Equities

Special Report

Executive Summary From Nixon-Mao To Putin-Xi The geopolitical “big picture” of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is the deepening of the Russo-Chinese strategic partnership. While Russia’s economic and military constraints did not prohibit military action in Ukraine, they are still relevant. Most likely they will prevent a broader war with NATO or a total energy embargo of Europe. Still, volatility will persist in the near term as saber-rattling, aftershocks, and spillover incidents will occur this year.  Russo-Chinese relations are well grounded. Russia needs investment capital and resource sales, while China needs overland supply routes and supply security. Both seek to undermine the US in a new game of Great Power competition that will prevent global politics and globalization from normalizing. Tactically we remain defensive but buying opportunities are emerging. We maintain a cyclically constructive view. Favor equity markets of US allies and partners that are geopolitically secure. Trade Recommendation Inception Date Return Long Gold (Strategic) 2019-12-06 32.7% Bottom Line: Tactically investors should remain defensive but cyclically they should look favorably on cheap, geopolitically secure equity markets like those of Australia, Canada, and Mexico. Feature To understand the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the likely consequences, investors need to consider three factors: 1.  Why Russia’s constraints did not prohibit war and how constraints must always be measured against political will. 2.  Why Russia’s constraints will grow more relevant going forward, as the costs of occupation and sanctions take hold, the economy weakens, and sociopolitical pressures build. 3.  Why the struggle of the Great Powers will drive a Russo-Chinese alliance, whose competition with the US-led alliance will further destabilize global trade and investment. Russia’s Geopolitical Will Perhaps the gravest national security threat that Russia can face, according to Russian history, is a western military power based in the Ukraine. Time and again Russia has staged dramatic national efforts at great cost of blood and treasure to defeat western forces that try to encroach on this broad, flat road to Moscow. Putin has been in power for 22 years and his national strategy is well-defined: he aims to resurrect Russian primacy within the former Soviet Union, carve out a regional sphere of influence, and reduce American military threats in Russia’s periphery. He has long aimed to prevent Ukraine from becoming a western defense partner. Chart 1Russia Structured For Conflict While Moscow faced material limitations to military action in Ukraine, these were not prohibitive, as we have argued. Consider the following constraints and their mitigating factors: Costs of war: The first mistake lay in assuming that Russia was not willing to engage in war. Russia had already invaded Ukraine in 2014 and before that Georgia in 2008. The modern Russian economy is structured for conflict: it is heavily militarized (Chart 1). Military spending accounts for 4.3% of GDP, comparable to the United States, also known for waging gratuitous wars and preemptive invasions. Financial burdens: The second mistake was to think that Moscow would avoid conflict for fear of the collapse of the ruble or financial markets. Since Putin rose to power in 2000, the ruble has depreciated by 48% against the dollar and the benchmark stock index has fallen by 57% against EMs. Each new crackdown on domestic or foreign enemies has led to a new round of depreciation and yet Putin remains undeterred from his long-term strategy (Chart 2). Chart 2Putin Doesn't Eschew Conflict For Sake Of Ruble Or Stocks Economic health: Putin’s foreign policy is not constrained by the desire to make the Russian economy more open, complex, advanced, or productive. While China long practiced a foreign policy of lying low, so as to focus on generating wealth that could later be converted into strategic power (which it is doing now), Russia pursued a hawkish foreign policy for the past twenty years despite the blowback on the economy. Russia is still an undiversified petro-state and total factor productivity is approaching zero (Chart 3). Chart 3Putin Doesn't Eschew Conflict For Sake Of Productivity​​​​​​ Chart 4Putin Doesn’t Eschew Conflict For Fear Of Sanctions​​​​​​ Western sanctions: Western sanctions never provided a powerful argument against Russian intervention into Ukraine. Russia knew all along that if it invaded Ukraine, the West would impose a new round of sanctions, as it has done periodically since 2014. The 2014 oil crash had a much greater impact on Russia than the sanctions. Of course, Russia’s overall economic competitiveness is suffering, although it is capable of gaining market share in exporting raw materials, especially as it depreciates its currency (Chart 4). Chart 5Putin Doesn't Eschew Conflict For Sake Of Popular Opinion Public opinion: Surely the average Russian is not interested in Ukraine and hence Putin lacks popular support for a new war? True. But Putin has a strong record of using foreign military adventures as a means of propping up domestic support. Of course, opinion polls, which confirm this pattern, are manipulated and massaged (Chart 5). Nevertheless Russians like all people are highly likely to side with their own country in a military confrontation with foreign countries, at least in the short run. Over the long haul, the public will come to rue the war. Moscow believes that it can manage the domestic fallout when that time comes because it has done so since 2014. We doubt it but that is a question for a later time. Investors also need to consider Putin’s position if he did not stage ever-escalating confrontations with the West. Russia is an autocracy with a weak economy – it cannot win over the hearts and minds of its neighboring nations in a fair, voluntary competition with the West, the EU, and NATO. Russia’s neighbors are made up of formerly repressed Soviet ethnic minorities who now have a chance at national self-determination. But to secure their nationhood, they need economic and military support, and if they receive that support, then they inherently threaten Russia and help the US keep Russia strategically contained. Russia traditionally fights against this risk. Bottom Line: Investors and the media focused on the obstacles to Russian military intervention without analyzing whether there was sufficient political will to surmount the hurdles. Constraints Eroded None of the above suggests that Putin can do whatever he wants. Economic and military constraints are significant. However, constraints erode over time – and they may not be effective when needed. Europe did not promise to cancel all energy trade if Russia invaded: Exports make up 27% of Russian GDP, and 51% of exports go to advanced economies, especially European. Russia is less exposed to trade than the EU but more exposed than the US or even China (Chart 6). However, Russia trades in essential goods, natural resources, and the Europeans cannot afford to cut off their own energy supply. When Russia first invaded Ukraine in 2014, the Germans responded by building the Nord Stream pipeline, basically increasing energy cooperation. Russia concluded that Europeans, not bound to defend Ukraine by any treaty, would continue to import energy in the event of a conflict limited to Ukraine. Chart 6Putin Limits Conflict For Sake Of EU Energy Trade​​​​​​ Chart 7Putin Limits Conflict For Sake Of Chinese Trade​​​​​​ Russia substitutes China for Europe: As trade with the West declines, Russia is shifting toward the Far East, especially China (Chart 7). China is unlikely to reduce any trade and investment for the sake of Ukraine – it desperately needs the resources and the import-security that strong relations with Russia can provide. It cannot replace Europe – but Russia does not expect to lose the European energy trade entirely. (Over time, of course, the EU/China shift to renewables will undermine Russia’s economy and capabilities.) Ukraine is right next door: Aside from active military personnel, the US advantage over Iraq in 2002-03 was greater than the Russian advantage over Ukraine in 2022 (Chart 8). And yet the US got sucked into a quagmire and ultimately suffered political unrest at home. However, Ukraine is not Afghanistan or Iraq. Russia wagers that it can seize strategic territory, including Kiev, without paying the full price that the Soviets paid in Afghanistan and the US paid in Afghanistan and Iraq. This is a very risky gamble. But the point is that the bar to invading Ukraine was lower than that of other recent invasions – it is not on the opposite side of the world. ​​​​​​​Chart 8Putin Limits Conflict For Fear Of Military Overreach Chart 9Putin Limits Conflict For Fear Of Military Weakness NATO faces mutually assured destruction: NATO’s conventional military weight far surpasses Russia’s. For example, Russia, with its Eurasian Union, does not have enough air superiority to engage in offensive initiatives against Europe, even assuming that the United States is not involved. Even if we assume that China joins Russia in a full-fledged military alliance under the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), NATO’s military budget is more than twice as large (Chart 9). However, this military constraint is not operable in the case of Ukraine, which is not a NATO member. Indeed, Russia’s aggression toward Ukraine stems from its fear that Ukraine will become a real or de facto member of NATO. It is the fear of NATO that prompted Russia to attack rather than deterring it, precisely because Ukraine was not a member but wanted to join. Bottom Line: Russia’s constraints did not prohibit military action because several of them had eroded over time. NATO was so threatening as to provoke rather than deter military action. Going forward, Russia’s economic and military constraints will prevent it from expanding the war beyond Ukraine.  Isn’t Russia Overreaching? Yes, Russia is overreaching – the military balances highlighted in Charts 8 and 9 above should make that plain. The Ukrainian insurgency will be fierce and Russia will pay steep costs in occupation and economic sanctions. These will vitiate the economy and popular support for Putin’s regime over the long run. Chart 10The West Is Politically Divided And Vulnerable The West is also vulnerable, however, which has given rise to a fiscal and commodity cycle that helps to explain why Putin staged his risky invasion at this juncture in time: The US and West are politically divided. Western elites see themselves as surrounded by radical parties that threaten to throw them out and overturn the entire political establishment. Their tenuous grip on power is clear from the thin majorities they hold in their legislatures (Chart 10). Nowhere is this clearer than in the United States, where Democrats cannot spare a single seat in the Senate, five in the House of Representatives, in this fall’s midterm elections, yet are facing much bigger losses. Russia believes that its hawkish foreign policy can keep the democracies divided.​​​​​​​ Elites are turning to populist spending: Governments have adopted liberal fiscal policies in the wake of the global financial crisis and the pandemic. They are trying to grow their way out of populist unrest, debt, and various strategic challenges, from supply chains to cyber security to research and development (Chart 11). China is also part of this process, despite its mixed economic policies. The result is greater demand for commodities, which benefits Russia.    Elites are turning to climate change to justify public spending: Governments, particularly in Europe and China, are using fears of climate change to increase their political legitimacy and launch a new government “moonshot” that justifies more robust public investment and pump-priming. The long-term trend toward renewable energy is fundamentally threatening to Russia, although in the short term it makes Russian natural gas and metals all the more necessary. Germany especially envisions natural gas as the fossil-fuel bridge to a green future as it has turned against both nuclear power and coal (Chart 12). Russian aggression will provoke a rethink in some countries but Germany, as a manufacturing economy, is unlikely to abandon its goals for green industrial innovation. Chart 11Politically Vulnerable States Need Fiscal Stimulus​​​​​​ Chart 12The West Reluctant To Abandon Climate Goals​​​​​​ Proactive fiscal and climate policy motivate new capex and commodity cycle: The West’s attempt to revive big government and strategic spending will require vast resource inputs – resources that Russia can sell at higher prices. The new commodity cycle gives Russia maximum leverage over Europe, especially Germany, at this point in time (Chart 13). Later, as inflation and fiscal fatigue halt this cycle, Russia will lose leverage. Chart 13Commodity Cycle Gives Russia Advantage (For Now) Meanwhile Russia’s economic and hence strategic power will subside over time. Russia’s potential GDP growth has fallen since the Great Recession as productivity growth slows and the labor force shrinks (Chart 14). Chart 14Future Will Not Yield Strategic Opportunities For Russia​​​​​​ Chart 15Younger Russians Not Calling The Shots (But Will Someday) In short, the Kremlin has chosen the path of economic austerity and military aggression as a means of maintaining political legitimacy and achieving national security objectives. Western divisions, de-carbonization, the commodity cycle, and Russia’s bleak economic outlook indicated that 2022 was the opportunity to achieve a pressing national security objective, rather than some future date when Russia will be less capable relative to its opponents. In the worst-case scenario – not our base case – the invasion of Ukraine will trigger an escalation of European sanctions that will lead to Russia cutting off Europe’s energy and producing a global energy price shock. And yet that outcome would upset US and European politics in Russia’s favor, while Putin would maintain absolute control at home in a society that is already used to economic austerity and that benefits from high commodity prices. Note that Putin’s strategy will not last forever. Ukraine will mark another case of Russian strategic overreach that will generate a social and political backlash in coming years. While Putin has sufficient support among older, more Soviet-minded Russians for his Ukraine adventure, he lacks support among the younger and middle-aged cohorts who will have to live with the negative economic consequences (Chart 15). The entire former Soviet Union is vulnerable to social unrest and revolution in the coming decade and Russia is no exception. The Russo-Chinese Geopolitical Realignment Chart 16From Nixon-Mao To Putin-Xi From a broader, geopolitical point of view, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine drives another nail into the coffin of the post-Cold War system and hyper-globalization. Russia is further divorcing itself from the western economy, with even the linchpin European energy trade falling victim to renewables and diversification. The US and its allies are imposing export controls on critical technologies such as semiconductors against Russia to cripple any attempts at modernization. The US is already restricting China’s access to semiconductors and from now on is locked into a campaign to try to enforce these export controls via secondary sanctions, giving rise to proxy battles in countries that Russia and China use to circumvent the sanctions. Russia will be forced to link its austere, militarized, resource-driven economy to the Chinese economy. Hence a major new geopolitical realignment is taking place between the US, Russia, and China, on the order of previous realignments since World War II. When the Sino-Soviet communist bloc first arose it threatened to overwhelm the US in economic heft and dominate Eurasia. This communist threat drove the US to undertake vast expeditionary wars, such as in South Korea and Vietnam. These were too costly, so the US sought economic engagement with China in 1972, which isolated the Soviet Union and ultimately helped bring about its demise. Yet China’s economic boom predictably translated into a strategic rise that began to threaten US preeminence, especially since the Great Recession. Today Russia and China have no option other than to cooperate in the face of the US’s increasingly frantic attempts to preserve its global status – and China’s economic growth and technological potential makes this alliance formidable (Chart 16). In short, the last vestiges of the “Nixon-Mao” moment are fading and the “Putin-Xi” alignment is already well-established. Russia cannot accept vassalage to China but it can make many compromises for the sake of strategic security. Their economies are much more complimentary today than they were at the time of the Sino-Soviet split. And Russia’s austere economy will not collapse as long as it retains some energy trade with Europe throughout the pivot to China. In turn the US will attempt to exploit Russian and Chinese regional aggression as a basis for a revitalization of its alliances. But Europe will dampen US enthusiasm by preserving economic engagement with Russia and China. The EU is increasingly an independent geopolitical actor and a neutral one at that. This environment of multipolarity – or Great Power Struggle – will define the coming decades. It will ensure not only periodic shocks, like the Ukraine war, but also a steady undercurrent of growing government involvement in the global economy in pursuit of supply security, energy security, and national security. Competition for security is not stabilizing but destabilizing. Hyper-globalization has given way to hypo-globalization, as regional geopolitical blocs take the place of what once promised to be a highly efficient and thoroughly interconnected global economy. Investment Takeaways Tactically, Geopolitical Strategy believes it is too soon to go long emerging markets. Russia is at war, China is reverting to autocracy, and Brazil is still on the path to debt crisis. Multiples have compressed sharply but the bad news is not fully priced (Chart 17). The dollar is likely to be resilient as the Fed hikes rates and a major European war rages. Europe’s geopolitical and energy insecurity will weigh on investment appetite and corporate earnings. American equities are likely to outperform in the short run. Chart 17Investors Should Not Bet On Russian And European Equities In This Context​​​​​ Chart 18Investors Find Value, Minimize Risk In Geopolitically Secure Equity Markets​​​​​​ Cyclically, global equities outside the US, and pro-cyclical assets offer better value, as long as the war in Ukraine remains contained, a Europe-wide energy shock is averted, and China’s policy easing secures its economic recovery. While European equities will snap back, Europe still faces structural challenges and eastern European emerging markets face a permanent increase in geopolitical risk due to Russian geopolitical decline and aggression. Investors should seek markets that are both cheap and geopolitically secure – namely Australia, Canada, and Mexico (Chart 18). We are also bullish on India over the long run.    Matt Gertken Chief Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months)

Special Report

Executive Summary EU-Russia Energy Trade To Persist Russia invaded Ukraine to prevent it from becoming a defense partner of the US and its allies. It is not likely to attack NATO members, which share a mutual defense treaty, so the war is limited in scope. Spillovers can occur but the US and Russia have 73 years of experience avoiding direct war. The US and EU will levy sweeping sanctions but they will not halt Russian energy exports, as that would cause a recession in Europe. European political leaders would likely fall from power in the coming years if there were a full-scale energy crisis. European nations will leverage Russian aggression to strengthen their popular support at home, while diversifying away from Russian energy over the long run. Europe will impose tough sanctions on Russia’s non-energy sectors, including finance and technology, to hobble the regime. China will consolidate power at home and strengthen ties with Russia but a war over Taiwan is a medium-to-long term risk.   Bottom Line: Investors should be cautious over the very near term but should prepare to buy the dip of a geopolitical incident that is generally limited to Ukraine and the Black Sea area. Supply responses from oil producers will remove the risk premium from oil prices and send the price of Brent crude to $85 per barrel by the end of the year. EU-Russia energy flows are the key risk to monitor. Feature Russia launched an invasion of Ukraine on February 24. The invasion was not limited to the far eastern corner of the country but involved attacks in the capital Kiev and in the far west and the coastline. Hence investors should proceed on the assumption that Russia will invade all of Ukraine even if it ends up limiting its invasion, as we expect (Map 1). Map 1Russian Invasion Of Ukraine 2022 It is critical for investors to understand the cause of the war in order to gauge its scope and adjust their risk appetite accordingly. Consider: Ukraine does not have mutual defense treaties that automatically trigger a broader war. Russia is attacking Ukraine to prevent it from becoming a defense partner of the US and its allies. Russia does not have the military capacity to attack the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) members, which have a mutual defense pact. Russia is attacking Ukraine because it does not have a mutual defense pact but was seeking one. Russia aims to neutralize Ukraine. If Moscow sacks Kiev and sets up a puppet state, then Ukraine will not seek western defense cooperation for the foreseeable future. If Russia conquers key territories to strengthen its control over Ukraine, then future Ukrainian governments will limit relations with the West for fear of Russian absorption. Russia is likely to seize coastal territory to ensure the long-term ability to blockade Ukraine. Russia will not withdraw troops until it has changed the government and seized key territories. Russia and NATO have no interest in war with each other. In the immediate fog of war, global financial markets will experience uncertainty about whether fighting will expand into a broader war between Russia and NATO. Such an expansion is unlikely because of mutually assured destruction (MAD) due to nuclear weapons. The US and Europe have already pledged that they will not send troops to fight in Ukraine. They will send troops and arms to support neighboring NATO states in central Europe, such as the Baltic states, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, and others. This will serve as a deterrent to Russia to keep its operations limited. Spillover incidents can and will occur, such as with Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 in 2014, but the US and Russia have 73 years of experience avoiding direct war, including when Russia invaded Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968, and Afghanistan in 1979. The US and EU will levy sweeping sanctions but the EU will not halt Russian energy exports. When Russia first invaded Ukraine and seized territory in 2014, Germany responded by working with Russia to build the Nord Stream II pipeline so as to import energy directly from Russia and circumvent Ukraine. This historical fact over the past eight years reveals Germany’s true interests. Thus energy cooperation increased as a result of Russian aggression. Of course, Germany has suspended the certification of that pipeline in light of today’s invasion, but it was not yet operating, so energy flows are not impeded, and it still physically exists for future operation when Germany finds it politically expedient. Hungary, Italy, Finland, the Czech Republic and others will also need to keep up Russian energy flows. Chart 1EU-Russia Energy Trade To Persist Nevertheless, a cessation of energy flows is still the most important risk for investors to monitor, whether triggered by European boycott or Russian embargo. That would cause a recession in Europe. Recession would cause European political leaders to fall from power in the coming years, which explains why they will not pursue that objective in face of Russian aggression. Even the US is vulnerable to a global price shock (during a midterm election year) and hence will allow the EU to keep importing Russian energy, whatever its sanctions package may contain. True, Russia may cut off natural gas flows via Ukraine, which account for nearly 20% of Europe’s imports (Chart 1). Moreover, Europe may threaten or claim that they will sanction the energy sector. But most flows will likely continue. Europe will diversify away from Russian energy over the long run. Instead of cutting off their own vital energy supplies, European nations will leverage Russian aggression to strengthen their popular support at home, while initiating emergency state-led efforts to diversify away from Russian energy over the long run through renewables and imports from the US and its allies. This will be advantageous to European democracies that were already struggling to increase political legitimacy amid nascent populism – they will now have a crusade with which to rally their people and maintain fiscal support for their economy: energy security. Europe will sanction Russia’s non-energy sector. Europe will impose tough sanctions on Russia’s non-energy sectors, including finance and technology, to hobble the regime. Russia will eventually be cut off from the SWIFT banking communications network, since it already has a rudimentary alternative that it developed in recent years, but Germany will not agree to cut it off until the payment alternate to continue energy flows can be arranged, which is ultimately possible. China will take advantage of the moment but is probably not ready to invade Taiwan. China could seize the opportunity to consolidate power at home and it may increase pressure on Taiwan through rhetoric, sanctions, or cyber-attacks, but it is not likely to invade Taiwan. An amphibious invasion of the globally critical territory of Taiwan is far riskier for China than a land invasion of the non-critical territory of Ukraine is for Russia. Russia’s strategic calculations and timing are separate from China’s, despite their growing de facto alliance. But a war in the Taiwan Strait is at risk over the long run, as the situation is geopolitically unsustainable, for reasons similar to that of Ukraine. The situation in Ukraine is likely to get worse before it gets better, implying that investors should expect further volatility in risk assets in the near term. Structurally, the shift to a less geopolitically stable multipolar world will favor defense and cybersecurity stocks. “Great Power Struggle” is our top geopolitical investment theme over the long run and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine highlights its continuing relevance. Bottom Line: A buying opportunity for heavily discounted, pro-cyclical or high-beta assets is emerging rapidly, given our assessment, and we will monitor events over the coming weeks to identify when such a shift is prudent. A wholesale energy cutoff to Europe is the chief risk, as it would justify downgrading global equities relative to long-maturity bonds on a six-to-12 month horizon. Investment Takeaways Global Investment Strategy: With real rates coming down, owning gold remains an attractive hedge. As a fairly cheap and defensive currency, a long yen position is advisable. Assuming the conflict remains contained to Ukraine, equities and other risk assets should recover over the remainder of the year. The geopolitical premium in oil prices should also come down. Consistent with our Commodity & Energy Strategy views, our Global Investment Strategy service is closing its long Brent trade recommendation today for a gain of 24.0%. Commodities & Energy Strategy: While oil exports from Russia are not expected to diminish as a result of the invasion, it will prompt increased production from core OPEC producers – Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Kuwait – to take the elevated risk premium out of Brent crude oil prices and allow refiners to rebuild inventories. The US and Iran may rejoin the 2015 nuclear deal, which would add about 1.0mm b/d of production to the market – Russia’s 2014 invasion of Crimea did not prevent the original nuclear deal. These production increases would take prices from the current $105 per barrel level to $85 per barrel by the second half of 2022 and keep it there throughout 2023, according to our base case view. This change marks an increase on our earlier expectation of an average $79.75 per barrel in 2023 in our previous forecast. European Investment Strategy: European equities are likely to continue to underperform in the near-term. Even if Russia and Europe avoid a full embargo of Russian energy shipments to the West, the disruption caused by a rupture of natural gas flows via Ukraine will keep European gas prices at elevated levels. Additionally, investors will continue to handicap the needed risk premia to compensate for the low but real threat of an energy crisis, which would prove particularly debilitating for Hungary, Poland, Germany, Czechia and Italy (Chart 2). Moreover, European equities sport a strong value and cyclical profile with significant overweight positions in financial and industrial equities. Industrials will suffer from higher input costs. European financials will suffer from a decline in yields as hawks in the European Central Bank are already softening their rhetoric on the need to tighten policy. However, due to the likely temporary nature of the dislocation, we do not recommend selling Europe outright and instead will stick with our current hedges, such as selling EUR/JPY and EUR/CHF. The evolution of the military situation on the ground will warrant a re-valuation of this hedging strategy next week. The euro will soon become a buy. Chart 2EU Economy Highly Vulnerable To Any Large Energy Cutoff Foreign Exchange Strategy: The Ukraine crisis will lead to a period of strength for the US dollar (DXY). Countries requiring foreign capital will be most at risk from an escalation in tensions. We still suspect the DXY will peak near 98-100, but volatility will swamp fundamental biases. Geopolitical Strategy: On a strategic basis, stick with our long trades in gold, arms manufacturers, UK equities relative to EU equities, and the Japanese yen. On a tactical basis, stick with long defensive sectors, large caps, Japanese equities relative to German, and Mexican equities relative to emerging markets. We will revisit these trades next week, after the European energy question becomes clearer, to determine whether to book profits on our bearish tactical trades.   – The BCA Research Team  

Executive Summary US biotech is trading at its greatest discount to the market. Ever. Much of biotech’s underperformance is due to transient factors: specifically, the sell-off in long-duration bonds; the focus on delivering a Covid vaccine; regulatory concerns; a drought in M&A; and a flood of IPOs. Overweight US biotech versus US big-tech, both tactically and structurally. Long-only investors with a time horizon of at least 2 years should go outright long biotech, especially US biotech. If, as we expect, the 30-year T-bond (price) continues to rally, then long-duration sectors and stock markets will resume their outperformance versus shorter-duration sectors and stock markets. Fractal trading watchlist: We focus on biotech, and add US banks versus consumer services, Norway versus China, Greece versus euro area, and BRL/NZD. US Biotech Is Trading At Its Greatest Discount To The Market. Ever Bottom Line: Every now and then comes a rare opportunity to buy a deeply unloved asset at a bargain basement price. We believe that now provides such an opportunity for the beaten-down biotech sector – especially the US biotech sector which is trading at its greatest discount to the market. Ever. Feature Every now and then comes a rare opportunity to buy a deeply unloved asset at a bargain basement price. We believe that now provides such an opportunity for the beaten-down biotech sector – especially the US biotech sector which is trading at its greatest discount to the market. Ever. But before we go into the specifics of biotech, let’s quickly discuss the recent action in the broader market. The Past Year Has Been All About ‘Duration’ A good way to think of any investment is to compress all its cashflows into one future ‘lump-sum payment.’ The length of time to this lump-sum payment is the investment’s ‘duration.’ And the present value of the investment is just the discounted value of this lump-sum payment, where the discount factor will depend on the required return on the investment combined with its duration.1 It follows that, all else being equal, the present value of a long-duration stock must rise and fall in line with the present value of an equally long-duration bond – because their discount factors move in lockstep. And, as we have been banging on in recent weeks, this simple observation is all you need to explain market action over the past year. For the 30-year T-bond, 2.4-2.5 percent is an important resistance level. Given that long-duration indexes such as the Nasdaq, S&P 500 and MSCI Growth have the same duration as the 30-year T-bond, they have been tracking the 30-year T-bond price one-for-one (Chart I-1 and Chart I-2). Hence, when the long-duration bond rallied, these stock markets outperformed shorter-duration indexes such as the FTSE100 and MSCI Value; and when the long-duration bond sold off, they underperformed. Chart I-1The Nasdaq Has Been Tracking The 30-Year T-Bond Price One-For-One Chart I-2MSCI Growth Has Been Tracking The 30-Year T-Bond Price One-For-One The Russian invasion of Ukraine has catalysed a retreat in the 30-year T-bond yield from a ‘line in the sand’ at 2.4-2.5 percent, which we have previously highlighted as an important resistance level. If, as we argued in A Massive Economic Imbalance, Staring Us In The Face, the 30-year T-bond (price) continues to rally, then long-duration sectors and stock markets will resume their outperformance versus shorter-duration sectors and stock markets. US Biotech Is Trading At Its Greatest Discount To The Market. Ever Over the longer term, the bigger driver of the stock price will not be the discount factor on the future lump-sum payment; the bigger driver will be the size of the lump-sum payment itself. For any company, industry, or stock market, this expected lump-sum payment will evolve in line with current profits multiplied by a ‘structural growth multiple.’ It turns out that while current profits are updated every quarter, the structural growth multiple does not change much from quarter to quarter, year to year, or even decade to decade. Yet occasionally, it can phase-shift violently downwards when an event, or realisation, shatters the market’s lofty hopes for structural growth. Occasionally, an event or realisation shatters the market’s lofty hopes for structural growth. For example, after the dot com bubble burst it became clear that the sky-high hopes for non-US tech companies were just pie in the sky. The result was that their structural growth multiple halved, which weighed down non-US tech stocks for the subsequent 10 years (Chart I-3). Chart I-3After The Dot Com Bust, The Structural Growth Multiple For Non-US Tech Collapsed More recently, the realisation that Facebook – or Meta Platforms as it is now known – is losing subscribers was the gestalt moment that shattered hopes for its structural growth. Note that while its 2022 profits are down slightly, the Meta share price has collapsed, indicating a big hit to the structural growth multiple (Chart I-4). Chart I-4Facebook's Structural Growth Multiple Has Collapsed Conversely, there are rare occasions when a phase-shift down in a structural growth multiple is unwarranted or has gone too far. Right now, a case in point is the biotech sector, especially the US biotech sector. Relative to the relationship of the 2010s decade, US biotech’s structural growth multiple has halved (Chart I-5). The result is that US biotech is trading at the greatest valuation discount to the market (-20 percent). Ever. It is also trading at its greatest valuation discount to the broader tech sector (-35 percent). Ever (Chart I-6 and Chart I-7). Chart I-5US Biotech's Structural Growth Multiple Has Halved, But Is Such A Massive De-Rating Justified? Chart I-6US Biotech Is Trading At Its Greatest Ever Discount To The Market... Chart I-7...And Its Greatest Ever Discount To Big-Tech Another way of putting it is that in the post-pandemic era, while the structural growth multiple for the broader tech sector is largely unchanged, the structural growth multiple for biotech has collapsed by 40 percent (Charts I-8, I-11). Begging the question, is such a massive structural de-rating justified? Chart I-8US Tech's Structural Growth Multiple ##br##Is Unchanged... Chart I-9...But US Biotech's Structural Growth Multiple Has Collapsed Chart I-10Global Tech's Structural Growth Multiple##br## Is Unchanged... Chart I-11...But Global Biotech's Structural Growth Multiple Has Collapsed Much Of Biotech’s Underperformance Is Due To Transient Factors We have identified five culprits for biotech’s recent underperformance, but they are largely transient: The sell-off in long-duration bonds: Ironically, though the market has downgraded biotech’s structural growth, it has still behaved like a long-duration sector that has tracked the sell-off in the 30-year T-bond. Hence, if the long-duration bond rallies, it will boost biotech stocks. The focus on delivering a Covid vaccine: While biotech was developing a Covid vaccine, investors became enamoured with the sector, but once the vaccine was delivered, investors fell out of love with the sector. Yet there is more to biotech than a provider of vaccines, and as we show in the final section, the sell-off has gone too far. Regulatory concerns: In the US there has been some concern about the dilution of a biotech company’s intellectual property (IP) rights – known as March-In-Rights – if government funding or research has contributed to an innovation. In practice though, the sophistication of most innovations means that IP would remain with the innovator. There has also been concern about drug pricing reform, but as is normal in any negotiation, the opening extreme position is likely to get watered down. A drought in M&A: The focus on Covid, plus the uncertainty around regulation, has led to a drought in the M&A activity that is usually the mechanism to crystallize value. Still, for long-term investors, value is value, whether it is crystallized or not. Furthermore, the drought in M&A cannot last forever. A flood of IPOs: The more than 100 biotech IPOs in 2021 was double the usual rate, creating an oversupply and indigestion for specialist investors in the sector. But given the poor performance of the sector, the IPO flood is likely to recede through 2022-23 in a self-correction. So, we come back to the question: is it right to price a structural growth outlook for biotech worse than the overall market and much worse than for big-tech? If anything, it is big-tech that faces the much greater existential risk in the form of Web 3.0 – which will remove big-tech’s current ownership of the internet, thereby wiping out its very lucrative business model. Look out for our upcoming Special Report on this major theme. To repeat, the market is valuing US biotech at a record 40 percent discount to big-tech, and at its most unloved versus the broad market, when most of the headwinds it faces are transient. All of which leads to two investment conclusions. The market is valuing US biotech at a record 40 percent discount to big-tech, and at its most unloved versus the broad market. Overweight US biotech versus US big-tech, both tactically and structurally. Long-only investors with a time horizon of at least 2 years should go outright long biotech, especially US biotech. Fractal Trading Watchlist This week’s analysis focusses on our main theme, biotech, and we add US banks versus consumer services, Norway versus China, Greece versus euro area, and BRL/NZD. Reinforcing the arguments in the preceding sections, US biotech is deeply oversold versus broader tech, reaching a point of fractal fragility that signalled several significant turning-points through the past two decades (Chart I-12). Accordingly, this week’s recommended trade is to go long US biotech versus US tech, setting the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 17.5 percent. Chart I-12US Biotech Is Deeply Oversold Versus Broader Tech   US Banks Are At Risk Of Reversal Norway's Outperformance Could End Greece's Snapback At A Resistance Point BRL/NZD At A Resistance Point Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Defined fully, the duration of an investment is the weighted-average of the times of its cashflows, in which the weights are the present values of the cashflows. Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Special Report

Executive Summary US Policy Uncertainty Rises With ERP The US is witnessing a rolling political crisis that will escalate again in the 2022-24 election cycle and presents a tail-risk of constitutional fracture. However, fundamental economic, constitutional, and geopolitical factors are structurally positive. US domestic political risk is not greater than foreign geopolitical risk affecting other major markets like Europe. The US faces challenges to maintain its competitive and technological edge. But the combination of a vibrant private sector and increasingly proactive fiscal policy give reason for optimism. The 2022-24 macroeconomic and political cycles will likely cause an increase in policy uncertainty and hence the equity risk premium – but foreign markets face even greater risks. Recommendation (Tactical) Inception Level Initiation Date Stop Loss Long DXY   Feb 23/2022   Bottom Line: Go tactically long US dollar (DXY) on the anticipation that US and especially global policy uncertainty and political risk premiums will rise. Feature With President Joe Biden’s approval rating falling to a new net low of -13%, investors are starting to ask about the future of American politics once again. It is highly likely that Democrats will lose control of Congress this fall, setting up a tumultuous 2024 election cycle. With political polarization at historic highs, it is worth asking whether US policy uncertainty will inject a risk premium into US equities. Our answer is yes, uncertainty and the risk premium will rise. But the US also contains fundamental strengths, especially relative to other major markets. With geopolitical risk rising for Europe as Russia engages in new military adventures, the US market will remain attractive over the long run. Natural Advantages Any fundamental assessment of US capability should begin with its people. The US working-age population continues to grow, while that of Europe and China has started to plateau or decline (Chart 1). China’s working population is four times bigger than that of the US, so if China can manage its transition to a higher-wage economy (i.e. if it can maintain productivity growth) then it can compete for global investment capital. But the US’s continued labor force growth, despite social change and political instability, suggests that the US will not follow Japan and Europe into sluggish trend growth, unless sharp curbs on immigration are put into place. The maxim that “the people are the riches of a nation” is only true if economic opportunity and job creation are sufficient. People need access to capital to become more productive. Europe has the largest capital stock in the world, at $100,000 per capita, compared to the US’s $71,000 and China’s $33,000. But Europe’s capital stock has been flat-to-down since the Great Recession. China’s capital stock is rising rapidly and has a lot further to go given its low level. But the country also faces a difficult transition to a new economic model and a debt-deleveraging process that may slow down the pace of capital deepening in the coming years, forcing the government to step in and promote capital projects (Chart 2). Meanwhile the US’s capital stock continues to grow steadily.  Chart 1The People Are The Riches Of A Nation... Chart 2...As Long As The People Are Not Starved Of Capital Since the shale boom the US has become nearly energy self-sufficient and now produces 20% of global oil and fuel. This development is a blessing from an economic and national security perspective. But it also poses the risk of a kind of resource curse, in which the US could lack the motivation to pioneer renewable energy technology. Currently the US only produces 4% of the world’s renewable energy, a share that has been declining. Europe and China are both energy import-dependent, which is a national security vulnerability, and they will continue to invest in renewable solutions to improve their energy security (Chart 3). Russian aggression will motivate Europe to go down this path, whereas China will go down this path for fear of American strategic containment. For now, however, the US is energy self-sufficient while technologically capable of advancing in renewable energy. The US has a range of structural problems: rising income inequality, extreme political polarization, and a policy turn away from globalization over the past 20 years. However, these problems have not weighed on GDP per capita growth. Of course, the greatest strides in GDP per capita are occurring in the developing world: China and India show the most promise. But the US’s GDP per capita is still growing at an annual average rate of 3%, putting it alongside Germany and ahead of the much less developed Brazil (Chart 4). Germany did not see anywhere near as big of increases in inequality and polarization and is still generally committed to globalization, yet its GDP per capita growth is about the same as the US’s, despite faster US population growth. Chart 3North America's Natural Resource Blessing Chart 4Does Political Instability Harm Productivity? Partisanship Means Big Government None of the above benefits have been reversed by the US’s historic increase in political polarization and partisanship over the past three decades. Make no mistake, the latter trends are harmful and could weigh on US stability and productivity in coming years, primarily through deteriorating fiscal management. But so far their bad effects have been contained. The two US political parties have won control of the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives a roughly equal number of times. While Republicans have a larger regional presence, across the 50 states, and tend to perform better in the Electoral College and the Senate, this advantage is very slight judging by the number of electoral victories. Meanwhile Democrats have a larger popular presence and perform better in the House of Representatives but this advantage is also slight (Chart 5). The two parties are evenly balanced, which is one explanation for why they compete so viciously for marginal victories. But it also prevents either party from achieving absolute power and distorting or corrupting American bureaucracy and corporate structures to perpetuate single-party rule. Chart 5An Even Balance Of Power Between The Parties The size of the federal government fluctuates within a fairly low and narrow range. Federal government receipts hovered around 16% of GDP in the 1950s-60s, peaked at 20.4% in 2000, and today stand right in the middle of this post-war range at 18.5%. Major increases in revenue follow the business cycle and it is rare that Democrats manage to raise taxes enough to have a substantial impact. This point is clear from looking at periods when Democrats controlled both the House of Representatives and the White House (shaded areas in Chart 6): the large increases in tax take mostly coincide with economic growth spurts. It is conceivable that the Biden administration will raise a minimum corporate tax this year via the budget reconciliation process, but the odds of that have been falling and it will not change the pattern in this chart, which shows rising revenue relative to GDP as the economy recovers but is not likely to match what was seen in the late 1990s. From the perspective of federal government spending, the growth in the size of government is clearer, rising from the post-war 15% of GDP to today’s 25% of GDP, with a pronounced structural uptrend. Republicans rarely control both the White House and the House of Representatives and only in the 1950s did they reduce spending outright. The past two Republican administrations presided over large increases in spending, while also capping revenue via tax cuts (Chart 7). Chart 6US Federal Revenue Does Not Change Much Over Time Chart 7US Federal Spending Does Not Change Much Over Time Thus in America’s highly polarized and populist political scene, Republicans fail to cut spending while Democrats fail to increase taxes. The takeaway is that budget deficits will remain structurally large. The political outlook reinforces this point as it promises a return to congressional gridlock. Historically speaking, Biden’s net negative approval rating implies that Democrats will lose 40 seats in the House of Representatives and 4 seats in the Senate this fall. It is unlikely that Democratic fortunes will improve much between now and this November given that midterm elections almost always punish the ruling party and midterm voters tend to make up their minds early in the year. Moreover the ruling party’s ailments are not easily reversed: headline inflation is running at 7.5%, crime and immigration are growing at historic rates, while foreign policy challenges will likely feed the narrative that the Biden administration is weak on the global stage. The likelihood of congressional gridlock from 2022-24 (and maybe beyond) entails that future increases in fiscal spending will be automatic, through lack of entitlement reform, rather than through grandiose new spending programs, which will not pass into law. As such, “Big Government” is back but it is still “limited government” in the US tradition – i.e. limited big government. Neither party has a blank check or dominates for long. And if anything a period of fiscal normalization (or pseudo-normalization) is on the horizon. Constitutional And Geopolitical Advantages The balance of the parties is not accidental but essential to the American constitutional system. This system is based on the tradition of “mixed” or “balanced” constitutionalism, which developed in ancient Greece and Rome and came to the Americas via the United Kingdom. The system can be discussed in philosophical or ideological terms but it is rooted in real, physical, institutional power. The tradition begins with great philosophers like Plato and Aristotle but is perhaps best illustrated by the Greek historian Polybius. Polybius observed a violent historical cycle that ceaselessly shifted from despotism to oligarchy to the tyranny of the masses to anarchy and finally back to despotism. He argued that the Roman constitution, by mingling the different social classes (the leaders, the elite, and the masses), could produce a durable constitutional order that would prolong the time period until the state decayed and collapsed. We call this the “Polybius Solution” (Diagram 1). Diagram 1The Polybius Solution The US constitution is successful because, like several of the oldest European constitutions, it mixes the different social classes and sources of power so that the leaders, elites, and masses each have a share in the political system and no single group can predominate and overwhelm the others. It is an extra benefit that the US constitution is one of the longest continually operating constitutions in the world, since the long fortification of the system in practice helps provide sociopolitical and economic stability, whereas the ideas themselves are not well taught or understood (Table 1). The fact that the constitution is written in a single document is useful but not decisive, as the British constitution similarly provides stability over long periods of change and upheaval both at home and abroad. Table 1The Balanced Constitution Investors should not mistake this constitutional system merely for a set of preferential ideas. Opinions change very easily. But it is physically difficult for ruling classes to take away rights and privileges that the masses of people have been given. Thus the mixture of constitutional powers is based in political realism, not idealism. The US constitution operates not because Americans are more well-meaning, educated, civic-minded, altruistic, or enlightened than others. It operates because the oligarchy is not powerful enough to disenfranchise the democracy, while the democracy is not powerful enough to purge the oligarchy. The government leaders themselves (the president, the lawmakers, the career bureaucrats, etc) are not powerful enough to suspend term limits and stay in power forever. Nor have they been able to ally with either the oligarchy or the democracy closely enough to permanently exclude the other one from its share of power within the system. There is a clear and present danger that the constitutional system could come under too much strain and fracture amid recent power struggles among the American social classes. The struggles between the classes have intensified since the fall of the Soviet Union (which deprived America of a common enemy) and especially the Great Recession (which provoked populist democratic movements). Some fear that a president could turn into an autocrat and refuse to yield power, others fear that the oligarchic faction could steal elections or manipulate the legal system, others fear that the democratic faction could steal elections or ride roughshod over legal procedures. Of these risks, the risk of autocracy is the lowest, while the risk of institutional corruption or electoral manipulation or majoritarian rule-breaking are the highest. Certainly political risk and policy uncertainty will rise from current levels over the 2022-24 election cycle, which promises to be extremely disruptive. However, there are three reasons to hold the baseline view that the US political structure will remain stable enough to sustain economic productivity over the coming years, despite enormous upheaval on the cyclical level of politics. The US remains secure from invasion, while provoked to meet rising geopolitical challenges. Neither Canada nor Mexico poses a fundamental threat to US national security – the US is capable of militarizing the borders, however undesirable – and the US is inaccessible to more distant enemies due to the tyranny of distance across the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Yet the resurgence of Russia and the rise of China are likely to present common external rivals around which America’s elites will attempt to galvanize public opinion to maintain national security and keep themselves in office. Because elections still tend to swing on historically critical regions, such as the Midwestern heartland, politicians will need to pursue some degree of economic nationalism to stay in power (Map 1). Map 1USA: Splendid Isolation? The US continues to benefit from a “brain drain” of talented foreign immigrants and will keep that door open if and when it curbs immigration more broadly. Immigration flows into the US are typically robust according to various indicators, including the numbers of newly naturalized citizens, which is itself an indicator of the US’s abiding advantages (Chart 8). The global pandemic caused a decline that is quickly rebounding. Immigration is one of the major outstanding sources of power struggle between the US political factions. It will become a centerpiece of the 2022-24 election cycle. The outcome is unclear. But general American attitudes toward immigration are not hostile, while elite attitudes favor immigration. Therefore whatever government policy finally emerges, it will likely preserve the US’s national interest of continuing to import global talent . Chart 8People Voting With Their Feet The US’s chronic trade imbalance generated a new policy consensus in favor of strengthening American competitiveness. The US pursued a policy of globalization and de-industrialization for decades but it became untenable in the wake of the Great Recession, which spawned a populist backlash. The Biden administration has largely coopted the Trump administration’s hawkish approach to trade. While US trade and current account deficits will remain very large for the foreseeable future, reflecting a fundamental imbalance of savings relative to investment (Chart 9), nevertheless the US will undertake targeted policies to improve supply chain resilience and domestic high-tech competitive edge. The Congress’s likely passage of the American Competes Act of 2022 exemplifies the new bipartisan consensus around the need to invest in American industrial and technological capabilities so as to better compete with great powers overseas (Table 2). Chart 9US Competitiveness Waning? Table 2US Bipartisan Consensus On Restoring Competitiveness By contrast, other regions face greater geopolitical threats to their homelands and greater difficulties coping with hypo-globalization. Europe’s strategic vulnerability to Russia will dampen investment sentiment and risk appetite. Russia’s economic trajectory has suffered since 2014 and its ongoing conflict with the West will result in isolation and lower productivity. China will see rising tensions with its neighbors due to its economic transition, emerging protectionism, and its need to become more assertive for the sake of supply security. By contrast the US is relatively insulated. Investment Takeaways The US’s economic, constitutional, and geopolitical advantages are structural positives. Rising domestic policy uncertainty over the 2022-24 election cycle might overshadow these positives temporarily, but they are likely to persist over the long run. Increasing geopolitical risks abroad suggest that domestic American policy uncertainty is likely to be overrated. Great power competition – stemming from geopolitical risks – will fuel capital spending among the major nations as well as research and development investments. In this respect the United States faces challenges to maintain its competitive edge. But it is still the leader and the combination of a vibrant private sector and an increasingly proactive public sector are positive (Chart 10). Are the US’s structural advantages already priced? To a great extent, yes. The US equity risk premium today stands at 300 basis points, compared to 660 in Europe and 570 in China. And yet global geopolitical risk, highlighted by Russia’s escalating conflict with the West, suggest that this divergence can get worse before it gets better. We expect the 2022-24 election cycle to cause an increase in policy uncertainty and the political risk premium. But as things stand the increase in uncertainty and risk premiums abroad will be even greater (Chart 11). Chart 10US Investing In The Future? Chart 11US Stocks Priced The Good News?       Matt Gertken Senior Vice President Chief US Political Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com   Strategic View Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months)   Table A2Political Risk Matrix Table A3US Political Capital Index Chart A1Presidential Election Model Chart A2Senate Election Model Table A4APolitical Capital: White House And Congress Table A4BPolitical Capital: Household And Business Sentiment Table A4CPolitical Capital: The Economy And Markets Footnotes  

Executive Summary A Swedish Warning Stocks are oversold but downside risks persist. The Fed is on the verge of beginning a tightening cycle, which creates a process often linked to deeper and longer equity corrections around the world. Global economic activity is decelerating, as growth transitions away from splurging on consumer goods to a return to trend in the service sector. Equities are more levered to industrial than services activity, which creates a risk window. Ukraine remains another near-term hurdle. Equity risk premia are not elevated enough to compensate for these threats. Despite near-term risks, the equity bull market will recover and Europe stocks will ultimately outperform. Bottom Line: Investors need to continue to hold portfolio hedges as the near-term outlook remains treacherous for equities. Nonetheless, a wholesale portfolio liquidation is unwarranted as we face a mid-cycle slowdown, not a recession. Feature Last week’s pattern of relaxation and renewed tensions in Ukraine is an acute reminder that markets remain fragile in the near-term. Investors must still contend with an imminent monetary tightening cycle in the US. Additionally, a few cracks are emerging on the global growth picture as a transition from spending on goods to services takes place. Under this light, we worry that risk premia remain too low, and that equities are still vulnerable to further near-term pullbacks. The situation is particularly complex for Europe, which is most exposed to the Ukrainian problems and to the global manufacturing cycle. We thus continue to recommend investors exposed to Europe hold protections. Oversold Enough? Many commentators argue that following the January equity sell-off, the mood of investors soured enough to warrant buying equities anew and closing our eyes. Most famously, the AAII Bull/Bear ratio is once again flirting with its 2018 and 2020 lows, two periods that, in hindsight, proved to be selling climaxes (Chart 1). The picture is complex. BCA’s Equity Capitulation Index is indeed becoming oversold (Chart 2). However, its reading is murky. It can either decline further, which would imply greater weaknesses in stocks, or rebound. Our first instinct is to look at the indicator’s behavior at the onset of Fed tightening cycles, which constitute close historical analogues: Chart 2... But Maybe Not Enough Chart 1Stocks Are Oversold...   In late 2015, when the last Fed tightening cycle began, the Capitulation Index plunged to much lower levels as stocks collapsed. In the background, the global economy was weakened by EM countries hammered by China’s slowdown and balance of payments crises. Around the hiking cycle that begun in June 2004, the Capitulation Index never plunged considerably, but the S&P 500 fell more than 8% between March and August 2004, in a volatile pattern. Back then, both US and global growth was very robust. In 1999, once the Fed resumed hiking rates after the 75bps of cuts following the LTCM debacle, the Capitulation Index and equities were very resilient. This strength persisted until the Nasdaq peaked in March 2000. The S&P 500 formed a complex top between March and August before starting a relentless collapse that September. Following the onset of the 1994-1995 tightening cycle, the Capitulation Index collapsed to much more oversold readings than current ones and equities entered a range-bound volatile episode that lasted until Q1 1995, as the Fed stopped hiking rates. The economy was replete with inflation fears and a mid-cycle slowdown was descending upon the US. The hiking cycle that started in 1988 did not witness significant downside in the Capitulation Index and stocks, but it took place soon after the 1987 crash when equities had become exceptionally oversold. Black Monday itself happened as inflation fear rose as a result of a weak dollar and as the Fed hiked rates through 1987. In 1984, the rate hike cycle was accompanied by a collapse in the Capitulation Index. The tightening in financial conditions caused by the Fed was exacerbated by the surge in the dollar that hurt US profitability and increased EM borrowing costs tremendously. After the 1981 hiking cycle, the Capitulation Index plunged as the US economy entered the second leg of the early 1980s double-dip recession. The latter was an economic crisis prompted by Federal Chairman Paul Volcker’s willingness to put an end to the inflation mentality of the 1970s. These historical experiences highlight one thing: Economic conditions were key to periods when the beginning of a tightening cycle caused a deeper correction in stocks than the one witnessed until now. Economic Clouds Today, the big question shaping the investment world is inflation. BCA expects inflation to peak over the coming months, whether in the US or in Europe. However, this process will take more time. CPI will not crest until after the Fed has begun to hike rates. In the meantime, there are plenty of factors that could easily fan inflation worries and, consequently, a continued upward repricing of the Fed’s interest rate path in the next few weeks. As Arthur Budaghyan highlighted in the most recent Emerging Market Strategy Report, US labor costs are rapidly rising, with the Atlanta Fed Median Wage growth measure up 5.1% annually and the Employment Cost Index (ECI) expanding at a 4.5% annual rate. Of particular worry, this surge in wages does not reflect underlying productivity and unit labor costs, which are up 3.2% annually (Chart 3), their highest rate since 2001, when the Fed funds rate was 4% and 10-year Treasurys yielded 5.4%.  Chart 3US Wage-Price Spiral? Elevated unit labor costs are a powerful inducement for inflation and, thus, are likely to continue to fan inflation fears among market participants. Of particular concern today, the rise in unit labor costs is not counterbalanced by a decline in US import prices and foreign deflationary pressures. Inflation fears remain a major risk for the market. As our BCA Monetary Indicator highlights, the liquidity backdrop is not supportive of equities anymore (Chart 4). Moreover, the technical picture is deteriorating, while speculation remains elevated. With investors fretting about the threat of inflation, the danger is that they start to anticipate a greater deterioration in monetary conditions. The problem is not unique to the US. At the global level, 75% of central banks are tightening policy and those that have not yet done so are gearing up to remove monetary accommodation. Adding to inflation fears are signs of a slowdown in the global goods sector. This slowdown reflects a natural transition from the spending binge on goods that took place during the pandemic, which is ebbing, to service spending, which is accelerating (Chart 5). This pattern is particularly evident for US consumers, the largest spenders in the world. Chart 5Transitioning From Goods To Services Chart 4Deteriorating Liquidity Conditions   One of the world’s most sensitive economies to the global industrial cycle is already feeling the pinch from this adjustment: Sweden. Swedish economic numbers have been weakening and Swedish assets are particularly soft (Chart 6), which heralds poorly for the global manufacturing sector. This deceleration in goods spending and industrial activity is a problem for equities because stock market profits are more geared toward the evolution of the industrial cycle than the service sector (Chart 7). Chart 6A Swedish Warning Chart 7Manufacturing, Not Services, Drives Profits Investment Conclusions In this context, it is prudent to maintain hedges to protect stock holdings. It is commonly argued that stocks are expensive, but if one considers the low level of bond yields, these valuations can be justified. Chart 8 challenges this notion. Yes, the earnings yield is still very elevated relative to 30-year Treasury bond yields; however, it is at its lowest in 42 years against core inflation. Why would core inflation be relevant? In a context in which investors are worried about the impact of inflation on both profit margins (higher labor costs) and the direction of policy, they are unlikely to remain unmoved by inflation fears, especially as the perception of higher policy rates may lift rates higher. Moreover, with many investors anxious that the Fed is falling far behind the curve, the marginal market players could easily become the individuals concerned that a catch up by the Fed will lead the economy into a recession. Considering the risks linked to Ukraine, the potentially negative impact on profitability of slowing goods spending, the growing policy uncertainty globally and in the US, and the inversion of many segments of the yield curve, prudence remains appropriate (Chart 9). Chart 8Value Is In The Eye Of The Beholder Chart 9Rising Policy Uncertainty Chart 10The Importance Of Manufacturing To Europe The problem for European equities is their elevated beta and pro-cyclicality. A pullback in US stocks will automatically drag down European stocks. Moreover, the region’s heavy reliance on manufacturing activity is reflected in the sectoral tilt of European benchmarks. As a result, the performance of European stocks is particularly sensitive to the evolution of the global industrial cycle (Chart 10). Add the fact that European economies are much more exposed to potential energy market disruptions emanating from Ukraine and the recent rebound in Europe’s relative equity performance becomes tenuous at best. Why would these dynamics be temporary and only warrant hedges, not a cyclical underweight in stocks and Europe? First, the inflation fear will recede in the second half of 2022. Our Global Supply Disruption Index has peaked and suggests that inflation surprises will soon ebb. Moreover, a measure of suppliers’ constraints based on the ISM Supplier Delivery Times, Backlog of Orders, Prices Paid, and Inventories is also rolling over (Chart 11). Second, a deepening of the stock market correction will tighten financial conditions and push credit spreads higher. This is a deflationary process that will cause inflation fears to recede and, thus, the pricing of expected Fed rate hikes to lessen. Third, the slowdown in the goods sector is concentrated among consumer goods. Capex will firm up. Capex intentions are elevated in Europe and the US, and global capital goods orders remain robust, despite having decelerated from their extraordinary rebound following the Q1 2020 shutdowns (Chart 12). Moreover, the political and corporate demand to build greater redundancy in global supply chains following the disruptions caused by the Sino-US trade war and COVID-19 will also boost corporate investments for a few more years. This means that many industrial sectors will recover globally and propel industrial equities higher. Chart 11Apex Bottlenecks? Chart 12Capex Will Stay Strong Fourth, Matt Gertken, BCA’s geopolitical strategist, continues to see a limited Ukrainian conflict as the most likely outcome of the current tensions.  As a result, any dislocation to global stocks and European assets caused by a conflict will be transitory. Finally, the business cycle has further to run. In 1994/95 and in 2015/16, the Fed tightening cycle materialized around the time of a mid-cycle slowdown. The economy recovered and profit firmed up anew, which allowed stocks to rebound. The Fed Funds rate is rising but remains below the neutral rate. Interest rates in Europe also have ample scope to rise before monetary policy becomes tight. Simultaneously, the recovering service sector will continue to support employment and, thus, final demand. Equity bear markets rarely materialize outside of recessions (Chart 13).   Chart 13Bear Markets Demand A Recession Bottom Line: Global equities are oversold, but the combination of rising inflation, Fed tightening, Ukrainian risks, and a transition from a goods-driven recovery to a service sector-led economy means that stocks risk becoming even more oversold in the near term. European equities are not immune to these threats. While rising rates are a lesser problem for Europe than the US, the developments in Ukraine and a manufacturing transition represent greater hurdles. Ultimately, the difficulties faced by stocks reflect a mid-cycle slowdown taking place alongside a period of policy tightening. It will be, therefore, temporary. Consequently, investors should not abandon stocks, but rather continue to hold protections.   Mathieu Savary, Chief European Strategist Mathieu@bcaresearch.com Tactical Recommendations Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Trades

Executive Summary The ultimate inflation anchor is unit labor costs. If relative price shocks cause employees to demand higher wages from their employers, and if they are granted wage increases above and beyond their productivity advances, inflation will become broad-based and persistent. US unit labor costs have been rising rapidly, which indicates that US inflation is becoming pervasive and entrenched (Chart of the week). The Fed is facing an acute dilemma that it has not encountered in the last 35 years or so: It either needs to slow growth materially to contain inflation or allow inflation to proliferate. The Fed will make a dovish pivot only after financial conditions tighten substantially, i.e., if the S&P 500 falls by 20% or more (from its peak) and credit spreads widen much more from the current levels. Rapid Rises In Unit Labor Costs Entail High Inflation Bottom Line: The Fed and equity markets are on a collision course: The Fed will not make a dovish pivot until markets sell off and markets cannot rally unless the Fed backs off. Feature In a report we published a year ago titled Riding A Tiger, we stated that “the enormous size of US stimulus and overflow of liquidity is creating a thrill akin to riding a tiger… Riding a tiger is fun. The hitch is that no one can safely get off a tiger. Similarly, US authorities are currently enjoying the exuberance from stimulus, but they will not be able to safely and smoothly dismount.” We also contended that “in any system where an explosive money/credit boom persists, the outcome will be one or a combination of the following: inflation, asset bubbles or capital misallocation… Odds are that the US will experience asset bubbles and inflation in the real economy.” Riding a tiger was indeed fun but now it is time for US policymakers to dismount. Yet, exiting the era of super easy monetary and fiscal policies will not be without costs and considerable financial market turbulence. Are the Fed and financial markets heading into a collision in the fog of inflation? Transitory Versus Persistent Inflation Chart 1US Inflation Is Broad Based, As Evidenced By Median And Trimmed-Mean CPIs US inflation has become broad-based.1 Not only is core CPI surging but also trimmed-mean, median and sticky core consumer price inflation have risen substantially (Chart 1).  Median and trimmed-mean price indexes would not be rocketing if inflation was limited to select goods or services. Particularly, the aforementioned measures exclude components with extreme price changes. What might have started as a narrow-based relative price shock has evolved into broad-based genuine inflation. The key to the transition from one-off inflation spikes to persistent genuine inflation is wages, more specifically unit labor costs. Unit labor cost are calculated as nominal wages divided by productivity (the latter is output per hour per employee). As long as unit labor costs are not rising considerably, sharp price increases in several types of goods do not entail genuine inflation and central banks should not tighten aggressively. However, when unit labor costs are escalating, odds are that higher inflation could become entrenched and persistent. The importance of wages stems from the fact that labor compensation makes up the largest share of costs for the majority of industries. Consequently, rising unit labor costs squeeze profit margins. When this transpires, businesses try to pass on rising costs to customers. Provided that robust wage growth propels consumer demand, companies often succeed in raising their prices. Chart 2US Wages Are Rising Rapidly In turn, inflation erodes the purchasing power of wages, and employees demand substantial pay raises. When revenues are strong, employers typically accommodate employees’ claims for higher compensation, and a wage-price spiral emerges. These dynamics are presently unfolding in the US. US wage growth has reached multi-decade highs of 4.5-5.5% (Chart 2). Plus, the high and climbing quit rate points to further wage acceleration (Chart 3). As US productivity cannot rise as fast as the current wage growth of 4.5-5.5% (Chart 4), the ratio of wages to productivity (unit labor costs) is escalating. Unit labor costs are rising faster than they have in the past 38-40 years. Historically, an acceleration in unit labor costs has often heralded higher inflation (Chart 5). Chart 3US Wages Will Continue Accelerating Chart 4Wage Growth Is Outpacing Productivity Gains   Chart 5Rapid Rises In Unit Labor Costs Entail High Inflation The only period when US core inflation fell despite rising unit labor costs was during the second half of the 1990s (Chart 5). During this period, EM currency devaluations from China to Mexico and then to Asia unleashed the deflation tsunami in goods prices. US imports prices from Asia collapsed allowing US inflation to drift lower despite rising unit labor costs. The current backdrop is different: US import prices from Asia, including China, are rising (Chart 6). Importantly, US wage growth is presently below headline and core CPI, i.e., real wages are contracting (Chart 7). Provided US employees have experienced a decline in their purchasing power in the past 12 months, they are keen to secure substantial pay raises in the coming months. Chart 6Unlike The Late 1990s, US Import Prices From Asia Are Rising Chart 7US Real Wages Are Shrinking   Employers facing strong demand cannot afford an employee exodus. Businesses will raise salaries and hike selling prices to preserve their profit margins, thereby giving rise to a wage-price spiral. Bottom Line: The ultimate inflation anchor is unit labor costs. This is why wages, more specifically unit labor costs, are the most important variable to monitor. If relative price shocks lead employees to demand higher wages from their employers, and if they are granted wage increases above and beyond their productivity advances, inflation will become broad-based and persistent. The Fed’s Dilemma When inflation becomes pervasive and entrenched, as it is now in the US, the only way to bring it down is to slow the economy. Unless demand decelerates meaningfully, US inflation will not go away because it has already spilled over into consumer and business expectations. Even though US headline and core CPI will likely drop in the coming months, core inflation will remain well above the Fed’s target of 2% (Chart 1 above). To maintain its credibility, the Fed should hike rates continually despite the potential rollover in headline and core CPI measures. Chart 8High Probability Of US Core Inflation Exceeding 4% In The Next 12 Months My colleague, Jonathan Laberge, Managing Editor of the Bank Credit Analyst, has quantitatively estimated that there is a almost 100% probability that in next 12 months core PCE inflation will be above 3%, and a 70% probability that it will be above 4% (Chart 8). All this means that if the Federal Reserve is serious about bringing core inflation closer to 2%, it will have to slow down the economy meaningfully. In short, the Fed cannot both achieve decent growth and bring inflation down to its 2% target in the next 1-2 years. The Fed seemed omnipotent over the past 35 years because inflation was falling or was very low. That allowed US monetary authorities during financial crises/deflationary shocks to cut rates aggressively and flood the system with liquidity. That playbook worked well in a disinflation context and the US central bank has prevented protracted debt deflation. When inflation – rather than deflation – is the problem, authorities can do little without slowing growth. In short, an inflation redux has made US policymakers’ jobs much more difficult. If the Fed tightens too much, the economy will slump. If policymakers drag their feet and do not raise interest rates rapidly and significantly, inflation will hover well above its target and inflation expectations will escalate with negative ramifications for the economy (more on this below). Bottom Line: The Fed is facing an acute dilemma. The Fed will not publicly acknowledge it, but financial markets are gradually waking up to the new reality that the era of an omnipotent Fed might be over, at least for a period of time. Why Not Allow Inflation To Proliferate? Why should authorities tighten policy and slow growth to reduce inflation? Why can’t the US operate with inflation in a range of 3.5-5%? First, there is no guarantee that core inflation will stabilize at 3.5-5% and not rise further. When higher consumer and business inflation expectations set in, they are not easily dislodged. Second, persistent inflation can damage growth itself. High price volatility increases business uncertainty as producers cannot properly plan their costs and selling prices. Higher uncertainty leads companies to abandon expansion projects and new investments. Consequently, economic growth, employment and ultimately productivity suffer. Lower productivity growth creates fertile ground for inflation to thrive. This can lead to stagflation whereby growth slows but inflation remains high. Finally, from a political perspective, inflation can be more damaging to a government’s popularity than modestly high unemployment. For example, if the unemployment rate is at 6-7%, there would be some unhappy voters, but the majority of the population would be employed and their real purchasing power would be rising. Hence, the majority of voters might be content about the incumbent government’s policies.  In an inflation scenario, however, everyone would be unhappy because inflation erodes the purchasing power of household income and wealth. The point is that moderately high unemployment affects a few families who do not have jobs while inflation affects everyone. US politicians and policymakers have forgotten the perils of inflation because rapidly rising prices have not been a problem for decades. Therefore, they have erred on the side of helicopter money assuming that deflationary pressures and higher unemployment are worse than inflation. They have forgotten that inflation is not only worse for the wider population but that it could cause growth to slump resulting in stagflation: a combination of high inflation and high unemployment. Inflation has already become a political problem in the US. With income growth lagging behind inflation, household purchasing power has declined, which has fueled dissatisfaction with the current government. Biden’s popularity has tanked in the past nine months along with the rise of inflation. If inflation is not quelled by this fall, chances are that the Democrats will lose Congress to the Republicans in the midterm elections. Further, if high inflation persists in the next two years, odds of a Republican candidate winning the 2024 presidential elections will be considerable. Recognizing this, the Biden administration will not oppose the Fed’s hawkish policy for now. While we are sympathetic to the view that the Fed will ultimately not raise rates too aggressively, they have no reason not to hike and cannot afford to appear dovish at the current juncture. Even as headline and core inflation measures start falling (which is very likely in the months ahead), the Fed has no excuse to turn dovish. The rationale is that the US core inflation rate, while dropping from 5.5-6%, will still be well above the central bank’s target of 2%. In our opinion, the Fed will make a dovish pivot only after financial conditions tighten substantially, i.e., if the S&P 500 falls by 20% or more (from its peak) and credit spreads widen much more from current levels. Bottom Line: Until panic selling occurs in the equity and credit markets or the economy is materially weaker, the Fed will hike interest rates at every meeting and will start quantitative tightening soon. Thus, US bond yields and the US dollar have more upside for the time being. Overall, the Fed and equity markets are on a collision course: the Fed will not make a dovish pivot until markets sell off and markets cannot rally unless the Fed backs off. Implications For Financial Markets Chart 9Second Half Of The 1960s: The S&P 500 And US Bond Yields Became Negatively Correlated As long as the Fed maintains its hawkish bias (which is very likely in the coming months), US bond yields will rise and/or the yield curve will flatten, the greenback will be firm, and stocks will struggle. The current environment will be more reminiscent of what occurred in the late 1960s than any other period of the past 40 years. In the second half of the 1960s, when US core CPI spiked, US share prices became negatively correlated with US bond yields (Chart 9). We discussed this topic at great length in a report from a year ago. Hawkish monetary policy amid the inflation overshoot means that the Fed appears to be credible, and this stance is positive for the US dollar. As soon as the Fed makes a dovish pivot however, the US dollar will tank. The basis is that by turning dovish earlier than warranted, odds are that inflation would remain well above its target, i.e., the Fed would fall behind the inflation curve. When a central bank is behind the inflation curve, the currency depreciates. Our US Equity Capitulation Indicator has fallen quite a bit but has not yet reached its 2018, 2016, 2011 and 2010 lows (Chart 10). We believe the macro backdrop is poor enough to justify a pullback on par with those selloffs (17-20% from the peak). In such an environment, EM stocks will outperform DM only if the US dollar weakens (Chart 11). Chart 10More Downside In The S&P 500? Chart 11EM Relative Equity Performance Moves With The US Dollar​​ Chart 12Will The Current Episode Play Out Like Q4 2018? Alternatively, we might be witnessing a replay of Q4 2018 when the S&P 500 sold off hard led by tech stocks, but having underperformed earlier that year EM outperformed (Chart 12). While such a scenario is quite possible, we need to downgrade our view on the US dollar in order to upgrade EM stocks from underweight. We are not ready to do so because we believe the Fed’s hawkish bias will for now support the greenback. On the whole, we continue to recommend underweight allocations to EM equities and credit markets within their respective global portfolios. Absolute-return investors should stay cautious on EM risk assets. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1     Please note this is the view of Emerging Markets Strategy team and does not reflect the view of other BCA services.   Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

Executive Summary Russian Invasion Scenarios And Likely Equity Impact The Ukraine crisis is escalating as predicted. We maintain our odds: 65% limited incursion, 10% full-scale invasion, 25% diplomatic de-escalation. Russia says it will take “military-technical” measures as its demands remain unmet, while the US says an invasion is imminent. Fighting has picked up in the Donbas region. Our Ukraine decision tree highlights that the key to a last-minute diplomatic resolution is a western renunciation of defense cooperation with Ukraine after a verified Russian troop withdrawal. The opposite is occurring as we go to press. Stay long gold, defensives over cyclicals, and large caps over small caps. Stay long cyber security stocks and aerospace/defense stocks relative to the broad market. Trade Recommendation Inception Date Return LONG GOLD (STRATEGIC) 2019-12-06 27.6% Bottom Line: Our 75% subjective odds of a partial Russian re-invasion of Ukraine appear to be materializing. At the same time, we are not as optimistic about an imminent solution to the US-Iran nuclear problem. A near-term energy price spike is negative for global growth so we recommend sticking with our defensive tactical trades. Feature Chart 1Ukraine: Don't Be Complacent Fears about a heightened war in Ukraine fell back briefly this week before redoubling. Russian President Vladimir Putin showed a willingness to pursue diplomacy but then western officials refuted Russian claims that it was reducing troops around Ukraine. US President Biden said Russia is highly likely to invade Ukraine in the next few days. The Russian foreign ministry sent a letter reiterating Russia’s earlier threat that it will take unspecified “military-technical” actions given that its chief demands have not been met by the United States. A worsening security outlook as we go to press will push the dollar up against the euro, the euro up against the ruble, will lead to global equities falling (with US not falling as much as ex-US), and global bond yields falling (Chart 1). To assess the situation we need to weigh the signs of escalation against those of de-escalation. What were the signs of de-escalation? First, the Russian Defense Ministry claimed it is reducing troop levels near Ukraine, although NATO and the western powers have not verified any drawdown. An unspecified number of troops were said to return to their barracks in the Western and Southern Military Regions, according to Russian Defense Ministry spokesman General Igor Konashenkov. A video showed military units and hardware pulling back from Crimea. Officials claimed all troops would leave Belarus after military drills ended on February 20.1 Second, the Kremlin signaled that diplomacy has not been exhausted. In a video released to the public, Putin met with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. He asked whether there was still a chance “to reach an agreement with our partners on key issues that cause our concern?” Lavrov replied, “there is always a chance.” Putin replied, “Okay.” Then, after speaking with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz in Moscow, Putin said: "We are ready to work further together. We are ready to go down the negotiations track.”2 Third, the Ukrainians are supposedly restarting efforts to implement the 2015 Russia-imposed ceasefire, under pressure from Germany and France. Ukraine’s ruling party is expected to introduce three bills to the Rada (parliament) that would result in implementing the terms of the Russian-imposed 2015 ceasefire, the so-called Minsk II Protocols. Ukraine is supposed to change its constitution to adopt a more federal system that grants autonomy to the two Russian separatist regions in the Donbas, Donetsk and Luhansk. Ukraine is also supposed to hold elections.3 The caveats to these three points are already clear: The US said Russia actually added 7,000 troops to the buildup on the Ukrainian border. Without Russia’s reducing troops, the US and its allies cannot offer major concessions. The US cannot allow itself to be blackmailed as that would encourage future hostage-taking and blackmail. Putin’s offer of talks is apparently separate from its “military-technical” response to the West’s failure to meet its three core demands on NATO. Russia’s three core demands are no further NATO enlargement, no intermediate-range missiles within threatening range, and withdrawal of NATO forces from eastern Europe to pre-1997 status. Putin reiterated that these three demands are inseparable from any negotiation and that Russia will not engage endlessly without resolution. Yet the West has consistently rejected these demands. Then came the Foreign Ministry statement pledging Russia’s military-technical response. So talks that focus on other issues – like missile defense and military transparency – are a sideshow. Ukraine is reiterating its desire to join NATO and will struggle to implement the Minsk Protocol. The Minsk format is not popular in Ukraine as it grants influence and recognition to the breakaway ethnic Russian regions. Ostensibly President Volodymyr Zelenskiy has sufficient strength in the Rada to change the constitution, given the possibility of assistance from opposition parties that oppose war or favor Russia. But passage or implementation could fail. The Russian Duma has also advised Putin to recognize the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics as independent countries, which Putin is not yet ready to do, but could do if Ukraine balks, and would nullify the Minsk format.4 Of Russia’s three core demands, investors should bear in mind the following points: Ukraine is never going to join NATO. One of the thirty NATO members will veto its membership to prevent war with Russia. Therefore Russia is either making this demand knowing it will fail to justify military action, or driving at something else, such as NATO defense cooperation with Ukraine. Even if NATO membership is practically unrealistic, the US and NATO are providing Ukraine with arms and training, making it a de facto member. The quality and quantity of western defense cooperation is not sufficient to threaten Russia’s military balance so far but it could grow over time and Russia is insisting that it stop. While there is also a broader negotiation over Europe’s entire security system, immediate progress depends on whether the US and its allies stop trying to turn Ukraine into a de facto NATO ally. NATO is not going to sacrifice all of the strategic, territorial, and military-logistical gains it has made since 1997. Especially not when Russia is attempting to achieve such a dramatic pullback by military blackmail. But NATO could reduce some of the most threatening aspects of its stance if Russia reciprocates and there is more military transparency. Similarly, the US and Russia have a track record of negotiating missile defense deals so this kind of agreement is possible over time. The problem, again, hinges on whether agreement can be found over Ukraine. The opposite looks to be the case. Based on the above points, Diagram 1 provides a “Decision Tree” that outlines the various courses of action, our subjective probabilities, and the sum of the conditional probabilities for each final scenario. Diagram 1Russia-Ukraine Decision Tree, February 9, 2022 We start with the view that there is a 55% chance that the status quo continues: the West will not rule out Ukraine’s right to join NATO and will not halt defense cooperation. If this is true, then the new round of talks will fail because Russia’s core security interests will not be met. However, we also give a 25% chance to the scenario in which Ukraine is effectively barred from NATO but not defense cooperation. This may be the emerging scenario, given Chancellor Scholz’s point that Ukrainian NATO membership is not on the agenda and the White House’s claim that it will not pressure states to join NATO. Basically, western leaders could provide informal assurances that Ukraine will never join. But then the matter of defense cooperation must be resolved in the next round of talks. Given that the US and others have increased arms transfers to Ukraine in recent months and years (with US providing lethal arms for the first time in 2018), it seems more likely (60/40) that they will continue with arms transfers. After all, if they halt arms, Russia can invade anyway, but Ukraine will have less ability to resist. We allot a 15% chance to a scenario in which the US and its allies halt defense cooperation, even if they officially maintain NATO’s “open door” policy. If the Russians withdraw troops in this scenario, then a lasting reduction of tensions will occur. Again, while allied defense cooperation has been limited so far, it is up to Russia whether it poses a long-term threat. Finally, we give a 5% chance that the US and NATO will bar Ukraine from membership and halt defense cooperation. This path would mark a total capitulation to Russia’s demands. So far the allies have done nothing like this. They have insisted on NATO’s open door policy and have continued to transfer arms. No one should be surprised that tensions are escalating. De-escalation could still conceivably occur if Russia verifiably withdraws troops, if Ukraine moves to implement the Minsk II protocol, and if the US and its allies pledge to halt defense cooperation with Ukraine. The first step is for Russia to reduce troops, since that enables the US and allies to make major concessions when they are not under duress. If the US and NATO guarantee they will halt defense cooperation, given that Ukraine is practically unlikely to join NATO, then Russia may not be as concerned with Ukraine’s implementation of Minsk. As we go to press, none of these conditions are falling into place. The security situation is deteriorating rapidly. Bottom Line: Russia is likely to stage a limited military intervention into Ukraine (75%). The odds of a diplomatic resolution at the last minute are the same (25%). A full-scale invasion of all of Ukraine remains unlikely (10%). Market Reaction To Re-Escalation Chart 2 highlights the global equity market response to the Russian invasion of Crimea in 2014, which should serve as the baseline for assessing the market reaction to any renewed attack today. Stocks fell and moved sideways relative to bonds for several months, cyclicals (except energy) underperformed defensives, small caps briefly rose then collapsed against large caps, and value stocks rose relative to growth stocks. The takeaway was to stay invested over the cyclical time frame, prefer large caps, and prefer value. The difference today is that cyclicals and small caps are already performing worse against defensives and large caps than in 2014, while value has vastly outstripped growth (Chart 3). The implication is that once war breaks out, cyclicals and small caps have less room to fall whereas value has limited near-term upside. Chart 2Market Response To Crimea Invasion, 2014​​​​​​ Chart 3Market Response 2022 Versus 2014​​​​​​ If we look closely at global equity gyrations over the past week – when the Ukraine story moved to front and center – we see that stocks are falling relative to bonds, cyclicals are flat relative to defensives, small caps are rising relative to large caps, and value is flat relative to growth but may have peaked (Chart 4). In the short term the geopolitical dynamic will move markets so we expect cyclicals, small caps, and value to underperform. Commodity prices and the energy sector are initially benefiting from tensions as expected – oil prices and energy equities spiked amid the tensions (Chart 5). But assuming war materializes, Russia will at least cut off natural gas flowing through Ukraine, cutting off about 20% of Europe’s natural gas supply and triggering a bigger price shock. Ultimately, however, this price shock will incentivize production, destroy global demand, and drive energy prices down. Chart 4Global Equities Just Woke Up To Ukraine​​​​​​ Chart 5Global Energy Sector Just Woke Up To Ukraine​​​​​ Thus we expect energy price volatility. Russia will keep shipping energy to Europe to finance its military adventures. Europe will be loath to slap sanctions on critical energy supplies, assuming Russia’s military action is limited. The Saudis may or may not increase production to prevent demand destruction – in past Russian invasions they have actually reduced production once prices started to fall. A temporary US-Iran nuclear deal could release Iranian oil to the market, though that is not what we expect in the short run (discussed below). Bottom Line: Tactically investors should favor bonds over stocks, the US dollar and US equities over global currencies and equities (especially European), defensive sectors over cyclicals, large caps over small caps, and growth over value stocks. Is Ukraine Already Priced? Not Yet. Chart 6Crisis Events And Peak-To-Trough Market Drawdown The peak-to-trough equity drawdown – in geopolitical crises that are comparable to a Russian invasion of Ukraine – range from 11%-14% going back to 1931. The following research findings are derived from a list of select events, from the Japanese invasion of China to the German invasion of Poland to lesser invasions, all the way down to Russia’s seizure of Crimea in 2014. We used the S&P 500 as it is the most representative stock index over this long period of time. The fully updated and broader list of geopolitical crises can be found in Appendix 1. Geopolitical crises tend to trigger an average 10% equity decline, smaller than economic crises or major terrorist attacks (Chart 6). The biggest geopolitical shocks to the equity market occur when an event is a truly global event, as opposed to regional shocks. Interestingly Europe-only shocks have seen some of the smallest average drawdowns at around 8% (Chart 7). An expanded Ukraine war would be limited to Europe. The average equity selloff is largest, at 14%, if both the US and its allies are directly involved in the geopolitical event. But the range is 11%-14% regardless of whether the US or its allies are involved (Chart 8). Ukraine is not an official ally, which is one reason the markets will tend to play down a larger war there. However, the market is underrating the fact that Ukraine’s neighbors are NATO members and will have a powerful interest in supporting the Ukrainian militant insurgency, which could lead to unexpected conflicts that involve NATO member-state’s citizens. Chart 7Geopolitical Crises And Markets: Where Is The Crisis?​​​​​​ Chart 8Geopolitical Crises And Markets: Who Are The Players?​​​​​​ Chart 9Russian Invasion Scenarios And Likely Equity Impact The Russians have as many as 150,000 troops on the border with Ukraine, according to President Biden’s latest speech. The Ukrainian active military numbers 215,000. This ratio is not at all favorable for a full-scale invasion. The Russians are contemplating a limited action directed at teaching Ukraine a lesson or encroaching further onto Ukrainian territory, especially coastal territory. History suggests that a limited incursion will produce a 10% total equity drawdown, whereas a full-scale invasion would produce 13% or more (Chart 9). Still, investors should view 11%-14% as the appropriate range for a geopolitically induced crisis. The S&P has fallen by 9% since its peak on January 3, 2022. But Russia has not invaded yet. If war breaks out, there is more downside, given high uncertainty. Markets could still be surprised by the initial force of any Russian military action. The US will impose sweeping sanctions immediately. The Europeans will modify their sanctions according to Russia’s actions, a key source of uncertainty. If a diplomatic resolution is confirmed – with Russia withdrawing troops and the US and its allies cutting defense cooperation with Ukraine – then the market may continue to rally. However, there are other reasons to be cautious: especially inflation and monetary policy normalization, with the Federal Reserve potentially lifting rates by 50 basis points in March. Bottom Line: Stocks can fall further given that investors do not yet know the magnitude of the Russian military action or the US and European sanctions response. However, a buying opportunity is around the corner once this significant source of global uncertainty is clarified. New Iran Deal Is Neither Guaranteed Nor Durable A short note is necessary on the situation with Iran, another major risk this year, which falls under our third 2022 key view: oil-producing states gain geopolitical leverage. The implication is that the Iran risk will not be resolved quickly or easily. The global economy could suffer a double whammy of energy supply shock from Ukraine and energy supply risk in the Middle East this year. The US-Russia showdown is connected to the US-Iran nuclear negotiation. Russia took Crimea in 2014 in part because it saw an opportunity to exact a price from the United States, which sought Russia’s assistance in negotiating the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran. Today a similar dynamic is playing out, in which Russian diplomats cooperate on Iranian talks while encroaching on Ukraine. The Russians do not have an interest in Iran achieving a deliverable nuclear weapon and thus will offer some limited cooperation to this end. Their pound of flesh is Ukraine. According to media reports, the Iranian negotiations have seen some positive developments over the past month. US interest in rejoining the 2015 deal: The Biden administration has an interest in preventing Iran from reaching “breakout” levels of uranium enrichment and triggering a conflict in the region that would drive up oil prices ahead of the midterm election. It is going to be hard for Biden to remove sanctions in the context of Russian aggression but it is likely he would do it if the Iranians recommit to complying with the 2015 restrictions on their nuclear program. Iranian interest in rejoining the 2015 deal: The Iranians have an interest in convincing President Biden to remove sanctions to improve their economy and reduce the risk of social unrest. They are demanding the removal of all sanctions, not only those levied by President Trump. They also know that rejoining the 2015 deal itself is not so bad, since it starts expiring in 2025 and does not limit their missile production or support of militant proxies in the region. However, note that the Iranian regime has suppressed domestic instability since Trump’s “maximum pressure” sanctions, and the economy is improving on oil prices, so the threat of social unrest is not forcing Iran to accept a deal today. Also note that Iran is making demands that cannot be met: Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amirabdollahian is asking the US to provide guarantees that the US will not renege on the deal again, for example if the Republicans return to the White House in 2025. President Biden cannot provide these guarantees. The voting margins are too thin for a “political statement,” promising that the US will not renege on a deal, to pass Congress. While House Speaker Nancy Pelosi might be willing to provide such a statement to the Iranians, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer probably will not – he opposed the originally 2015 deal. Even if Congress gave Iran guarantees, the fact remains that the GOP could win the White House in 2025, so the current, hawkish Iranian leadership cannot be satisfied on this front. Furthermore, even if Biden pulls back sanctions and Iran complies with the 2015 deal for a brief reprieve, Iran’s underlying interest is to obtain a deliverable nuclear weapon to achieve regime survival in the future. Iran faces a clear distinction between Ukraine, which gave up nukes and is now being dismembered (like Libya and Iraq), and North Korea, which now has a deliverable nuclear arsenal and commands respect from the US on the national stage. Moreover if the Republicans take back power in 2025, Iran will want to have achieved or be close to achieving a deliverable nuclear weapon. The Biden administration is weak at home and facing a crisis with Russia, which may present a window of opportunity for Iran to make a dash for the nuclear deterrent. Still, we acknowledge the short-term risk to our pessimistic view: It is possible that Iran will rejoin the deal to gain sanctions relief. In this case about 1-1.2 million barrels per day of Iranian crude will hit the global market. The implication, depending on the size of the energy shock, is that Brent crude prices will fall back to the $80 per barrel average that our Commodity & Energy Strategy expects. We also agree with our Commodity & Energy Strategist that global oil production will pick up in the face of supply risks that threaten to destroy demand. Bottom Line: We doubt Iran will rejoin the 2015 nuclear deal quickly. We expect energy prices to continue spiking in the short term due to Ukraine and any setbacks in the Iran negotiations. Yet we also expect oil producers around the world to increase production, which will sow the seeds for an oil price drop. Our tactical trade recommendations rest on falling oil prices and bond yields in the short run. Investment Takeaways Stay long gold. Stay long global defensive equity sectors over cyclicals. Favor global large caps over small caps. Stay long cyber security stocks and aerospace/defense stocks relative to the broad market. Stay long Japanese industrials relative to German and long yen. Stay long British stocks relative to other developed markets excluding the US, and long GBP-CZK. Favor Latin American equities within emerging markets, namely Mexican stocks and Brazilian financials relative to Indian stocks.   Matt Gertken Chief Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      See "Russia Announces Troop Withdrawal," Russia Today, February 15, 2022, rt.com; "Ukraine crisis: Russian claim of troop withdrawal false, says US," BBC, February 17, 2022, bbc.com. 2     David M. Herszenhorn, “On stage at the Kremlin: Putin and Lavrov’s de-escalation dance,” Politico, February 14, 2022, politico.eu. 3     "Scholz says Zelensky promised to submit bills on Donbass to Contact Group," Tass, February 15, 2022, tass.com; "Scholz in Kyiv confirms Germany won’t arm Ukraine, stays mum on Nord Stream 2," February 15, 2022, euromaidanpress.com. 4     "Kiev makes no secret Minsk-2 is not on its agenda — Russian Foreign Ministry," Tass, February 17, 2022, tass.com; Felix Light, "Russian Parliament Backs Plan To Recognize Breakaway Ukrainian Regions," Moscow Times, February 15, 2022, themoscowtimes.com. Appendix 1: Geopolitical Events And Equity Market Impact Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months)

Executive Summary The recent 26 percent overspend on durable goods constitutes one of the greatest imbalances in economic history. An overspend on goods is corrected by a subsequent underspend; but an underspend on services is not corrected by a subsequent overspend. This unfortunate asymmetry means that the recent overspend on goods at the expense of services makes the economy vulnerable to a downturn. And the risk is exacerbated by central banks’ intentions to hike rates in response to inflation. As the spending on durable goods wanes, so too will monthly core inflation and the 30-year T-bond yield. As the 30-year T-bond rallies, so too will other long-duration bonds, long-duration stocks, long-duration sectors, and long-duration stock markets such as the S&P 500 versus short-duration stock markets such as the FTSE 100. Fractal trading watchlist: We focus on emerging markets, add financials versus industrials, and review tobacco versus cannabis, CAD/SEK, and biotech. If A 26 Percent Overspend On Goods Is Not A Massive Economic Imbalance, Then What Is? Bottom Line: As the spending on durable goods wanes, so too will monthly core inflation and the 30-year T-bond yield. Go overweight long-duration bonds, long-duration stocks, and long-duration stock markets such as the US versus non-US. Feature My colleague Peter Berezin recently wrote that recessions tend to happen when: “1) the build-up of imbalances makes the economy vulnerable to downturn; 2) a catalyst exposes these imbalances; and 3) amplifiers exacerbate the slump.” Peter is spot on. Using this checklist, I would argue that right now: There is a massive imbalance that makes the economy vulnerable to a downturn. Specifically, a 26 percent overspend on durable goods constitutes one of the greatest imbalances in economic history – the 26 percent overspend on durables refers to the US, but other advanced economies have experienced similar binges on goods. The catalyst that exposes this massive imbalance is the realisation that durables are, well, durable. They last a long time. So, if you front-end loaded many of this year’s purchases into last year, then you will not buy them this year. If you overspent by 26 percent in 2021, then the risk is that you symmetrically underspend by 26 percent in 2022. If central banks hike rates into this demand downturn, they will amplify and exacerbate the slump. A Massive Imbalance In Spending Makes The Economy Vulnerable To A Downturn Much of the recent overspend on goods was spending displaced from the underspend on services which became unavailable in the pandemic – such as eating out, going to the movies, and going to in-person doctor’s appointments. Raising the obvious question, can a future underspend on goods be countered by a future overspend on services? The answer is no. The consumption of services is constrained by time, opportunity, and biology. For example, there is a limit on how often you can eat out, go to the movies, or go to the doctor. If you are used to eating out and going to the movies once a week, and the pandemic prevented you from doing so for a year, that does not mean you will eat out and go to the movies an extra 52 times for the 52 times you missed! Rather, you will quickly revert to your previous pattern of going out once a week. This constraint on services spending means that the underspend will not become a symmetric overspend. In fact, the underspend on certain services will persist. This is because we have made some permanent changes to our lifestyles – for example, hybrid office/home working and more online shopping and online medical care. Additionally, a small but significant minority of people have changed their behaviour, shunning services that require close contact with strangers. To repeat the crucial asymmetry, an overspend on goods is corrected by a subsequent underspend; but an underspend on services is not corrected by a subsequent overspend (Chart I-1 and Chart I-2). Therefore, the recent massive overspend on goods at the expense of services makes the economy vulnerable to a downturn, and the risk is exacerbated by central banks’ intentions to hike rates in response to inflation. These hikes will prove to be overkill, because inflation is set to cool of its own accord. Chart I-1An Overspend On Goods Can Be Corrected By A Subsequent Underspend...   Chart I-2...But An Underspend On Services Cannot Be Corrected By A Subsequent Overspend   Durables Are Driving Inflation, And Inflation Is Driving The 30-Year T-Bond The recent binge on goods really comprises three mini-binges, which peaked in May 2020, January-March 2021, and October 2021. With a couple of months lag, these three mini-binges have caused three mini-waves in core inflation. To see the cause and effect, it is best to examine the evolution of inflation granularly – on a month-on-month basis – which removes the distorting ‘base effects.’ The mini-binges in goods lifted the core monthly inflation rate to an (annualised) 7 percent in July 2020, 10 percent in April-June 2021, and 7 percent in January 2022 (Chart I-3). Chart I-3Spending On Durables Is Driving Inflation Worryingly, the sensitivity of inflation has increased in each new mini-binge in goods spending, possibly reflecting more pressure on already-creaking supply chains as well as more secondary effects. Nevertheless, the key driver of the mini-waves in core inflation is the demand for durables, and as that demand wanes, so will core inflation. As monthly core inflation eases back, so too will the 30-year T-bond yield. What about the 30-year T-bond yield? Although it is a long-duration asset, its yield has recently been tracking the short-term contours of core inflation. So, when monthly inflation reached an (annualised) 10 percent last year, the 30-year T-bond yield reached 2.5 percent. At the more recent 7 percent inflation rate, the yield has reached 2.35 percent. It follows that as monthly core inflation eases back, so too will the 30-year T-bond yield (Chart I-4). Chart I-4Inflation Is Driving The 30-Year T-Bond Get The 30-Year T-Bond Right, And You’ll Get Most Things Right For the past year, the story of stocks has been the story of bonds. Or to be more precise, the story of long-duration stocks has been the story of the 30-year T-bond. Through this period, the worry du jour has changed – from the Omicron mutation of SARS-CoV-2 to an Evergrande default to Facebook subscriber losses and now to Russia/Ukraine tensions. Yet the overarching story through all of this is that the long-duration Nasdaq index has tracked the 30-year T-bond price one-for-one (Chart I-5). And the connection between S&P 500 and the 30-year T-bond price is almost as good (Chart I-6). Chart I-5Get The 30-Year T-Bond Right, And You'll Get The Nasdaq Right Chart I-6Get The 30-Year T-Bond Right, And You'll Get The S&P 500 Right The tight short-term connection between long-duration stocks and the 30-year T-bond makes perfect sense. The cashflows of any investment can be simplified into a ‘lump-sum’ payment in the future, and the ‘present value’ of this payment will move in line with the present value of an equal-duration bond. So, all else being equal, a long-duration stock will move one-for-one in line with a long-duration bond. The story of long-duration stocks has been the story of the 30-year T-bond. ‘Value’ stocks and non-US stock markets which are over-weighted to value have a shorter-duration. Therefore, they have a much weaker connection with the 30-year T-bond. It follows that if you get the 30-year T-bond right, you’ll get most things right: The performance of other long-duration bonds (Chart I-7). The performance of long-duration growth stocks (Chart I-8). The performance of ‘growth’ versus ‘value’ (Chart I-9). The performance of growth-heavy stock markets like the S&P 500 versus value-heavy stock markets like the FTSE100 (Chart I-10). Of course, the corollary is that if you get the 30-year T-bond wrong, you’ll get most things wrong. Observe that the 1-year charts of long-duration bonds, growth stocks, growth versus value, and S&P 500 versus FTSE100 are indistinguishable. Proving once again that investment is complex, but it is not complicated! Chart I-7Get The 30-Year T-Bond Right, And You'll Get The 30-Year German Bund Right Chart I-8Get The 30-Year T-Bond Right, And You'll Get Growth Stocks Right   Chart I-9Get The 30-Year T-Bond Right, And You'll Get Growth Versus Value Right Chart I-10Get The 30-Year T-Bond Right, And You'll Get S&P 500 Versus FTSE100 Right Our expectation is that as the spending on durable goods wanes, so too will monthly core inflation and the 30-year T-bond yield. Go overweight long-duration bonds, long-duration stocks, long-duration sectors, and long-duration stock markets such as the US versus non-US. Fractal Trading Watchlist This week we focus on emerging markets, add financials versus industrials, and review tobacco versus cannabis, CAD/SEK, and biotech. Emerging markets (EM) have been a big underperformer through the past year, but it may be time to dip in again, at least relative to value-heavy developed market (DM) indexes. Specifically, MSCI Emerging Markets versus MSCI UK has reached the point of fractal fragility that signalled previous major turning-points in 2014, 2018, and 2020 (Chart I-11). Accordingly, this week’s recommended trade is to go long MSCI EM versus UK (dollar indexes), setting the profit-target and symmetrical stop-loss at 10 percent.  Chart I-11Time To Dip Into EM Again, Selectively Financials Versus Industrials Is Approaching A Turning-Point CAD/SEK At A Top Awaiting A Major Entry-Point Into Biotech Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area   Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations I   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations III