize a brightened outlook. Once the price of cyclical stocks embed enough good news, they will start to generate poorer returns. Consequently, positive readings of the monitor are followed by negative relative excess returns for cyclical stocks, such as Industrials, Financials, Tech, and Consumer discretionary on both 6- and 12-month horizons (Table 2A). Table 2AThe Higher The ECB Monitor Rises, The More Poorly Cyclicals Perform The higher the ECB Monitor reaches, the worse the cyclical sectors’ excess returns become, even if the ECB does not tighten policy. Moreover, outliers do not distort the results of the study. The batting averages confirm that, the higher the ECB Monitor, the lower the probability of a subsequent outperformance of cyclicals. The reverse is true for defensive sectors. The higher the ECB Monitor climbs, the greater the subsequent 6- and 12-month relative excess returns for Telecommunication, Consumer Staples, Utilities, and Healthcare turn out. Their probability of outperformance also increases (Table 2B). Table 2BThe Higher The ECB Monitor Rises, The More Poorly Cyclicals Perform Investors should therefore curtail their exposure to risk over the coming months, tactically tilt toward some attractive defensive names and buy some hedges or raise some cash in order to participate more fully in the rest of the rally later this year. Bottom Line: An easy ECB policy favors an overweight stance in European peripheral bonds. However, if global growth slows, the current reading of our ECB Monitor is consistent with a period of underperformance for cyclical equities. Such underperformance should correlate with a corrective episode for the broad market as well as an underperformance of European stocks relative to the US. Investors, therefore, should raise cash levels and tactically move into attractive defensive names in order to buy back cyclicals later this year.   Mathieu Savary, Chief European Investment Strategist Mathieu@bcaresearch.com Currency Performance Fixed Income Performance Government Bonds Corporate Bonds Equity Performance Major Stock Indices Geographic Performance   Sector Performance​​​​​​​

Highlights Geopolitical risk is trickling back into financial markets. China’s fiscal-and-credit impulse collapsed again. The Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index is ticking back up after the sharp drop from 2020. All of our proprietary GeoRisk Indicators are elevated or rising. Geopolitical risk often rises during bull markets – the Geopolitical Risk Index can even spike without triggering a bear market or recession. Nevertheless a rise in geopolitical risk is positive for the US dollar, which happens to stand at a critical technical point. The macroeconomic backdrop for the dollar is becoming less bearish given China’s impending slowdown. President Biden’s trip to Europe and summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin will underscore a foreign policy of forming a democratic alliance to confront Russia and China, confirming the secular trend of rising geopolitical risk. Shift to a defensive tactical position. Feature Back in March 2017 we wrote a report, “Donald Trump Is Who We Thought He Was,” in which we reaffirmed our 2016 view that President Trump would succeed in steering the US in the direction of fiscal largesse and trade protectionism. Now it is time for us to do the same with President Biden. Our forecast for Biden rested on the same points: the US would pursue fiscal profligacy and mercantilist trade policy. The recognition of a consistent national policy despite extreme partisan divisions is a testament to the usefulness of macro analysis and the geopolitical method. Trump stole the Democrats’ thunder with his anti-austerity and anti-free trade message. Biden stole it back. It was the median voter in the Rust Belt who was calling the shots all along (after all, Biden would still have won the election without Arizona and Georgia). We did make some qualifications, of course. Biden would maintain a hawkish line on China and Russia but he would reject Trump’s aggressive foreign and trade policy when it came to US allies.1 Biden would restore President Obama’s policy on Iran and immigration but not Russia, where there would be no “diplomatic reset.” And Biden’s fiscal profligacy, unlike Trump’s, would come with tax hikes on corporations and the wealthy … even though they would fall far short of offsetting the new spending. This is what brings us to this week’s report: New developments are confirming this view of the Biden administration. Geopolitical Risk And Bull Markets Chart 1Global Geopolitical Risk And The Dollar In recent weeks Biden has adopted a hawkish policy on China, lowered tensions with Europe, and sought to restore President Obama’s policy of détente with Iran. The jury is still out on relations with Russia – Biden will meet with Putin on June 16 – but we do not expect a 2009-style “reset” that increases engagement. Still, it is too soon to declare a “Biden doctrine” of foreign policy because Biden has not yet faced a major foreign crisis. A major test is coming soon. Biden’s decision to double down on hawkish policy toward China will bring ramifications. His possible deal with Iran faces a range of enemies, including within Iran. His reduction in tensions with Russia is not settled yet. While the specific source and timing of his first major foreign policy crisis is impossible predict, structural tensions are rebuilding. An aggregate of our 13 market-based GeoRisk indicators suggests that global political risk is skyrocketing once again. A sharp spike in the indicator, which is happening now, usually correlates with a dollar rally (Chart 1). This indicator is mean-reverting since it measures the deviation of emerging market currencies, or developed market equity markets, from underlying macroeconomic fundamentals. The implication is positive for the dollar, although the correlation is not always positive. Looking at both the DXY’s level and its rate of change shows periods when the global risk indicator fell yet the dollar stayed strong – and vice versa. The big increase in the indicator over the past week stems mostly from Germany, South Korea, Brazil, and Australia, though all 13 of the indicators are now either elevated or rising, including the China/Taiwan indicators. Some of the increase is due to base effects. As global exports recover, currencies and equities that we monitor are staying weaker than one would expect. This causes the relevant BCA GeoRisk indicator to rise. Base effects from the weak economy in June 2020 will fall out in coming weeks. But the aggregate shows that all of the indicators are either high or rising and, on a country by country level, they are now in established uptrends even aside from base effects. Chart 2Global Policy Uncertainty Revives Meanwhile the global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index is recovering across the world after the drop in uncertainty following the COVID-19 crisis (Chart 2). Policy uncertainty is also linked to the dollar and this indicator shows that it is rising on a secular basis. The Geopolitical Risk Index, maintained by Matteo Iacoviello and a group of academics affiliated with the Policy Uncertainty Index, is also in a secular uptrend, although cyclically it has not recovered from the post-COVID drop-off. It is sensitive to traditional, war-linked geopolitical risk as reported in newspapers. By contrast our proprietary indicators are sensitive to market perceptions of any kind of risk, not just political, both domestic and international. A comparison of the Geopolitical Risk Index with the S&P 500 over the past century shows that a geopolitical crisis may occur at the beginning of a business cycle but it may not be linked with a recession or bear market. Risk can rise, even extravagantly, during economic expansions without causing major pullbacks. But a crisis event certainly can trigger a recession or bear market, particularly if it is tied to the global oil supply, as in the early 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s (Chart 3). Chart 3Secular Rise In Geopolitical Risk Soon To Reassert Itself While geopolitical risk is normally positive for the dollar, the macroeconomic backdrop is negative. The dollar’s attempt to recover earlier this year faltered. This underlying cyclical bearish dollar trend is due to global economic recovery – which will continue – and extravagant American monetary expansion and budget deficits. This is why we have preferred gold – it is a hedge against both geopolitical risk and inflation expectations. Tactically this year we have refrained from betting against the dollar except when building up some safe-haven positions like Japanese yen. Over the medium and long term we expect geopolitical risk to put a floor under the greenback. The bottom line is that the US dollar is at a critical technical crossroads where it could break out or break down. Macro factors suggest a breakdown but the recovery of global policy uncertainty and geopolitical risk suggests the opposite. We remain neutral. A final quantitative indicator of the recovery of geopolitical risk is the performance of global aerospace and defense stocks (Chart 4). Defense shares are rising in absolute and relative terms. Chart 4Another Sign Of Geopolitical Risk: Defense Stocks Outperform As Virus Ebbs And Military Spending Surges Can The WWII Peace Be Prolonged? Qualitative assessments of geopolitical risk are necessary to explain why risk is on a secular upswing – why drops in the quantitative indicators are temporary and the troughs keep getting higher. Great nations are returning to aggressive competition after a period of relative peace and prosperity. Over the past two decades Russia and China took advantage of America’s preoccupations with the Middle East, the financial crisis, and domestic partisanship in order to build up their global influence. The result is a world in which authority is contested. The current crisis is not merely about the end of the post-Cold War international order. It is much scarier than that. It is about the decay of the post-WWII international order and the return of the centuries-long struggle for global supremacy among Great Powers. The US and European political establishments fear the collapse of the WWII settlement in the face of eroding legitimacy at home and rising challenges from abroad. The 1945 peace settlement gave rise to both a Cold War and a diplomatic system, including the United Nations Security Council, for resolving differences among the great powers. It also gave rise to European integration and various institutions of American “liberal hegemony.” It is this system of managing great power struggle, and not the post-Cold War system of American domination, that lies in danger of unraveling. This is evident from the following points: American preeminence only lasted fifteen years, or at best until the 2008 Georgia war and global financial crisis. The US has been an incoherent wild card for at least 13 years now, almost as long as it was said to be the global empire. Russian antagonism with the West never really ended. In retrospect the 1990s were a hiatus rather than a conclusion of this conflict. China’s geopolitical rise has thawed the frozen conflicts in Asia from the 1940s-50s – i.e. the Chinese civil war, the Hong Kong and Taiwan Strait predicaments, the Korean conflict, Japanese pacifism, and regional battles for political influence and territory. Europe’s inward focus and difficulty projecting power have been a constant, as has its tendency to act as a constraint on America. Only now is Europe getting closer to full independence (which helped trigger Brexit). Geopolitical pressures will remain historically elevated for the foreseeable future because the underlying problem is whether great power struggle can be contained and major wars can be prevented. Specifically the question is whether the US can accommodate China’s rise – and whether China can continue to channel its domestic ambitions into productive uses (i.e. not attempts to create a Greater Chinese and then East Asian empire). The Great Recession killed off the “East Asia miracle” phase of China’s growth. Potential GDP is declining, which undermines social stability and threatens the Communist Party’s legitimacy. The renminbi is on a downtrend that began with the Xi Jinping era. The sharp rally during the COVID crisis is over, as both domestic and international pressures are rising again (Chart 5). Chart 5Biden Administration Review Of China Policy: More China Bashing While the data for China’s domestic labor protests is limited in extent, we can use it as a proxy for domestic instability in lieu of official statistics that were tellingly discontinued back in 2005. The slowdown in credit growth and the cyclical sectors of the economy suggest that domestic political risk is underrated in the lead up to the 2022 leadership rotation (Chart 6). Chart 6China's Domestic Political Risk Will Rise Chart 7Steer Clear Of Taiwan Strait The increasing focus on China’s access to key industrial and technological inputs, the tensions over the Taiwan Strait, and the formation of a Russo-Chinese bloc that is excluded from the West all suggest that the risk to global stability is grave and historic. It is reminiscent of the global power struggles of the seventeenth through early twentieth centuries. The outperformance of Taiwanese equities from 2019-20 reflects strong global demand for advanced semiconductors but the global response to this geopolitical bottleneck is to boost production at home and replace Taiwan. Therefore Taiwan’s comparative advantage will erode even as geopolitical risk rises (Chart 7). The drop in geopolitical tensions during COVID-19 is over, as highlighted above. With the US, EU, and other countries launching probes into whether the virus emerged from a laboratory leak in China – contrary to what their publics were told last year – it is likely that a period of national recriminations has begun. There is a substantial risk of nationalism, xenophobia, and jingoism emerging along with new sources of instability. An Alliance Of Democracies The Biden administration’s attempt to restore liberal hegemony across the world requires a period of alliance refurbishment with the Europeans. That is the purpose of his current trip to the UK, Belgium, and Switzerland. But diplomacy only goes so far. The structural factor that has changed is the willingness of the West to utilize government in the economic sphere, i.e. fiscal proactivity. Infrastructure spending and industrial policy, at the service of national security as well as demand-side stimulus, are the order of the day. This revolution in economic policy – a return to Big Government in the West – poses a threat to the authoritarian powers, which have benefited in recent decades by using central strategic planning to take advantage of the West’s democratic and laissez-faire governance. If the West restores a degree of central government – and central coordination via NATO and other institutions – then Beijing and Moscow will face greater pressure on their economies and fewer strategic options. About 16 American allies fall short of the 2% of GDP target for annual defense spending – ranging from Italy to Canada to Germany to Japan. However, recent trends show that defense spending did indeed increase during the Trump administration (Chart 8). Chart 8NATO Boosts Defense Spending The European Union as a whole has added $50 billion to the annual total over the past five years. A discernible rise in defense spending is taking place even in Germany (Chart 9). The same point could be made for Japan, which is significantly boosting defense spending (as a share of output) after decades of saying it would do so without following through. A major reason for the American political establishment’s rejection of President Trump was the risk he posed to the trans-Atlantic alliance. A decline in NATO and US-EU ties would dramatically undermine European security and ultimately American security. Hence Biden is adopting the Trump administration’s hawkish approach to trade with China but winding down the trade war with Europe (Chart 10). Chart 9Europe Spending More On Guns Chart 10US Ends Trade War With Europe? A multilateral deal aimed at setting a floor in global corporate taxes rates is intended to prevent the US and Europe from undercutting each other – and to ensure governments have sufficient funding to maintain social spending and reduce income inequality (Chart 11). Inequality is seen as having vitiated sociopolitical stability and trust in government in the democracies. Chart 11‘Global’ Corporate Tax Deal Shows Return Of Big Government, Attempt To Reduce Inequality In The West Risks To Biden’s Diplomacy It is possible that Biden’s attempt to restore US alliances will go nowhere over the course of his four-year term in office. The Europeans may well remain risk averse despite their initial signals of willingness to work with Biden to tackle China’s and Russia’s challenges to the western system. The Germans flatly rejected both Biden and Trump on the Nord Stream II natural gas pipeline linkage with Russia, which is virtually complete and which strengthens the foundation of Russo-German engagement (more on this below). The US’s lack of international reliability – given the potential of another partisan reversal in four years – makes it very hard for countries to make any sacrifices on behalf of US initiatives. The US’s profound domestic divisions have only slightly abated since the crises of 2020 and could easily flare up again. A major outbreak of domestic instability could distract Biden from the foreign policy game.2 However, American incapacity is a risk, not our base case, over the coming years. We expect the US economic stimulus to stabilize the country enough that the internal political crisis will be contained and the US will continue to play a global role. The “Civil War Lite” has mostly concluded, excepting one or two aftershocks, and the US is entering into a “Reconstruction Lite” era. The implication is negative for China and Russia, as they will now have to confront an America that, if not wholly unified, is at least recovering. Congress’s impending passage of the Innovation and Competition Act – notably through regular legislative order and bipartisan compromise – is case in point. The Senate has already passed this approximately $250 billion smorgasbord of industrial policy, supply chain resilience, and alliance refurbishment. It will allot around $50 billion to the domestic semiconductor industry almost immediately as well as $17 billion to DARPA, $81 billion for federal research and development through the National Science Foundation, which includes $29 billion for education in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, and other initiatives (Table 1). Table 1Peak Polarization: US Congress Passes Bipartisan ‘Innovation And Competition Act’ To Counter China With the combination of foreign competition, the political establishment’s need to distract from domestic divisions, and the benefit of debt monetization courtesy of the Federal Reserve, the US is likely to achieve some notable successes in pushing back against China and Russia. On the diplomatic front, the US will meet with some success because the European and Asian allies do not wish to see the US embrace nationalism and isolationism. They have their own interests in deterring Russia and China. Lack Of Engagement With Russia Russian leadership has dealt with the country’s structural weaknesses by adopting aggressive foreign policy. At some point either the weaknesses or the foreign policy will create a crisis that will undermine the current regime – after all, Russia has greatly lagged the West in economic development and quality of life (Chart 12). But President Putin has been successful at improving the country’s wealth and status from its miserably low base in the 1990s and this has preserved sociopolitical stability so far. Chart 12Russia's Domestic Political Risk It is debatable whether US policy toward Russia ever really changed under President Trump, but there has certainly not been a change in strategy from Russia. Thus investors should expect US-Russia antagonism to continue after Biden’s summit with Putin even if there is an ostensible improvement. The fundamental purpose of Putin’s strategy has been to salvage the Russian empire after the Soviet collapse, ensure that all world powers recognize Russia’s veto power over major global policies and initiatives, and establish a strong strategic position for the coming decades as Russia’s demographic decline takes its toll. A key component of the strategy has been to increase economic self-sufficiency and reduce exposure to US sanctions. Since the invasion of Ukraine in 2014, Putin has rapidly increased Russia’s foreign exchange reserves so as to buffer against shocks (Chart 13). Chart 13Russia Fortified Against US Sanctions Putin has also reduced Russia’s reliance on the US dollar to about 22% (Chart 14), primarily by substituting the euro and gold. Russia will not be willing or able to purge US dollars from its system entirely but it has been able to limit America’s ability to hurt Russia by constricting access to dollars and the dollar-based global financial architecture. Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov highlighted this process ahead of the Biden-Putin summit by declaring that the National Wealth Fund will divest of its remaining $40 billion of its US dollar holdings. Chart 14Russia Diversifies From USD In general this year, Russia is highlighting its various advantages: its resilience against US sanctions, its ability to re-invade Ukraine, its ability to escalate its military presence in Belarus and the Black Sea, and its ability to conduct or condone cyberattacks on vital American food and fuel supplies (Chart 15). Meanwhile the US is suffering from deep political divisions at home and strategic incoherence abroad and these are only starting to be mended by domestic economic stimulus and alliance refurbishment. Chart 15Cyber Security Stocks Recover Europe’s risk-aversion when it comes to strategic confrontation with Russia, and the lack of stability in US-Russia relations, means that investors should not chase Russian currency or financial assets amid the cyclical commodity rally. Investors should also expect risk premiums to remain high in developing European economies relative to their developed counterparts. This is true despite the fact that developed market Europe’s outperformance relative to emerging Europe recently peaked and rolled over. From a technical perspective this outperformance looks to subside but geopolitical tensions can easily escalate in the near term, particularly in advance of the Russian and German elections in September (Chart 16). Chart 16Developed Markets In Europe Will Outperform Emerging Europe Unless Russian Geopolitical Risk Abates Developed Europe trades in line with EUR-RUB and these pair trades all correspond closely to geopolitical tensions with Russia (Chart 17). A notable exception is the UK, whose stock market looks attractive relative to eastern Europe and is much more secure from any geopolitical crisis in this region (Chart 17, bottom panel). The pound is particularly attractive against the Czech koruna, as Russo-Czech tensions have heated up in advance of October’s legislative election there (Chart 18). Chart 17Long UK Versus Eastern Europe Chart 18Long GBP Versus CZK Meanwhile Russia and China have grown closer together out of strategic necessity. Germany’s Election And Stance Toward Russia Germany’s position on Russia is now critical. The decision to complete the Nord Stream II pipeline against American wishes either means that the Biden administration can be safely ignored – since it prizes multilateralism and alliances above all things and is therefore toothless when opposed – or it means that German will aim to compensate the Americans in some other area of strategic concern. Washington is clearly attempting to rally the Germans to its side with regard to putting pressure on China over its trade practices and human rights. This could be the avenue for the US and Germany to tighten their bond despite the new milestone in German-Russia relations. The US may call on Germany to stand up for eastern Europe against Russian aggression but on that front Berlin will continue to disappoint. It has no desire to be drawn into a new Cold War given that the last one resulted in the partition of Germany. The implication is negative for China on one hand and eastern Europe on the other. Germany’s federal election on September 26 will be important because it will determine who will succeed Chancellor Angela Merkel, both in Germany and on the European and global stage. The ruling Christian Democratic Union (CDU) is hoping to ride Merkel’s coattails to another term in charge of the government. But they are likely to rule alongside the Greens, who have surged in opinion polls in recent years. The state election in Saxony-Anhalt over the weekend saw the CDU win 37% of the popular vote, better than any recent result, while Germany’s second major party, the Social Democrats, continued their decline (Table 2). The far-right Alternative for Germany won 21% of the vote, a downshift from 2016, while the Greens won 6% of the vote, a slight improvement from 2016. All parties underperformed opinion polling except the CDU (Chart 19). Table 2Saxony-Anhalt Election Results Chart 19Germany: Conservatives Outperform In Final State Election Before Federal Vote, But Face Challenges Chart 20Germany: Greens Will Outperform in 2021 Vote The implication is still not excellent for the CDU. Saxony-Anhalt is a middling German state, a CDU stronghold, and a state with a popular CDU leader. So it is not representative of the national campaign ahead of September. The latest nationwide opinion polling puts the CDU at around 25% support. They are neck-and-neck with the Greens. The country’s left- and right-leaning ideological blocs are also evenly balanced in opinion polls (Chart 20). A potential concern for the CDU is that the Free Democratic Party is ticking up in national polls, which gives them the potential to steal conservative votes. Betting markets are manifestly underrating the chance that Annalena Baerbock and the Greens take over the chancellorship (Charts 21A and 21B). We still give a subjective 35% chance that the Greens will lead the next German government without the CDU, a 30% that the Greens will lead with the CDU, and a 25% chance that the CDU retains power but forms a coalition with the Greens. A coalition government would moderate the Greens’ ambitious agenda of raising taxes on carbon emissions, wealth, the financial sector, and Big Tech. The CDU has already shifted in a pro-environmental, fiscally proactive direction. Chart 21AGerman Greens Will Recover Chart 21BGerman Greens Still Underrated No matter what the German election will support fiscal spending and European solidarity, which is positive for the euro and regional equities over the next 12 to 24 months. However, the Greens would pursue a more confrontational stance toward Russia, a petro-state whose special relations with the German establishment have impeded the transition to carbon neutrality. Latin America’s Troubles A final aspect of Biden’s agenda deserves some attention: immigration and the Mexican border. Obviously this one of the areas where Biden starkly differs from Trump, unlike on Europe and China, as mentioned above. Vice President Kamala Harris recently came back from a trip to Guatemala and Mexico that received negative media attention. Harris has been put in charge of managing the border crisis, the surge in immigrant arrivals over 2020-21, both to give her some foreign policy experience and to manage the public outcry. Despite telling immigrants explicitly “Do not come,” Harris has no power to deter the influx at a time when the US economy is fired up on historic economic stimulus and the Democratic Party has cut back on all manner of border and immigration enforcement. From a macro perspective the real story is the collapse of political and geopolitical risk in Mexico. From 2016-20 Mexico faced a protectionist onslaught from the Trump administration and then a left-wing supermajority in Congress. But these structural risks have dissipated with the USMCA trade deal and the inability of President Andrés Manuel López Obrador to follow through with anti-market reforms, as we highlighted in reports in October and April. The midterm election deprived the ruling MORENA party of its single-party majority in the Chamber of Deputies, the lower house of the legislature (Chart 22). AMLO is now politically constrained – he will not be able to revive state control over the energy and power sectors. Chart 22Mexican Midterm Election Constrained Left-Wing Populism, Political Risk Chart 23Buy Mexico (And Canada) On US Stimulus American monetary and fiscal stimulus, and the supply-chain shift away from China, also provide tailwinds for Mexico. In short, the Mexican election adds the final piece to one of our key themes stemming from the Biden administration, US populism, and US-China tensions: favor Mexico and Canada (Chart 23). A further implication is that Mexico should outperform Brazil in the equity space. Brazil is closely linked to China’s credit cycle and metals prices, which are slated to turn down as a result of Chinese policy tightening. Mexico is linked to the US economy and oil prices (Chart 24). While our trade stopped out at -5% last week we still favor the underlying view. Brazilian political risk and unsustainable debt dynamics will continue to weigh on the currency and equities until political change is cemented in the 2022 election and the new government is then forced by financial market riots into undertaking structural reforms. Chart 24Brazil's Troubles Not Truly Over - Mexico Will Outperform Elsewhere in Latin America, the rise of a militant left-wing populist to the presidency in a contested election in Peru, and the ongoing social unrest in Colombia and Chile, are less significant than the abrupt slowdown in China’s credit growth (Charts 25A and 25B). According to our COVID-19 Social Stability Index, investors should favor Mexico. Turkey, the Philippines, South Africa, Colombia, and Brazil are the most likely to see substantial social instability according to this ranking system (Table 3). Chart 25AMexico To Outperform Latin America Chart 25BChina’s Slowdown Will Hit South America Table 3Post-COVID Emerging Market Social Unrest Only Just Beginning Investment Takeaways Close long emerging markets relative to developed markets for a loss of 6.8% – this is a strategic trade that we will revisit but it faces challenges in the near term due to China’s slowdown (Chart 26). Go long Mexican equities relative to emerging markets on a strategic time frame. Our long Mexico / short Brazil trade hit the stop loss at 5% but the technical profile and investment thesis are still sound over the short and medium term. Chart 26China Slowdown, Geopolitical Risk Will Weigh On Emerging Markets Chart 27Relative Uncertainty And Safe Havens China’s sharp fiscal-and-credit slowdown suggests that investors should reduce risk exposure, take a defensive tactical positioning, and wait for China’s policy tightening to be priced before buying risky assets. Our geopolitical method suggests the dollar will rise, while macro fundamentals are becoming less dollar-bearish due to China. We are neutral for now and will reassess for our third quarter forecast later this month. If US policy uncertainty falls relative to global uncertainty then the EUR-USD will also fall and safe-haven assets like Swiss bonds will gain a bid (Chart 27). Gold is an excellent haven amid medium-term geopolitical and inflation risks but we recommend closing our long silver trade for a gain of 4.5%. Disfavor emerging Europe relative to developed Europe, where heavy discounts can persist due to geopolitical risk premiums. We will reassess after the Russian Duma election in September. Go long GBP-CZK. Close the Euro “laggards” trade. Go long an equal-weighted basket of euros and US dollars relative to the Chinese renminbi. Short the TWD-USD on a strategic basis. Prefer South Korea to Taiwan – while the semiconductor splurge favors Taiwan, investors should diversify away from the island that lies at the epicenter of global geopolitical risk. Close long defense relative to cyber stocks for a gain of 9.8%. This was a geopolitical “back to work” trade but the cyber rebound is now significant enough to warrant closing this trade.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Trump’s policy toward Russia is an excellent example of geopolitical constraints. Despite any personal preferences in favor of closer ties with Russia, Trump and his administration ultimately reaffirmed Article 5 of NATO, authorized the sale of lethal weapons to Ukraine, and deployed US troops to Poland and the Czech Republic. 2 As just one example, given the controversial and contested US election of 2020, it is possible that a major terrorist attack could occur. Neither wing of America’s ideological fringes has a monopoly on fanaticism and violence. Meanwhile foreign powers stand to benefit from US civil strife. A truly disruptive sequence of events in the US in the coming years could lead to greater political instability in the US and a period in which global powers would be able to do what they want without having to deal with Biden’s attempt to regroup with Europe and restore some semblance of a global police force. The US would fall behind in foreign affairs, leaving power vacuums in various regions that would see new sources of political and geopolitical risk crop up. Then the US would struggle to catch up, with another set of destabilizing consequences.