Semiconductors
Highlights Supply-side pressures should abate over the coming months as semiconductor availability improves, transportation bottlenecks ease, energy prices recede, and more workers enter the labor force. The respite from inflation will be temporary, however. The combination of easy fiscal and monetary policies will cause unemployment to fall below its equilibrium level in the US, and eventually, in most major economies. Unlike in the late 1990s, when rising wages were counterbalanced by robust productivity gains, most of the recent rebound in US productivity growth will prove to be illusory. US inflation will follow a “two steps up, one step down” trajectory. We are currently at the top of those two steps, but rising unit labor costs will eventually drive inflation higher. Rather than fretting that the Federal Reserve will keep rates too low for too long, investors are worried that the Fed will tighten too much. This is a key reason why the 20-year/30-year Treasury slope has inverted. Such an inversion does not make sense to us. Hence, we are initiating a trade going long the 20-year bond versus the 30-year bond. Go short the 10-year Gilt on any break below 0.85%. UK real bond yields are amongst the lowest in the world. The Bank of England will eventually have to turn more hawkish, which will support the beleaguered pound. Structurally higher bond yields will benefit value stocks. Banks stand to gain from rising bond yields while tech could suffer. The eventual re-emergence of supply-side pressures will catalyze more investment spending. This will bolster industrial stocks. The Supply Side Matters, Again Savings glut, secular stagnation; call it what you will, but for the better part of two decades, the global economy has faced a chronic shortfall of aggregate demand. Times are changing, however. The predominant problem these days is not a lack of spending; it is a lack of production. Unlike during the Global Financial Crisis – when worries about moral hazard complicated efforts to bail out homeowners and banks – the victims of the pandemic elicited sympathy. As a result, governments in developed economies rolled out a slew of measures to support workers and businesses. Thanks to bountiful fiscal transfers, households in the US have accrued $2.2 trillion in income since the start of the pandemic, about $1.2 trillion more than one would have expected based on the pre-pandemic trend (Chart 1). With many services unavailable, consumers diverted spending towards manufactured goods. At first, sellers were able to dip into their inventories to meet rising demand. By early this year, however, inventories had been depleted (Chart 2). Shortages began to pop up across much of the global supply chain. Chart 1Stimulus-Supported Income Growth Boosted Goods Consumption Chart 2The Pandemic Depleted Inventories While today’s empty warehouses can be largely attributed to surging demand for goods, supply-side disruptions have also played an important role. Four disruptions stand out: 1) semiconductor shortages; 2) transportation bottlenecks; 3) inadequate energy supplies; and 4) reduced labor force participation. Let us examine all four in turn. Semiconductor Shortages Chart 3Car Prices Have Jumped The global supply chain was not equipped to handle the dislocations caused by the pandemic. The combination of just-in-time inventory systems and far-flung supplier networks ensured that bottlenecks in one part of the global economy quickly filtered down to other parts of the economy. Few industries are as important as semiconductors. The auto sector has felt the brunt of the chip shortage. Both new and used vehicle prices have soared as dealer lots have emptied out (Chart 3). The drop in vehicle spending alone shaved 2.4 percentage points off US real GDP growth in the third quarter. Semiconductor makers have ramped up production to meet growing demand. The US Census Bureau’s Quarterly Survey of Plant Capacity Utilization showed that semiconductor plants operated an average of 73 hours per week in the first half of this year, up from around 45-to-50 hours prior to the pandemic (Chart 4). Chip production in Northeast Asia has rebounded (Chart 5). Southeast Asian production dropped in August due to Covid lockdowns, with semiconductor exports falling by over a third in Malaysia and Vietnam. Fortunately, since then, a decline in Covid cases and rising vaccination rates have spurred a recovery throughout the region. Chart 4Chipmakers Are Working Overtime Chart 5Semiconductor Production Has Accelerated In Northeast Asia Chart 6Memory Chip Prices Are Declining Commentary from semiconductor companies and automakers suggest that the chip shortage will ease over the coming months. In an auspicious sign, US auto sales jumped to 13.1 million in October from 12.3 million in September. Memory chip prices are also falling (Chart 6). Nevertheless, the overall chip market is unlikely to return to balance until 2023. Transportation Bottlenecks Unlike semiconductors and high-end electronics, which usually arrive by air, bulkier items such as furniture, sporting goods, and housing appliances typically arrive by sea. Port congestion, insufficient warehouse capacity, and a lack of truck chassis on which to place containers have all contributed to transportation bottlenecks. Chart 7Transportation Bottlenecks: Past The Worst? As with the semiconductor shortage, we are probably past the worst point in the shipping crisis. Drewry’s composite World Container Index has edged down 11% from its highs, although it is still up more than three-fold from mid-2020 levels (Chart 7). The easing in container shipping costs follows a dramatic 47% decline in the Baltic Dry Index since early October. The number of ships waiting to unload cargo off the coast of Los Angeles and Long Beach remains near record highs (Chart 8). Port congestion should ease over the next few months. US port throughput usually falls starting in the late fall and remains weak during the winter months, bottoming shortly after the Chinese New Year. If throughput remains elevated near current levels this year, this should be enough to clear much of the backlog. Looking further out, shipping costs could face additional downward pressure. Chart 9 shows that the number of container ships on order has risen to a 10-year high; these new ships will be delivered over the next two years. Chart 8Port Congestion Should Ease Over The Coming Months Chart 9Shipbuilders Are Busy Inadequate Energy Supplies After a torrid rally since the start of the year, energy prices have come off their highs. The price of Brent oil has dipped 6% from its October peak. US natural gas prices have retreated 11%. Natural gas prices in Europe have fallen 37%. The biggest move has been in coal prices, which have dropped 36% over the past two weeks alone. Futures curves are pricing in further declines in key energy prices (Chart 10). BCA’s Commodity and Energy Strategy service expects energy prices to soften over the next 12 months, but not as much as markets are discounting. Their latest forecast calls for the price of Brent crude to average $81/bbl in 2021Q4, $80/bbl in 2022 (versus market expectations of $77/bbl), and $81/bbl in 2023 (versus market expectations of $71/bbl). As we discussed a few weeks ago, years of underinvestment have led to tight supply conditions across the entire energy complex (Chart 11). Proven global oil reserves increased by only 6% between 2010 and 2020, having risen by 26% over the preceding decade. Gas reserves followed a similar trajectory, increasing by only 5% between 2010 and 2020 compared to 30% over the prior ten years (Chart 12). With little spare capacity, energy markets have become increasingly vulnerable to shocks. A cold snap across the Northern Hemisphere this spring depleted natural gas supplies, while a lack of wind reduced energy production by European wind farms. Increased gas imports from Russia could have mitigated the problem, but the dispute over the Nord Stream 2 pipeline prevented that from happening. The pipeline is popular with German voters (Chart 13). BCA’s geopolitical team expects it to be approved, a welcome development given that La Niña is highly likely to lead to colder-than-normal temperatures across northern Europe this winter. China has also restarted 170 coal mines and will probably begin re-importing Australian coal. Beijing is also allowing utilities to charge higher prices, which should help stave off bankruptcies across the sector. These measures should help mitigate China’s energy crisis. Chart 14US Rig Count Has Risen From Low Levels A bit more oil production will also help. The US rig count, while still far below its 2014 highs, has doubled since last year (Chart 14). BCA’s commodity strategists expect output in the Lower 48 states to average 9.5mm b/d in 2022 and 10mm b/d in 2023, versus 2021 production levels of 9.0mm b/d. Nevertheless, shale producers are a lot more disciplined these days. Debt reduction and cash flow generation are now the top priorities. This implies that fairly high oil prices may be necessary to catalyze additional investment in the industry. Reduced Labor Force Participation Despite the rapid economic recovery, US employment remains 5 million below its pre-pandemic peak. One would not know this from the survey data, however. A record 51% of small businesses expressed difficulty finding qualified workers in the October NFIB survey. The share of households reporting that jobs are plentiful versus hard-to-get has returned to its 2000 highs. Both the quits rate and the job openings rate are well above their pre-pandemic levels (Chart 15). A wave of early retirement accounts for some of the apparent labor market tightness. About 1.3 million more workers have retired since the pandemic began than one would have expected based on demographic trends. Yet, there is more to the story than that. The labor force participation rate for workers aged 25-to-54 has not fully recovered; the employment-to-population ratio for that age cohort is still 2.5 percentage points below pre-pandemic levels (Chart 16). Chart 16Labor Force Participation Has Room To Rise There is considerable uncertainty about how many workers will re-enter the labor force over the coming months. On the one hand, the expiration of enhanced unemployment benefits could prod more workers into the job market. Diminished anxiety about the virus should help. While the number has fallen by half, there are still 2.5 million people not working due to concerns about getting or spreading Covid-19 (Chart 17). According to Boston College’s Center for Retirement Research, the retirement rate rose more for older lower-income workers than higher-income workers (Chart 18). Some of these retirees may decide to re-enter the labor force. Chart 17Less Anxiety About The Coronavirus Should Increase Labor Supply On the other hand, the imposition of vaccine mandates could reduce labor supply. About 100 million US workers are currently subject to the mandates. According to the Census Household Pulse Survey, about 8 million of them are unvaccinated and attest that “they will definitely not get the vaccine.” Perhaps the biggest question mark is over whether the pandemic will lead to permanent changes in peoples’ perspectives on the optimal work/life balance. High burnout rates (especially in the health care sector), a reluctance to restart the daily commute to the office, and the desire to spend more time with family have all contributed to what some commentators have dubbed The Great Resignation. Ultimately, the deciding factor may be wages. Wage growth accelerated during the late 1990s as the labor market tightened (Chart 19). This drew a lot of people – especially less-skilled workers – into the labor force. Recently, wage growth has exploded at the bottom end of the income distribution, and our guess is that this will entice more people to seek employment (Chart 20). Chart 19Wage Growth Accelerated During The Late 1990s As The Labor Market Tightened Chart 20Wages At The Bottom End Of The Income Distribution Are Rising Briskly Will Higher Productivity Growth Mitigate Supply-Side Pressures? The late 1990s saw a resurgence in productivity growth. This helped restrain unit labor costs in the face of rising wages. While US productivity did jump during the pandemic, we are sceptical of claims that this can be attributed to efficiency gains from digitalization and work-from-home practices. A recent study of 10,000 skilled professionals at a major IT company revealed that work-from-home policies decreased productivity by 8%-to-19%, mainly because people ended up working longer. It is telling that productivity outside of the US generally declined during the pandemic (Chart 21). This suggests that last year’s productivity gains stemmed mainly from increased operating leverage, a common feature of post-recession US recoveries (Chart 22). Supporting this view is the fact that productivity growth slowed from 4.3% in Q1 to 2.4% in Q2 on a quarter-over-quarter annualized basis. Productivity declined by 5% in Q3, leading to an 8.3% increase in unit labor costs. Chart 22US Productivity Tends To Jump After Recessions Chart 23Capital Goods Orders Have Soared The only saving grace is that core capital goods orders have soared (Chart 23). This should translate into increased business capital spending next year and higher productivity down the road. Investment Implications Supply-side pressures should abate over the coming months as semiconductor availability improves, transportation bottlenecks ease, energy prices recede, and more workers enter the labor force. The respite from inflation will be temporary, however. The combination of easy fiscal and monetary policies will cause unemployment to fall below its equilibrium level in the US, and eventually, in most major economies. This is consistent with our “two steps up, one step down” projection for US inflation. We are probably near the top of those two steps at present. This implies that the next move for inflation is to the downside, even if the longer-term trend is still to the upside. The US 10-year Treasury yield should stabilize at around 1.8% in the first half of 2022, before moving higher later in the year. As we discussed last week, markets are understating the true level of the neutral rate of interest. Rather than fretting that the Federal Reserve will keep rates too low for too long, investors are worried that the Fed will tighten too much. This is a key reason why the 20-year/30-year Treasury slope has inverted (Chart 24). Such an inversion does not make sense to us. Hence, as of this week, we are initiating a trade going long the 20-year bond versus the 30-year bond. We would also go short the 10-year Gilt on any break below 0.85%. The Bank of England’s “surprising hold” knocked the yield down 14 basis points to 0.93%. UK real bond yields are amongst the lowest in the world (Chart 25). Growth is strong and will remain buoyant as Brexit headwinds fade. The BoE will eventually have to turn more hawkish, which will support the beleaguered pound. Chart 24Go Long US 20-Year Bonds Versus 30-Year Bonds Chart 25UK Real Bond Yields Are Amongst The Lowest In The World Structurally higher bond yields will benefit value stocks. Chart 26 shows that there has been a close correlation between the US 30-year Treasury yield and the relative performance of global value versus growth stocks. Banks stand to gain from rising bond yields while tech could suffer (Chart 27). Chart 26Higher Bonds Yields Favor Value Stocks The re-emergence of supply-side pressures could affect companies in a variety of unexpected ways. For example, Facebook and Google both rely heavily on revenue from advertising. But what is the point of trying to boost demand for your product if you already cannot produce enough of it? Companies such as Hershey and Kimberly-Clark are already cutting ad spending in response to supply-chain bottlenecks. Finally, tight supply conditions will catalyze more investment spending. This will benefit industrial stocks. Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist pberezin@bcaresearch.com Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores
Highlights The US government issued its first-ever water-shortage declaration for the Colorado River basin in August, due to historically low water levels at the major reservoirs fed by the river (Chart of the Week). The drought producing the water shortage was connected to climate change by US officials.1 Globally, climate-change remediation efforts – e.g., carbon taxes – likely will create exogenous shocks similar to the oil-price shock of the 1970s. Remedial efforts will compete with redressing chronic underfunding of infrastructure. The US water supply infrastructure, for example, faces an investment shortfall of ~ $3.3 trillion over the next 20 years to replace aging plants and equipment, based on an analysis by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). This will translate to a $6,000 per-capita cost by 2039 if the current funding gap persists. Fluctuating weather and the increasing prevalence of droughts and floods will increase volatility in markets such as agriculture which rely on stable climate and precipitation patterns.We are getting long the FIW ETF at tonight's close. The ETF tracks the performance of equities in the ISE Clean Edge Water Index, which covers firms providing potable water and wastewater treatment technologies and services. This is a strategic recommendation. Feature A decades-long drought in the US Southwest linked by US officials to climate change will result in further water rationing in the region. The drought has reduced total Colorado River system water-storage levels to 40% of capacity – vs. 49% at the same time last year. It has drawn attention to the impact of climate change on daily life, and the acute need for remediation efforts. The US Southwest is a desert. Droughts and low water availability are facts of life in the region. The current drought began in 2012, and is forcing federal, state, and local governments to take unprecedented conservation measures. The first-ever water-shortage declaration by the US Bureau of Reclamation sets in motion remedial measures that will reduce water availability in the Lower Colorado basin starting in October (Map 1). Chart 1Drought Hits Colorado River Especially Hard Map 1Colorado River Basin The two largest reservoirs in the US – Lake Powell and Lake Meade, part of the massive engineering projects along the Colorado – began in the 1930s and now supply water to 40mm people in the US Southwest. Half of those people get their water from Lake Powell. Emergency rationing began in August, primarily affecting Arizona, but will be extended to the region later in the year. Lake Powell is used to hold run-off from the upper basin of the Colorado River from Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. Water from Powell is sent south to supply the lower-basin states of California, Arizona, and Nevada. Reduced snowpack due to weather shifts caused by climate change has reduced water levels in Powell, while falling soil-moisture levels and higher evaporation rates, contribute to the acceleration of droughts and their persistence down-river. Chart 2Southwests Exceptionally Hard Drought Steadily increasing demand for water from agriculture, energy production and human activity brought on by population growth and holiday-makers have made the current drought exceptional (Chart 2). Most of the Southwest has been "abnormally dry or even drier" during 2002-05 and from 2012-20, according to the US EPA. According to data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, most of the US Southwest was also warmer than the 1981 – 2010 average temperature during July (Map 2). The Colorado River Compact of 1922 governing the water-sharing rights of the river expires in 2026. Negotiations on the new treaties already have begun, as the seven states in the Colorado basin sort out their rights alongside huge agricultural interest, native American tribes, Mexico, and fast-growing urban centers like Las Vegas. Map 2Most Of The US Southwest Is Warmer Than Average Global Water Emergency States around the globe are dealing with water crises as a result of climate change. "From Yemen to India, and parts of Central America to the African Sahel, about a quarter of the world's people face extreme water shortages that are fueling conflict, social unrest and migration," according to the World Economic Forum. Droughts, and more generally, changing weather patterns will make agricultural markets more volatile. Food production shortages due to unpredictable weather are compounding lingering pandemic related supply chain disruptions, leading to higher food prices (Chart 3). This could also fuel social unrest and political uncertainty. Floods in China’s Henan province - a key agriculture and pork region - inundated farms. Drought and extreme heat in North America are destroying crops in parts of Canada and the US. While flooding in July damaged Europe’s crops, the continent’s main medium-term risk, will be water scarcity.2 Droughts and extreme weather in Brazil have deep implications for agricultural markets, given the variety and quantity of products it exports. Water scarcity and an unusual succession of polar air masses caused coffee prices to rise earlier this year (Chart 4). The country is suffering from what national government agencies consider the worst drought in nearly a century. According to data from the NASA Earth Observatory, many of the agricultural states in Brazil saw more water evaporate from the ground and plants’ leaves than during normal conditions (Map 3). Chart 3The Pandemic and Changing Weather Patterns Will Keep Food Prices High Chart 4Unpredictable Weather Will Increase Volatility In Markets For Agricultural Commodities Map 3Brazil Is Suffering From Its Worst Drought In Nearly A Century Agriculture itself could be part of a longer-term and irreversible problem – i.e. desertification. Irrigation required for modern day farming drains aquifers and leads to soil erosion. According to the EU, nearly a quarter of Spain’s aquifers are exploited, with agricultural states, such as Andalusia consuming 80% of the state’s total water. Irrigation intensive farming, the possibility of higher global temperatures and the increased prevalence of droughts and forest fires are conducive to soil infertility and subsequent desertification. This is a global phenomenon, with the crisis graver still in north Africa, Mozambique and Palestinian regions. Changing weather patterns could also impact the production of non-agricultural goods and services. One such instance is semiconductors, which are used in machines and devices spanning cars to mobile phones. Taiwan, home to the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company – the world’s largest contract chipmaker - suffered from a severe drought earlier this year (Chart 5). While the drought did not seriously disrupt chipmaking, in an already tight market, the event did bring the issue of the impact of water shortages on semiconductor manufacturing to the fore. According to Sustainalytics, a typical chipmaking plant uses 2 to 4 million gallons of water per day to clean semiconductors. While wet weather has returned to Taiwan, relying on rainfall and typhoons to satisfy the chipmaking sector’s water needs going forward could lead to volatility in these markets. Chart 5Taiwan Faced Its Worst Drought In History Earlier This Year Climate Change As A Macro Factor The scale of remediating existing environmental damage to the planet and the cost of investing in the technology required to sustain development and growth will be daunting. Unfortunately, there is not a great deal of research looking into how much of a cost households, firms and governments will incur on these fronts. Estimates of the actual price of CO2 – the policy variable most governments and policymakers focus on – range from as little as $1.30/ton to as much as $13/ton, according to the Peterson Institute for International Economics.3 PIIE's Jean Pisani-Ferry estimates the true cost is around $10/ton presently, after accounting for a lack of full reporting on costs and subsidies that reduce carbon costs. The cost of carbon likely will have to increase by an order of magnitude – to $130/ton or more over the next decade – to incentivize the necessary investment in technology required to deal with climate change and to sufficiently induce, via prices, behavioral adaptations by consumers at all levels. The PIIE notes, "… the accelerated pace of climate change and the magnitude of the effort involved in decarbonizing the economy, while at the same time investing in adaptation, the transition to net zero is likely to involve, over a 30-year period, major shifts in growth patterns." These are early days for assessing the costs and global macro effects of decarbonization. However, PIIE notes, these costs can be expected to "include a significant negative supply shock, an investment surge sizable enough to affect the global equilibrium interest rate, large adverse consumer welfare effects, distributional shifts, and substantial pressure on public finances." Much of the investment required to address climate change will be concentrated on commodity markets. Underlying structural issues, such as lack of investment in expanding supplies of metals and hydrocarbons required during the transition to net-zero CO2 emissions, will impart an upward bias to base metals, oil and natural gas prices over the next decade. We remain bullish industrial commodities broadly, as a result. Investment Implications Massive investment in infrastructure will be needed to address emerging water crises around the world. The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) projects an investment shortfall of ~ $3.3 trillion over the next 20 years to replace aging water infrastructure in the US alone. This will translate to a $6,000 per-capita cost by 2039 if the current funding gap persists.4 At tonight's close we will be getting long the FIW ETF, which is focused on US-based firms providing potable water and wastewater treatment services. This ETF provides direct investment exposure to water remediation efforts and needed infrastructure modernization in the US. We also remain long commodity index exposure – the S&P GSCI and the COMT ETF – as a way to retain exposure to the higher commodity-price volatility that climate change will create in grain and food markets. This volatility will keep the balance of price risks to the upside. 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 Hurricane Ida shut in ~ 96% of total US Gulf of Mexico (GoM) oil production. Colonial Pipeline, a major refined product artery for the US South and East coast closed a few of its lines due to the hurricane but has restarted operations since then. Since the share of US crude oil from this region has fallen, WTI and RBOB gasoline prices have only marginally increased, despite virtually zero crude oil production from the GoM (Chart 6). Prices are, however, likely to remain volatile, as energy producers in the region check for damage to infrastructure. Power outages and a pause in refining activity in the region will also feed price volatility over the coming weeks. Despite raising the 2022 demand forecast and pressure from the US, OPEC 2.0 stuck to its 400k b/d per month production hike in its meeting on Wednesday. Base Metals: Bullish A bill to increase the amount of royalties payable by copper miners in Chile was passed in the senate mining committee on Tuesday. As per the bill, taxes will be commensurate with the value of the red metal. If the bill is passed in its current format, it will disincentivize further private mining investments in the nation, warned Diego Hernandez, President of the National Society of Mining (SONAMI). Amid a prolonged drought in Chile during July, the government has outlined a plan for miners to cut water consumption from natural sources by 2050. Increased union bargaining power - due to higher copper prices -, a bill that will increase mining royalties, and environmental regulation, are putting pressure on miners in the world’s largest copper producing nation. Precious Metals: Bullish Jay Powell’s dovish remarks at the Jackson Hole Symposium were bullish for gold prices. The chairman of the US Central Bank stated the possibility of tapering asset purchases before the end of 2021 but did not provide a timeline. Powell reiterated the absence of a mechanical relationship between tapering and an interest rate hike. Raising interest rates is contingent on factors, such as the prevalence of COVID, inflation and employment levels in the US. The fact that the US economy is not close to reaching the maximum employment level, according to Powell, could keep interest rates lower for longer, supporting gold prices (Chart 7). Ags/Softs: Neutral The USDA crop Progress Report for the week ending August 29th reported 60% of the corn crop was good to excellent quality, marginally down by 2% vs comparable dates in 2020. Soybean crop quality on the other hand was down 11% from a year ago and was recorded at 56%. Chart 6 Chart 7 Footnotes 1 Please see Reclamation announces 2022 operating conditions for Lake Powell and Lake Mead; Historic Drought Impacting Entire Colorado River Basin. Released by the US Bureau of Reclamation on August 16, 2021. 2 Please refer to Water stress is the main medium-term climate risk for Europe’s biggest economies, S&P Global, published on August 13, 2021. 3 Please see 21-20 Climate Policy is Macroeconomic Policy, and the Implications Will Be Significant by Jean Pisani-Ferry, which was published in August 2021. 4 Please see The Economic Benefits of Investing in Water Infrastructure, published by the ASCE and The Value of Water Campaign on August 26, 2020. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2021 Summary of Closed Trades
Overweight Today we are upgrading the Semiconductor industry group to an overweight. Semis received a lot of bad press this year as chip shortages became a major production bottleneck for a range of industries from autos to gaming computers. Semiconductor manufacturers have reduced their capacity during the pandemic and were struggling to ramp up production to meet pent up demand. This industry is highly cyclical and is a high beta play on the global recovery. The chart on the right illustrates that historically, US Semi earnings have been joined at the hip with the global sales and inventory cycles. Global inventories are at all time lows, and a new restocking cycle is in its infancy. A shortage of chips translates into higher prices and strong earnings growth, which is likely to continue far into the future. Street consensus expects 18% EPS growth over the next 12 months. Further, semis stocks have been in a consolidation mode for the first half of 2021 and have accumulated enough dry powder for a new leg higher. This industry group is trading with a 7% discount to the S&P 500 forward earnings multiple (19.8x vs 21.3x) Importantly, as our BCA colleague, Arthur Budaghyan, observed, semiconductor chip manufacturing is becoming a strategic asset, especially in a standoff between China and the US, and the country that controls the production of semis controls the production of most tech goods. This view highlight structural importance of this investment theme. Bottom Line: We are upgrading the S&P Semiconductors & Semiconductor equipment index to overweight from neutral allocation.
Highlights President Biden has called for the US intelligence community to investigate the origins of COVID-19 and one of Biden’s top diplomats has stated the obvious: the era of “engagement” with China is over. This clinches our long-held view that any Democratic president would be a hawk like President Trump. The US-China conflict – and global geopolitical risk – will revive and undermine global risk appetite. China faces a confluence of geopolitical and macroeconomic challenges, suggesting that its equity underperformance will continue. Domestic Chinese investors should stay long government bonds. Foreign investors should sell into the bond rally to reduce exposure to any future sanctions. The impending agreement of a global minimum corporate tax rate has limited concrete implications that are not already known but it symbolizes the return of Big Government in the western world. Our updated GeoRisk Indicators are available in the Appendix, as well as our monthly geopolitical calendar. Feature In our quarterly webcast, “Geopolitics And Bull Markets,” we argued that geopolitical themes matter to investors when they have a demonstrable relationship with the macroeconomic backdrop. When geopolitics and macro are synchronized, a simple yet powerful investment thesis can be discerned. The US war on terror, Russia’s resurgence, the EU debt crisis, and Brexit each provided cases in which a geopolitically informed macro view was both accessible and actionable at an early stage. Investors generally did well if they sold the relevant country’s currency and disfavored its equities on a relative basis. Chart 1China's Decade Of Troubles Of course, the market takeaway is not always so clear. When geopolitics and macroeconomics are desynchronized, the trick is to determine which framework will prevail over the financial markets and for how long. Sometimes the market moves to its own rhythm. The goal is not to trade on geopolitics but rather to invest with geopolitics. One of our key views for this year – headwinds for China – is an example of synchronization. Two weeks ago we discussed China’s macroeconomic challenge. In this report we discuss China’s foreign policy challenge: geopolitical pressure from the US and its allies. In particular we address President Biden’s call for a deeper intelligence dive into the origins of COVID-19. The takeaway is negative for China’s currency and risk assets. The Great Recession dealt a painful blow to the Chinese version of the East Asian economic miracle. By 2015, China’s financial turmoil and currency devaluation should have convinced even bullish investors to keep their distance from Chinese stocks and the renminbi. If investors stuck with this bearish view despite the post-2016 rally, on fear of trade war, they were rewarded in 2018-19. Only with China’s containment of COVID-19 and large economic stimulus in 2020 has CNY-USD threatened to break out (Chart 1). We expect the renminbi to weaken anew, especially once the Fed begins to taper asset purchases. Our cyclical view is still bullish but US-China relations are unstable so we remain tactically defensive. Forget Biden’s China Review, He’s A Hawk Chinese financial markets face a host of challenges this year, despite the positive factors for China’s manufacturing sector amid the global recovery. At home these challenges consist of a structural economic slowdown, a withdrawal of policy stimulus, bearish sentiment among households, and an ongoing government crackdown on systemic risk. Abroad the Democratic Party’s return to power in Washington means that the US will bring more allies to bear in its attempt to curb China’s rise. This combination of factors presents a headwind for Chinese equities and a tailwind for government bonds (Chart 2). This is true at least until the government should hit its pain threshold and re-stimulate. Chart 2Global Investors Still Wary New stimulus may not occur in 2022. The Communist Party’s leadership rotation merely requires economic stability, not rapid growth. While the central government has a record of stimulating when its pain threshold is hit, even under the economically hawkish President Xi Jinping, a financial market riot is usually part of this threshold. This implies near-term downside, particularly for global commodities and metals, which are also facing a Chinese regulatory backlash to deter speculation. In this context, President Biden’s call for a deeper US intelligence investigation into the origin of COVID-19 is an important confirming signal of the US’s hawkish turn toward China. Biden gave 90 days for the intelligence community to report back to him. We will not enter into the debate about COVID-19’s origins. From a geopolitical point of view it is a moot point. The facts of the virus origin may never be established. According to Biden’s statement, at least one US intelligence agency believes the “lab leak theory” is the most likely source of the virus (while two other agencies decided in favor of animal-to-human transmission). Meanwhile Chinese government spokespeople continue to push the theory that the virus originated at the US’s Fort Detrick in Maryland or at a US-affiliated global research center. What is certain is that the first major outbreak of a highly contagious disease occurred in Wuhan. Both sides are demanding greater transparency and will reject each other’s claims based on a lack of transparency. If the US intelligence report concludes that COVID originated from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the Chinese government and media will reject the report. If the report exonerates the Wuhan laboratory, at least half of the US public will disbelieve it and it will not deter Biden from drawing a hard line on more macro-relevant policy disputes with China. The US’s hawkish bipartisan consensus on China took shape before COVID. Biden’s decision to order the fresh report introduces skepticism regarding the World Health Organization’s narrative, which was until now the mainstream media’s narrative. Previously this skepticism was ghettoized in US public discourse: indeed, until Biden’s announcement on May 26, the social media company Facebook suppressed claims that the virus came from a lab accident or human failure. Thus Biden’s action will ensure that a large swathe of the American public will always tend to support this theory regardless of the next report’s findings. At the same time Biden discontinued a State Department effort to prove the lab leak theory, which shows that it is not a foregone conclusion what his administration will decide. The good news is that even if the report concluded in favor of the lab leak, the Biden administration would remain highly unlikely to demand that China pay “reparations,” like the Trump administration demanded in 2020. This demand, if actualized, would be explosive. The bad news is that a future nationalist administration could conceivably use the investigation as a basis to demand reparations. Nationalism is a force to be reckoned with in both countries and the dispute over COVID’s origin will exacerbate it. Traditionally the presidents of both countries would tamp down nationalism or attempt to keep it harnessed. But in the post-Xi, post-Trump era it is harder to control. The death toll of COVID-19 will be a permanent source of popular grievance around the world and a wedge between the US and China (Chart 3). China’s international image suffered dramatically in 2020. So far in 2021 China has not regained any diplomatic ground. Chart 3Death Toll Of COVID-19 The US is repairing its image via a return to multilateralism while the Europeans have put their Comprehensive Agreement on Investment with China on hold due to a spat over sanctions arising from western accusations of genocide (a subject on which China pointedly answered that it did not need to be lectured by Europeans). Notably Biden’s Department of State also endorsed its predecessor’s accusation of genocide in Xinjiang. Any authoritative US intelligence review that solidifies doubts about the WHO’s initial investigation – even if it should not affirm the lab leak theory – would give Biden more ammunition in global opinion to form a democratic alliance to pressure China (for example, in Europe). An important factor that enables the US to remain hawkish on China is fiscal stimulus. While stimulus helps bring about economic recovery, it also lowers the bar to political confrontation (Chart 4). Countries with supercharged domestic demand do not have as much to fear from punitive trade measures. The Biden administration has not taken new punitive measures against China but it is clearly not worried about Chinese retaliation. Chart 4Large Fiscal Stimulus Lowers The Bar To Geopolitical Conflict China’s stimulus is underrated in this chart (which excludes non-fiscal measures) but it is still true that China’s policy has been somewhat restrained and it will need to stimulate its economy again in response to any new punitive measures or any global loss of confidence. At least China is limited in its ability to tighten policy due to the threat of US pressure and western trade protectionism. Simultaneous with Biden’s announcement on COVID-19, his administration’s coordinator for Indo-Pacific affairs, Kurt Campbell, proclaimed in a speech that the era of “engagement” with China is officially over and the new paradigm is one of “competition.” By now Campbell is stating the obvious. But this tone is a change both from his tone while serving in President Obama’s Department of State and from his article in Foreign Affairs last year (when he was basically auditioning for his current role in the Biden administration).1 Campbell even said in his latest remarks that the Trump administration was right about the “direction” of China policy (though not the “execution”), which is candid. Campbell was speaking at Stanford University but his comments were obviously aimed for broader consumption. Investors no longer need to wait for the outcome of the Biden administration’s comprehensive review of policy toward China. The answer is known: the Biden administration’s hawkishness is confirmed. The Department of Defense report on China policy, due in June, is very unlikely to strike a more dovish posture than the president’s health policy. Now investors must worry about how rapidly tensions will escalate and put a drag on global sentiment. Bottom Line: US-China relations are unstable and pose an immediate threat to global risk appetite. The fundamental geopolitical assessment of US-China relations has been confirmed yet again. The US is seeking to constrain China’s rise because China is the only country capable of rivaling the US for supremacy in Asia and the world. Meanwhile China is rejecting liberalization in favor of economic self-sufficiency and maintaining an offensive foreign policy as it is wary of US containment and interference. Presidents Biden and Xi Jinping are still capable of stabilizing relations in the medium term but they are unlikely to substantially de-escalate tensions. And at the moment tensions are escalating. China’s Reaction: The Example Of Australia How will China respond to Biden’s new inquiry into COVID’s origins? Obviously Beijing will react negatively but we would not expect anything concrete to occur until the result of the inquiry is released in 90 days. China will be more constrained in its response to the US than it has been with Australia, which called for an international inquiry early last year, as the US is a superior power. Australia was the first to ban Chinese telecom company Huawei from its 5G network (back in 2018) and it was the first to call for a COVID probe. Relations between China and Australia have deteriorated steadily since then, but macro trends have clearly driven the Aussie dollar. The AUD-JPY exchange rate is a good measure for global risk appetite and it is wavering in recent weeks (Chart 5). Chart 5Australian Dollar Follows Macro Trends, Rallies Amid China Trade Spat Tensions have also escalated due to China’s dependency on Australian commodity exports at a time of spiking commodity prices. This is a recurring theme going back to the Stern Hu affair. The COVID spat led China to impose a series of sanctions against Australian beef, barley, wine, and coal. But because China cannot replace Australian resources (at least, not in the short term), its punitive measures are limited. It faces rising producer prices as a result of its trade restrictions (Chart 6). This dependency is a bigger problem for China today than it was in previous cycles so China will try to diversify. Chart 6Constraints On China's Tarrifs On Australia By contrast, China is not likely to impose sanctions on the US in response to Biden’s investigation, unless Biden attacks first. China’s imports from the US are booming and its currency is appreciating sharply. Despite Beijing’s efforts to keep the Phase One trade deal from collapsing, Biden is maintaining Trump’s tariffs and the US-China trade divorce is proceeding (Chart 7). Bilateral tariff rates are still 16-17 percentage points higher than they were in 2018, with US tariffs on China at 19% (versus 3% on the rest of the world) while Chinese tariffs on the US stand at 21% (versus 6% on the rest of the world). The Biden administration timed this week’s hawkish statements to coincide with the first meeting of US trade negotiators with China, which was a more civil affair. Both countries acknowledged that the relationship is important and trade needs to be continued. However, US Trade Representative Katherine Tai’s comments were not overly optimistic (she told Reuters that the relationship is “very, very challenging”). She has also been explicit about maintaining policy continuity with the Trump administration. We highly doubt that China’s share of US imports will ever surpass its pre-Trump peaks. The Biden administration has also refrained so far from loosening export controls on high-tech trade with China. This has caused a bull market in Taiwan while causing problems for Chinese semiconductor stocks’ relative performance (Chart 8). If Biden’s policy review does not lead to any relaxation of export controls on commercial items then it will mark a further escalation in tensions. Chart 7US Tarrifs Reduce China In Trade Deficit Bottom Line: Until Presidents Biden and Xi stabilize relations at the top, the trade negotiations over implementing the Phase One trade deal – and any new Phase Two talks – cannot bring major positive surprises for financial markets. Chart 8US Export Controls Amid Chip Shortage Congress Is More Hawkish Than Biden Biden’s ability to reduce frictions with China, should he seek to, will also be limited by Congress and public opinion. With the US deeply politically divided, and polarization at historically high levels, China has emerged as one of the few areas of agreement. The hawkish consensus is symbolized by new legislation such as the Strategic Competition Act, which is making its way through the Senate rapidly. Congress is also trying to boost US competitiveness through bills such as the Endless Frontier Act. These bills would subject China to scrutiny and potential punitive measures over a broad range of issues but most of all they would ignite US industrial policy , STEM education, and R&D, and diversify the US’s supply chains. We would highlight three key points with regard to the global impact of this legislation: Global supply chains are shifting regardless: This trend is fairly well established in tech, defense, and pharmaceuticals. It will continue unless we see a major policy reversal from China to try to court western powers and reduce frictions. The EU and India are less enthusiastic than the US and Australia about removing China from supply chains but they are not opposed. The EU Commission has recommended new defensive economic measures that cover supply chains in batteries, cloud services, hydrogen energy, pharmaceuticals, materials, and semiconductors. As mentioned, the EU is also hesitating to ratify the Comprehensive Agreement on Investment with China. Hence the EU is moving in the US’s direction independently of proposed US laws. After all, China’s rise up the tech value chain (and its decision to stop cutting back the size of its manufacturing sector) ultimately threatens the EU’s comparative advantage. The EU is also aligned with the US on democratic values and network security. India has taken a harder stance on China than usual, which marks an important break with the past. India’s decision to exclude Huawei from its 5G network is not final but it is likely to be at least partially implemented. A working group of democracies is forming regardless. The Strategic Competition Act calls for the creation of a working group of democracies but the truth is that this is already happening through more effective forums like the G7 and bilateral summits. Just as the implementation of the act would will ultimately depend on President Biden, so the willingness of other countries to adopt the recommendations of the working group would depend on their own executives. Allies have leeway as Biden will not use punitive measures against them: Any policy change from the EU, UK, India, and Australia will be independent of the US Congress passing the Strategic Competition Act. These countries will be self-directed. The US would have to devote diplomatic energy to maintaining a sustained effort by these states to counter China in the face of economic costs. This will be limited by the fact that the Biden administration will be very reluctant to impose punitive measures on allies to insist on their cooperation. The allies will set the pace of pressure on China rather than the United States. This gives the EU an important position, particularly Germany. And yet the trends in Germany suggest that the government will be more hawkish on China after the federal elections in September. Bottom Line: The Biden administration is unlikely to use punitive measures against allies so new US laws are less important than overall US diplomacy with each of the allies. Some allies will be less compliant with US policies given their need for trade with China. But so far there appears to be a common position taking shape even with the EU that is prejudicial to China’s involvement in key sectors of emerging technologies. If China does not respond by reducing its foreign policy assertiveness, then China’s economic growth will suffer. That drag would have to be offset by new supply chain construction in Southeast Asia and other countries. Investment Takeaways The foregoing highlights the international risks facing China even at a time when its trend growth is slowing (Chart 9) and its ongoing struggle with domestic financial imbalances is intensifying. China’s debt-service costs have risen sharply and Beijing is putting pressure on corporations and local governments to straighten out their finances (Chart 10), resulting in a wave of defaults. This backdrop is worrisome for investors until policymakers reassure them that government support will continue. Chart 9China's Growth Potential Slowing Chart 10China's Leaders Struggle With Debt China’s domestic stability is a key indicator of whether geopolitical risks could spiral out of control. In particular we think aggressive action in the Taiwan Strait is likely to be delayed as long as the Chinese economy and regime are stable. China has rattled sabers over the strait this year in a warning to the United States not to cross its red line (Chart 11). It is not yet clear how Biden’s policy continuity with the Trump administration will affect cross-strait stability. We see no basis yet for changing our view that there is a 60% chance of a market-negative geopolitical incident in 2021-22 and a 5% chance of full-scale war in the short run. Chart 11China PLA Flights Over Taiwan Strait Putting all of the above together, we see substantial support for two key market-relevant geopolitical risks: Chinese domestic politics (including policy tightening) and persistent US-China tensions (including but not limited to the Taiwan Strait). We remain tactically defensive, a stance supported by several recent turns in global markets: The global stock-to-bond ratio has rolled over. China is a negative factor for global risk appetite (Chart 12). Global cyclical equities are no longer outperforming defensives. There is a stark divergence between Chinese cyclicals and global cyclicals stemming from the painful transition in China’s bloated industrial economy (Chart 13). Global large caps are catching a bid relative to small caps (Chart 14). Chart 12Global Stock-To-Bond Ratio Rolled Over Chart 13Global Cyclicals-To-Defensives Pause Chart 14Global Large Caps Catch A Bid Versus Small Caps Cyclically the global economic recovery should continue as the pandemic wanes. China will eventually relax policy to prevent too abrupt of a slowdown. Therefore our strategic portfolio reflects our high-conviction view that the current global economic expansion will continue even as it faces hurdles from the secular rise in geopolitical risk, especially US-China cold war. Measurable geopolitical risk and policy uncertainty are likely to rebound sooner rather than later, with a negative impact on high-beta risk assets. Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Coda: Global Minimum Tax Symbolizes Return Of Big Government On Thursday, the US Treasury Department released a proposal to set the global minimum corporate tax rate at 15%. The plan is to stop what Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has referred to as a global “race to the bottom” and create the basis for a rehabilitation of government budgets damaged by pandemic-era stimulus. Although the newly proposed 15% rate is significantly below President Biden’s bid to raise the US Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income (GILTI) rate to 21% from 10.5%, it is the same rate as his proposed minimum tax on corporate book income. Biden is also raising the headline corporate tax rate from 21% to around 25% (or at highest 28%). Negotiators at the OECD were initially discussing a 12.5% global minimum rate. The finance ministers of both France and Germany – where the corporate income tax rates are 32.0% and 29.9%, respectively – both responded positively to the announcement. However, Ireland, which uses low corporate taxes as an economic development strategy, is obviously more comfortable with a minimum closer to its own 12.5% rate. Discussions are likely to occur when G7 finance ministers meet on June 4-5. Countries are hoping to establish a broad outline for the proposal by the G20 meeting in early July. It is highly likely that the OECD will come to an agreement. However, it is not a truly “global” minimum as there will still be tax havens. Compliance and enforcement will vary across countries. A close look at the domestic political capital of the relevant countries shows that while many countries have the raw parliamentary majorities necessary to raise taxes, most countries have substantial conservative contingents capable of preventing stiff corporate tax hikes (Table 1, in the Appendix). Our Geopolitical strategists highlight that the Biden administration’s compromise on the minimum rate reflects its pragmatism as well as emphasis on multilateralism. Any global deal will be non-binding but the two most important low-tax players are already committed to raising corporate rates well above this level: Biden’s plan is noted above, while the UK’s budget for March includes a jump in the business rate to 25% in April 2023 from the current 19%. Ireland and Hungary are the only outliers but they may eventually be forced to yield to such a large coalition of bigger economies (Chart 15). Chart 15Global Minimum Corporate Tax Impact Is Symbolic Rather Than Concrete Thus a nominal minimum corporate tax rate is likely to be forged but it will not be truly global and it will not change the corporate rate for most countries. The reality of what companies pay will also depend on loopholes, tax havens, and the effective tax rate. Bottom Line: On a structural horizon, the global minimum corporate tax is significant for showing a paradigm shift in global macro policy: western governments are starting to raise taxes and revenue after decades of cutting taxes. The experiment with limited government has ended and Big Government is making a comeback. On a cyclical horizon, the US concession on global minimum tax is that the Biden administration aims to be pragmatic and “get things done.” Biden is also working with Republicans to pass bills covering some bipartisan aspects of his domestic agenda, such as trade, manufacturing, and China. The takeaway from a global point of view is that Biden may prove to be a compromiser rather than an ideologue, unlike his predecessors. Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Roukaya Ibrahim Vice President Daily Insights RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Kurt M. Campbell and Jake Sullivan, "Competition Without Catastrophe," Foreign Affairs, September/October 2019, foreignaffairs.com. Section II: Appendix Table 1OECD: Which Countries Are Willing And Able To Raise Corporate Tax Rates? GeoRisk Indicator China Russia UK Germany France Italy Canada Spain Taiwan – Province Of China Korea Turkey Brazil Australia Section III: Geopolitical Calendar
Initiating a long S&P semis/short S&P technology hardware storage & peripherals (THS&P) pair trade is the ultimate reflationary play given its tight positive correlation with the 10-year US Treasury yield (top panel). Not only does the bond market spell more upside for this relative share price ratio, but the trade also captures a significant early supply chain advantage of chip stocks over their hardware brethren. Switching from macro to industry level data, and the news on the operating front is equally enticing. Chip capital outlays trounce THS&P stocks’ investments by a wide margin, which should further boost relative revenue prospects (bottom panel). In fact, chip sales already have the upper hand compared with tech hardware storage and peripherals revenues and a relative reacceleration phase looms as the chip industry’s bottlenecks get resolved in the back half of the year (not shown). Tack on recent news of President Biden’s preliminary infrastructure plans that include a $50bn sum for semiconductors in order to bolster US based manufacturing and research and development and the demand profile for chip stocks brightens further. Bottom Line: We initiated a long S&P semis/short S&P THS&P pair trade in a recent Special Report. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the S&P semiconductors and S&P THS&P indexes are BLBG: S5SECO – INTC, TXN, ADI, AMD, MXIM, XLNX, MCHP, NVDA, AVGO, QCOM, MU, SWKS, QRVO, NXPI, MPWR, and BLBG: S5CMPE – AAPL, HPQ, HPE, WDC, NTAP, STX, respectively.
While the Fed’s dots dovishly surprised, the FOMC’s output and inflation projections were on the hawkish side. Adding the committee’s core PCE price inflation estimate for 2021 to their real GDP forecast results in a roughly 9% nominal GDP estimate, assuming the PCE and GDP deflators approximate one another. The last time the US economy hit such a high mark on a q/q annualized basis (ex-2020) was in late-2003 (Chart 1). Back then the Bush tax cuts were signed into law in late May 2003 turbocharging the economy. Chart 2 shows that the fed funds rate was pegged at 1% and the bond market was in selloff mode, with both the 10-year US Treasury yields surging violently and inflation breakevens galloping higher. While the S&P eventually shrugged off the bond market’s new equilibrium yield, drilling beneath the surface is revealing. Chart 1 Chart 2 As a reminder, back then the Fed was actually sowing the seeds of the housing bubble by keeping rates at 1%, which resulted in an economy running on steroids. Deep cyclical sectors outperformed the SPX and defensives significantly lagged the broad market especially as the economic data caught on fire in 2004 (see Appendix Charts A1, A2, A3, ). Financials were range bound and relative tech performance slumped in 2004 (for inclusion purposes Charts A4-A9 in the Appendix also show GICS2 sector relative performance). Bottom Line: Using the 2003/4 parallel as a guidepost we remain comfortable with our current positioning of preferring industrials and energy to consumer staples and communication services. Appendix Chart A1 Chart A2 Chart A3 Chart A4 Chart A5 Chart A6 Chart A7 Chart A8 Chart A9
Neutral Today, we are removing our downgrade alert from the S&P semiconductors index on the back of an improving macro backdrop. First and foremost, the semi sales cycle is tied to global rates that tend to lead by approximately 18 months. As Central Banks across the globe are committed to remain on the easening path, global semi sales will likely rebound further (middle panel). A revival of chip M&A activity which effectively reduces the supply of stocks does not show any signs of abating, and will continue to underpin semi stocks as premia paid remain elevated (bottom panel). Bottom Line: We remain neutral the S&P semiconductors index, but are removing our downgrade alert. On a related note, our underweight stance in the sister chip equipment index remains intact. Stay tuned.