Developed Countries

Highlights The faster-than-expected oil-demand recovery from the COVID-19 omicron variant points to higher EM trade volumes this year and next, which, along with a weaker USD, will boost base-metals demand and prices (Chart of the Week). The recovery in iron-ore prices on the back of China stimulus and omicron-induced labor shortages at miners will lift copper prices, the base-metals' bellwether.  Supply-demand balances in refined copper showed a physical deficit of 438K MT for the January-October 2021 period, indicating the market extended its years-long deficit in 2021. Despite the IMF's mark-down in global growth due to slowdowns in the US and China this year, metals demand will continue to exceed supply, which will support prices. Short squeezes – most recently in nickel, following a headline-grabbing copper squeeze in October – will keep base metals' inventories under pressure and forward curves backwardated. We remain long the S&P GSCI and the COMT ETF, as well as the PICK ETF, to remain exposed to backwardation.  At tonight's close, we are getting long the SPDR S&P Metals and Mining ETF (XME) ETF, following its recent sell-off. We are raising our 2022 copper target to $5.00/lb on COMEX, and keeping our 2023 expectation at $6.00/lb. Feature Inadequate development in new base metals supply, which has been apparent for years, means economic recovery and expansion will continue to tax existing supplies over the short run (to end-2023).1  Chart of the WeekExpected Global Trade Pick-Up Will Boost Base Metals Demand Chart 2Physical Deficits Will Persists In Copper... At a global level, prolonged supply-demand imbalances mean inventories will continue to be drawn hard to cover for prompt supply shortfalls.  This can be seen in the principal base metals we cover: copper (Chart 2), aluminum (Chart 3), nickel (Chart 4), and zinc (Chart 5).  As a result, short squeezes in base metals markets will continue to grab headlines, as persistent physical deficits periodically drain inventories.2   Longer term, the global effort to decarbonize energy supply could be stretched out well beyond 2050, when most policymakers assume the task of replacing fossil-fuel energy sources will largely be completed.  The longer it takes to mobilize capex, the more expensive the energy transition becomes, as markets are continually forced to adjust to short-term shortages leading to price spikes and squeezes in an effort to meet demand. Chart 3...Aluminum... Chart 4...Nickel... Chart 5...And Zinc. Faster Demand Recovery In Metals Faster-than-expected oil-demand recovery will translate to higher trade volumes globally this year and next.  This is particularly important for EM markets, given oil and metals prices – particularly copper, the base metals bellwether – share a common long-term equilibrium (i.e., they're cointegrated, as seen in the Chart of the Week).3 A pick-up in EM trade volumes, along with a weakening USD this year, will help lift copper prices.  Most trade is in manufactured goods, which will translate into a pick-up in cyclical stocks vs. defensive stocks as well, which also is supportive of copper prices (Chart 6). Copper prices also will be supported by the recovery in iron-ore prices, which have been bid up on the back of increasing stimulus in China and global growth ex-China, as well as omicron-induced labor shortages among miners.  As is typical, copper demand will follow in the wake of steel demand, as construction and infrastructure projects are finished off (i.e., plumbing and wiring are installed) (Chart 7). Chart 6Global Trade Recovery Will Boost Copper Chart 7Iron Ore Rally Will Boost Copper Supply Side Remains Challenged Impressive gains put up on the supply side last year in Indonesia – which, according to the International Copper Study Group, posted a 51% increase in copper output at the Grasberg mine over the first 10 months of 2021, – and other smaller producers notwithstanding, geopolitical uncertainty continues to dominate the supply-side risks to base metals generally, copper in particular.4 Economic and political uncertainty in Chile and Peru, which account for 30% and 10% of global copper output, respectively, will continue to keep miners hesitant in their capex allocations, in our view.  Both states have elected left-of-center governments, which still are working through how they will deliver on their election mandates, including revenue re-distribution, taxation and royalties.5 The combination of stronger demand and tepid supply growth will keep base metals inventories under pressure, which will translate into continued backwardation.  This is particularly apparent in the copper (Chart 8) and nickel (Chart 9).  Both of these squeezes resulted from buyers treating the London Metal Exchange as a supplier of last resort – which is an extremely rare occurrence in futures markets – and both required the intervention of the London Metal Exchange to address.6 Chart 8Copper Backwardation Will Persist Chart 9...As Will Nickels Investment Implications Base metals markets will continue to find it difficult to match supply with demand, as they have for the past several years.  This further compounds the global energy transition – largely because the suppliers of the metals needed to pull it off are starting from a deep physical deficit position – and likely delays it considerably. In an environment in which obstacles to developing the supply needed to phase out fossil fuels in favor of renewable generation continue to mount, we remain long commodity index exposure – the S&P GSCI and COMT ETF – and favor exposure to miners and trading companies that are responsible for moving metals around the globe. At tonight's close, we are getting long the SPDR S&P Metals and Mining ETF (XME) ETF, following its recent sell-off of 10% for its highs of $47/share.  Our view on base metals is they are a long-term value play, in which miners and the supply side generally, will benefit from the high prices needed to develop the supply the energy transition will require.  The big risk here is these companies once again lose the plot and fail to control costs to produce at the expense of the health of their margins.  If we see this, we will exit the position.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com Paula Struk Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy paula.struk@bcaresearch.com   Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish We expect OPEC 2.0 to announce they'll continue with the return of another 400k b/d at next week's monthly meeting.  In reality, the producer coalition most likely will fail to return these volumes to market and will fall short of the mark again.  The real news markets are waiting for is whether the four states capable of increasing supply and sustaining higher output – Saudi Arabia, Iraq, the UAE and Kuwait – will step up to cover the growing gap between volumes that were pledged and what's actually been delivered.  The coalition agreed in July 2021 to begin returning some of the 5.8mm b/d of output pulled from the market during the COVID-19 pandemic starting in August 2021.  To date, the producer group has fallen short by about 800k b/d, based on the IEA's January 2022 estimates. Failure to increase production by the four core OPEC 2.0 states could keep prices above $90/bbl this year and next (Chart 10). Base Metals: Bullish Iron ore prices have rallied ~ 14% since the start of this year, as markets expect China to ease steel production cuts in 2022 and loosen monetary policy.  Last week, the People’s Bank of China (PBoC) cut its policy interest rate for the first time in nearly two years.  Markets expect more stimulus and policy easing in China as the central bank and government attempt to stimulate an economy mired by COVID-19 lockdowns, a property market slump and high energy prices.  Higher stimulus implies more commodity refining and manufacturing activity, including steel production, which will lead to higher iron ore demand. Precious Metals: Bullish In line with market expectations, the Federal Reserve signaled an initial rate hike in March, in its January Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting. While nominal interest rates will rise, the Fed will remain behind the inflation curve. The US CPI reading for December showed that inflation was 7% higher year-on-year, the highest annual increase in inflation since 1982 (Chart 11). High inflation and the Fed’s slow start to raise nominal interest rates will keep real rates, the opportunity cost of holding gold, low. Chart 10 Chart 11     Footnotes 1     Please see 2022 Key Views: Past As Prelude For Commodities, published on December 16, 2021 for additional discussion. 2     Please see Column: Nickel gripped by ferocious squeeze as stocks disappear: Andy Home, published by reuters.com on January 20, 2022; and LME copper spreads backwardated amid stock squeeze, published by argusmedia.com on October 20, 2021. 3    This was flagged most recently in the IEA's January 2022 Oil Market Report, which noted, "While the number of Omicron cases is surging worldwide, oil demand defied expectations in 4Q21, rising by 1.1 mb/d to 99 mb/d. In 1Q22, demand is set for a seasonal decline, exacerbated by more teleworking and less air travel. We have raised our global demand estimates by 200 kb/d for 2021 and 2022 – resulting in growth of 5.5 mb/d and 3.3 mb/d, respectively – due to softer Covid restrictions."  Please see Higher Output Needed To Constrain Oil Prices for our latest oil balances and price forecasts.  We published this report last week. 4    Please see International Copper Study Group press release of January 2022. 5    Please see Add Local Politics To Copper Supply Risks, which we published on November 25, 2021, for a discussion of these risks. 6    Please see Footnote 2 above.     Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Trades Closed In 2021

The BCA house view is that the US Treasury rates will move higher this year. Monetary tightening has been one of our core investment themes, and a reason for overweighing banks back in September 2021, which outperformed the S&P 500 by 7% since we initiated this position. Today, we double down on our bearish outlook for US bonds and upgrade another rate-sensitive industry group – insurance. While insurance only marginally bested the S&P 500 in 2021, it is now up 9% year-to-date in relative terms. Most insurers have struggled over the past decade, as persistently low rates have had an adverse effect on their earnings, capital, reserves, and liquidity. These companies’ priority is asset/liability matching, i.e., investment income needs to match contractual obligations. Higher rates make it easier for the insurers to reach their target rates of returns without wading into riskier asset classes. Also, rising rates are a tailwind for the industry: They enjoy a positive roll return by reinvesting premiums at higher yields (top panel). In addition to rising rates, there are several other factors that support the strong performance of the industry over the next few months. Life Insurance: There is an increased demand for traditional life insurance as, for many, pandemic underlined a need for protection; millennials are coming of age; and lastly, life and health insurance are perks offered by employers to workers in a tight labor market. Premiums are expected to grow at 4% in 2022, a minor slowdown from 5.8% 2021 estimated growth.1 Vaccinations and new COVID treatments have reduced mortality from the virus, potentially boosting profitability. With the rising number of baby boomers, demand for retirement products is increasing. However, challenging conditions of the public capital markets may create headwinds for the asset management side of the life insurers business. P&C Insurance:  Insured loss from COVID is beginning to stabilize, although there are some outstanding litigations on coverage terms under business interruption coverage. Ongoing economic recovery drives an increase in demand for commercial lines coverage. The insurance pricing environment remains “hard”, with the demand that is relatively inelastic and economically defensive. CFRA forecasts written premium growth of 6% to 9% in 2021 and 7% to 10% in 2022.2 Cyber insurance will get traction as a result of the frequency and severity of high-profile cyber attacks. Written premiums are expected to grow by 22% in 20223 with an average rate increase of 18%. In terms of fundamentals, the street sales growth estimates are set at 3% vs 7% for the SPX. Relative earnings growth expectations are also low (-5%) and are nearly on par with the GFC levels, setting up insurers for positive earnings surprises (middle panel). Valuations are undemanding, with the relative P/B ratio at a multi-decade low (bottom panel). Bottom Line: Today, we double down on our bearish outlook for the US bonds and upgrade the S&P insurance index to overweight. Ticker symbols in the S&P insurance index are: CB, MMC, AON, MET, PGR, AIG, PRU, TRV, AFL, ALL, AJG, L, WTW, HIG, PFG, BRO, CINF, WRB, RE, GL, LNC, AIZ. Footnotes 1    CFRA Industry Surveys, Life and Health Insurance, December 2021. 2    CFRA Industry Surveys, Property and Casualty Insurance, July 2021. 3    Ibid.

Feature Is the worst over for US and EM equities? Clearly, the risk-reward of stocks has somewhat improved, given they are no longer overbought and some bad news has already been priced in. However, conditions for a durable bottom and a sustainable and lasting rally do not yet exist. In the case of the S&P 500, our capitulation indicator has not yet reached the lows that marked the major bottoms of the past 12 years (Chart 1). Chart 1US Stocks Have Not Reached Their Selling Climax Yet Chart 2Components Of US Equity Capitulation Indicator None of its four components – the advance/decline line, momentum, breadth and investor sentiment – are back to their lows of 2010, 2011, 2015-16 and 2018 (Chart 2). In the past three cases, the S&P 500 corrected by 17-20%. A correction of this magnitude is our base case for the S&P 500 at the moment. The S&P drawdown has so far been half of this. US inflation and the Fed’s policy remain the key headwinds to US share prices. Core consumer price inflation is substantially above the Fed’s preferred range (2-2.25%) and wage growth is accelerating. As a result, the Fed will lose credibility if it does not sound ready to hike interest rates materially. The US equity market is vulnerable to such a not-dovish stance from the Fed because it is still very expensive. Inflation has also become a political problem. One reason Biden’s popularity has been sliding in the polls is the rapid pace of consumer price increases. Heading into the mid-term elections in the fall, the White House and the Democrats will not oppose the Fed raising interest rates to fight inflation. Overall, BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategy team believes markets/investors are underestimating inflation risks in the US. Core inflation will not drop below 3% unless the economy slows down and employment/wages slump. High and rising trimmed-mean and median CPI measures suggest inflation is broad-based. Normalization in supply-side factors will not be enough to lower core inflation below 3%. Importantly, the median and trimmed-mean core inflation measures strip out goods and services that post abnormal fluctuations. Their elevated readings corroborate that inflation is genuine and broad-based. Hence, pressure on the Fed to tighten will remain substantial. This is bad news for a still overvalued US stock market. Chart 3EM EPS Is Set To Dissapoint Concerning EM equities and currencies, economic growth in EM will disappoint. Chart 3 suggests that EM corporate profits are set to deteriorate materially in the coming six months or so. Besides, investor sentiment on EM equities is not downbeat – it is neutral (Chart 28 below). From a contrarian perspective, there is not yet a case to buy EM stocks in absolute terms. China’s business cycle recovery is still several months away. In other EM countries, monetary policy has tightened substantially, real interest rates remain high, or the banking system is too unhealthy to support growth. Finally, fiscal policy will be slightly tight this year in the majority of EM. As domestic demand in China and in mainstream EMs disappoint and the Fed does not do a dovish pivot soon, EM currencies will resume their depreciation versus the US dollar. Chart 4 shows that China’s credit and fiscal impulse leads EM currency cycles and is presently pointing to more EM currency depreciation. Charts 32 and 33 (below) are pointing to further greenback strength. Finally, EM growth disappointments and a strong greenback will pressure EM fixed income markets. EM high-yield (HY) credit – both sovereign and corporate – has been selling off, but investment-grade (IG) credit has been holding up (Chart 5). This is a sign that investors have been reluctant to offload EM IG credit and points to lingering positive sentiment on EM and lack of capitulation. Sluggish EM growth and an appreciating US dollar are headwinds for EM credit markets. Chart 4EM Currencies Remain At Risk Chart 5EM Credit Markets: The Selloff Will Broaden Bottom Line: We continue to recommend a defensive strategy for absolute return investors. For global equity portfolios, we recommend underweighting EM and the US, and overweighting Europe and Japan. The path of least resistance for the US dollar is up for now. The charts on the following pages are the most important ones for investors today. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com US Stocks Have Not Reached Their Selling Climax Yet Even though only 17% of the NASDAQ’s stocks are above their 200-day moving average, the same measure for the NYSE index is 38%, well above its previous lows. Besides, the NYSE’s advance/decline line has broken down, signifying a broadening equity rout. Finally, the US median stock has broken below its 200-day moving average after going sideways for 9-12 months. When such a profile occurs, the sell-off lasts more than a couple of weeks. Chart 6 Chart 7 Chart 8 Chart 9 Non-US Stocks Are Not Oversold Yet Neither global ex-US nor EM stocks are very oversold. Global ex-US and European share prices in SDR terms have been moving sideways for about 9-12 months prior to breaking down recently. Such a breakdown means a weakness in share prices that will likely last for a while. Chart 10 Chart 11 Chart 12 Chart 13 Growth Stocks Have Broken Down Various indexes of growth/TMT stocks have broken below their moving averages that have served as a support since spring 2020. This along with the fact that US interest rates will likely rise suggests that the bull market in growth stocks is either over or in for a prolonged hibernation. Chart 14 Chart 15 Chart 16 Chart 17 Is FAANGM A Bubble? In the past 12 years, US FAANGM stocks rose as much as the previous bubbles. When those bubbles peaked, their prices did not move sideways but rather collapsed. We do not assert that US FAANGM stocks will drop by more than 35% (we simply do not know). The point we would like to emphasize is that the bull market is over for now. At best, US growth stocks will likely be in a trading range in the coming 12-24 months.  Chart 18 Chart 19 US Share Prices And Corporate Margins: Defying Gravity? From a very long-term perspective, the US equity market is rather overextended. Share prices in real terms are almost two standard deviations above their time trend. Similarly, corporate profits in real terms are also very elevated, not least in their reflection of record-high profit margins. The key questions for US equity investors are: (1) how persistent/sticky core inflation will be; and (2) how low corporate profit margins will drop. Wages are the key to both inflation and corporate margins. We believe wage growth will accelerate materially. That will be bad for the outlook of inflation and corporate profit margins, although it will be good news for corporate top lines. Chart 20 Chart 21 The Levels of EM Share Prices And Corporate Profits Have Been Flat For 12 years Contrary to the US, EM share prices are not overextended – they have been flat in absolute terms for the past 12 years. The reason for such dismal performance has been stagnant corporate profits. The latter have been flat-to-down in real terms for the past 12-14 years. A breakout in EM share prices in absolute terms will require their EPS entering a secular uptrend. While this is not impossible this decade, it is not imminent. Chart 22 Chart 23 Long-Term Equity Valuations (Cyclically-Adjusted P/E Ratio) Based on a cyclically-adjusted P/E (CAPE) ratio, EM stocks are close to their fair value. In contrast, based on the same measure, US equities are very overvalued. As a result, the relative CAPE ratio of EM versus the US is at a record low. Hence, on a multi-year horizon, odds are that EM share prices will outperform their US peers. In a nutshell, EM ex-China, Korea, Taiwan currencies are also close to their fair value. We will be looking to upgrade EM in the coming months. Chart 24 Chart 25 Chart 26 Chart 27 Investors Are Not Bearish On EM And Europe One missing factor to upgrade EM (non-US markets in general) is investor sentiment. Sentiment is neutral on EM stocks and is fairly upbeat on Europe. In brief, a capitulation has also not yet occurred in non-US markets. On the whole, the current EM sell-off will likely linger until sentiment becomes downbeat. Chart 28 Chart 29 Directional Indicators For EM Stocks Points To More Downside The cross rate between SEK (a pro-cyclical currency) and CHF (a defensive one) moves in tandem with EM share prices. The same holds for the NZD versus the USD. The rationale is as follows: all of these currencies correlate with the global business cycle and global risk-on/off trends. Presently, the SEK/CHF cross and the NZD point to lower EM share prices. Chart 30 Chart 31 The US Dollar Is To Rally Further The Fed’s willingness (for now) to hike rates is positive for the greenback. The trend in relative TIPS yields between the US and Germany heralds further USD strength against the euro. Also, the cross rate between SEK (a pro-cyclical currency) and CHF (a defensive one) entails more upside in the broad trade-weighted US dollar. Chart 32 Chart 33 Worrisome Market Profiles Several markets such as EM non-TMT share prices, Korean tech stocks, the Chinese onshore CSI300 stock index and silver prices have all failed to break above their 200-day moving averages and are now relapsing. Such a profile is often consistent with new cyclical lows in these markets. Chart 34 Chart 35 Chart 36 Chart 37 China’s Liquidity And Credit Cycles Even though China has heightened the pace of monetary easing, it will take several months before its credit impulse rebounds. On average, it takes about six months for reductions in the required reserve ratio (liquidity injections) to produce a meaningful recovery in the credit impulse. So far, the excess reserve ratio has stabilized but not improved. This means the credit impulse will continue stabilizing in the coming months, but a major rise is unlikely in the near term. In turn, the credit cycle leads share prices by several months. All in all, a risk window for China-related plays remains open in the coming months. Chart 38 Chart 39   Footnotes

Highlights In the short term, the US stock market price will track the 30-year T-bond price, with every 10 bps move in the yield moving the stock market and bond price by 2.5 percent. We think that the bond market will not allow the stock market to suffer a peak-to-trough decline of more than 15-20 percent. Given that the drawdown is already 10 percent, it equates to no more than 20-40 bps of upside for the 30-year T-bond yield, to a level of 2.3-2.5 percent. Hence, we are quite close to an entry-point for both stocks and long-duration bonds. In the next few years, the structural bull market will continue, ending only at the ultimate low in the 30-year bond yield. But on a 5-year horizon, the blockchain will be the undoing of the US stock market – by undermining the vast profits that the US tech behemoths make from owning, controlling, and manipulating our data and the digital content that we create. In that sense, the blockchain will ultimately reveal – and pop – a ‘super bubble’. Fractal trading watchlist: We add Korea and CAD/SEK, and update bitcoin, biotech, and nickel versus silver. Feature Chart of the WeekIf The Market Is Not Far From Its Fundamentals, Can This Really Be A 'Super Bubble'? Why has the stock market started 2022 on such a poor footing? Chart I-2 and Chart I-3 identify the main culprit. Through the past year, the tech-heavy Nasdaq index has been tracking the 30-year T-bond price on a one-for-one basis, while the broader S&P 500 shows a connection that is almost as good. Chart I-2The Nasdaq Has Been Tracking The 30-Year T-Bond Price One-For-One... Chart I-3…The S&P 500 Has Also Been Tracking The 30-Year T-Bond Price Therefore, as the 30-year T-bond price has taken a tumble, so have growth-heavy stock markets. Put simply, the ‘bond component’ of these stock markets has been dominating recent performance, overwhelming the ‘profits component’ which tends to move more glacially. It follows that the short-term direction of the stock market has been set – and will continue to be set – by the direction of the 30-year T-bond price. Stocks And Bonds Are Nearing A ‘Pinch Point’ The next few paragraphs are necessarily technical, but worth absorbing – as they are fundamental to understanding the stock market’s recent sell-off, as well as its future evolution. The duration of any investment quantifies how far into the future its cashflows lie, by averaging those cashflows into one theoretical future ‘lump sum’. For a bond, the duration also equals the percentage change in the bond price for every 1 percent change in its yield.1 Crucially, the duration of the US stock market is the same as that of the 30-year T-bond, at around 25 years. Therefore, if all else were equal, the US stock market price should track the 30-year T-bond price, with every 10 bps move in the yield moving the stock market and bond prices by 2.5 percent. In the long run of course, all else is not equal. The 30-year T-bond generates a fixed income stream, whereas the stock market generates income that tracks profits. Allowing for this difference, the US stock market should track: (The 30-year T-bond price) multiplied by (profits expected in the year ahead) multiplied by (a constant) In which the constant expresses the theoretical lump-sum payment 25 years ahead as a multiple of the profits in the year ahead – and thereby quantifies the expected structural growth in profits. We can ignore this constant if the structural growth in profits does not change. Nevertheless, remember this constant, as we will come back to it later when we discuss a putative ‘super bubble’. The ‘bond component’ of the stock market has been dominating recent performance. This model for the stock market seems simplistic. Yet it provides an excellent explanation for the market’s evolution through the past 40 years (Chart I-4), as well as through the past year in which, to repeat, the bond component has been the dominant driver. Chart I-4The US Stock Market = The 30-Year T-Bond Price Multiplied By Profits In the short term then, given the 25 year duration of the US stock market, every 10 bps rise in the 30-year T-bond yield will drag down the stock market by 2.5 percent. We can also deduce that the sell-off will be self-limiting and self-correcting, because at some ‘pinch point’ the bond market will assess that the deflationary impulse from financial instability will snuff out the recent inflationary impulse in the economy. Where is that pinch point? Our sense is that the bond market will not allow the stock market to suffer a peak-to-trough decline of more than 15-20 percent. Given that the drawdown is already 10 percent, it equates to no more than 20-40 bps of upside for the 30-year T-bond yield, to a level of 2.3-2.5 percent. Hence, we are quite close to an entry-point for both stocks and long-duration bonds. The Case Against A ‘Super Bubble’ (And The Case For) As is typical, the recent market setback has unleashed narratives of an almighty bubble starting to pop. Stealing the headlines is value investor Jeremy Grantham of GMO, who claims that “today in the US we are in the fourth super bubble of the last hundred years.” Is there any merit to Mr. Grantham’s claim? An investment is in a bubble if its price has completely broken free from its fundamentals. For example, in the dot com boom, the stock market did become a super bubble. But as we have just shown, the US stock market today is not that far removed from its fundamental components of the 30-year T-bond price multiplied by profits. At first glance then, Mr. Grantham appears to be wrong (Chart of the Week). Still, if the underlying components – the 30-year T-bond and/or profits – were in a bubble, then the stock market would also be in a bubble. In this regard, isn’t the deeply negative real yield on long-dated bonds a sure sign of a bubble? The answer is, not necessarily. As we explained last week in Time To Get Real About Real Interest Rates, the deeply negative real yield on Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS) is premised on an expected rate of inflation that we should take with a huge dose of salt. Putting in a more realistic forward inflation rate, the real yield on long-dated bonds is positive, albeit just. What about profits – are they in a bubble? The US (and world) profit margin stands at an all-time high, around 20 percent greater than its post-GFC average (Chart I-5). But a 20 percent excess is not quite what we mean by a bubble. Chart I-5Profit Margins Are At An All-Time High There is one final way that Mr. Grantham could be right, and for this we must come back to the previously mentioned constant which quantifies the expected long-term growth in profits. If this expected structural growth were to collapse, then the stock market would also collapse. This is precisely what happened to the non-US stock market after the dot com bust, when the expected structural growth – and therefore the structural valuation – phase-shifted sharply lower (Chart I-6 and Chart I-7). As a result, the non-US stock market also phase-shifted sharply lower from the previous relationship with its fundamentals (Chart I-8). Could the same ultimately happen to the US stock market? Chart I-6The Structural Growth And Valuation Of Non-US Stocks Phase-Shifted Down... Chart I-7...Could The Same Happen To ##br##US Stocks? Chart I-8Non-US Stocks Phase-Shifted Lower From Their Previous Relationship With Fundamentals The answer is yes – and the main risk comes from the blockchain and its threat to the pseudo-monopoly status that the US tech behemoths have in owning, controlling, manipulating, and monetising our data and the digital content that we create. If the blockchain returned that ownership and control back to us, it would devastate the profits of Facebook, Google, and the other behemoths that dominate the US stock market. If the expected structural growth were to collapse, then the stock market would also collapse. That said, the blockchain is a long-term risk to the stock market, likely to manifest itself on a 5-year horizon. Before we get there, in the next deflationary shock, the 30-year T-bond yield has the scope to decline by at least 150 bps, equating to a 40 percent increase in the ‘bond component’ of the US stock market. To conclude, the structural bull market will end only at the ultimate low in the 30-year bond yield. And then, the blockchain will reveal – and pop – a ‘super bubble’. Fractal Trading Watchlist This week we add Korea and CAD/SEK, and update bitcoin, biotech, and nickel versus silver. Of note, the near 30 percent underperformance of Korea through the past year has reached the point of fractal fragility that has signalled previous major reversals in 2015, 2017 and 2019 (Chart I-9). Accordingly, this week’s recommended trade is to go long Korea versus the world (MSCI indexes), setting the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 8 percent.  Chart I-9Korea Is Approaching A Turning Point Versus The World Korea Approaching A Turning Point Versus EM CAD/SEK Could Reverse Bitcoin Near A First Support Level Biotech Approaching A Major Buy Nickel Approaching A Sell Versus Silver 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  

Highlights The Biden administration faces significant risks from outside the US economy – our third “key view” for 2022. The Ukraine conflict brings one external risk to the forefront. These external risks would exacerbate the global supply squeeze, potentially pushing up commodity prices until they start to kill demand. Investors should prepare for oil price overshoots.  Exogenous risks – such as foreign policy crises – rarely help the president’s party in the midterm election. Any crisis that adds to short-term inflation will hurt the ruling party. Tactically we continue to prefer defensive equities. Close our tactical long industrials / short consumer discretionary trade for a gain of 11.6%. Close long energy stocks for a 15.6% gain and convert to long energy small caps versus large caps. Buy the dip in cyber security stocks. Feature Stock market volatility is back, thanks in no small part to external risks such as Europe’s energy shortage and Russia’s conflict with the West over Ukraine. In our forecast for 2022, we highlighted the Biden administration’s external risks as our third key view. The rapidly deteriorating geopolitical situation was one of several reasons behind this view and it has now clearly moved to the forefront. In this report we highlight the consequences for domestic-oriented US investors. Biden’s immediate external risks, if they materialize, will increase the likelihood that Democrats will lose control of Congress, causing US fiscal policy to freeze and driving policy uncertainty and the dollar upward. For detailed coverage of the Ukraine conflict and its global geopolitical, macro, and market implications please refer to our Geopolitical Strategy reports. Why Is Biden Vulnerable To External Risks The Biden administration and the Democratic Party face serious external risks in 2022. The Omicron variant and global supply constraints are a major factor. Also the US’s domestic political divisions invite challenges from abroad. President Biden is politically weak ahead of midterm elections on November 8. His net approval rating is under water at -10 percentage points. Republicans are now leading the generic congressional ballot with 45.5% support against Democrats’ 41.8%. On a deeper level, Democrats are beset by a socialist fringe on their left wing, making it difficult to pass legislation, and an enthusiastic nationalist opposition movement with a viable challenger for the presidency in 2024 (former President Trump). At best they will pass one more major bill this year before Congress gets gridlocked. Foreign rivals have an advantage in this context. America’s chief rivals face limited political constraints at home (no midterm elections) but they can make low-cost, high-impact threats against the Biden administration through their leverage over the global supply chain and hence voters’ pocketbooks. External Risks Are Inflationary (At Least At First) External risks begin with inflation. The US’s large imbalance of investment over savings is evident in a current account deficit of 3.3% and deteriorating terms of trade. American demand is exceedingly strong due to accumulated household savings, a new capex cycle, and lingering effects of monetary and fiscal stimulus. Yet global supply is impeded. Import prices are rising at a 5.7% rate, the fastest since the BLS started the series in 2010, while imports from China are rising at a 4.7% clip. China’s “zero Covid” policy implies that supply disruptions will keep up the inflationary pressure this year (Chart 1, first panel). The US is also importing inflation from rising commodity prices. West Texas Intermediate crude oil prices have risen to $83 per barrel and average gasoline prices stand at $3.3. With global supply-demand balances tight, WTI prices should average $77 per barrel this year and $78 next year, according to our Commodity & Energy Strategy. In this context, unplanned supply disruptions are likely and will put more pressure on the supply side. Any conflicts with oil producers such as Russia and Iran will backfire in the form of higher prices at the pump (Chart 1, second panel). Yet geopolitical competitors (Russia, Iran, China) have unfinished business with the US stemming from the Trump administration. It is also possible that Biden could negotiate diplomatic solutions, reducing the risk of an oil price spike, but that is not the current trajectory. Chart 1Biden's External Risks Are Inflationary For Now Interest rate hikes from the Federal Reserve will not easily control inflation derived from external sources and supply constraints. They will take time to dampen domestic demand. Yet voters usually solidify their opinions by mid-summer. Inflation may not have come down much by that time. Biden and the Democratic Party are at the mercy of the global supply chain. In this context Russia deliberately forced its way to the top of the US and global agenda by demanding that the West renounce any attempt to threaten its national security via Ukraine or the former Soviet Union. Energy Shock From Russia? The Ukraine crisis threatens an increase in global energy prices. Russia provides 8% of Europe’s commodity imports, 18% of its energy imports, and 16% of its natural gas imports (Chart 2). Russia is already withholding energy supplies from Europe, helping push natural gas prices up by 122% since last August. If war ignites, Russia could reduce energy flows to Ukraine and hence to the rest of Europe. Europe would not be willing to impose as harsh of sanctions as the US because its energy supply depends on it. The US can increase exports to Europe but it cannot replace Russia without depriving its other allies and partners, including India, Japan, and South Korea (Chart 3). The squeeze will cause prices to rise at first but if it is not addressed by higher output from the US and OPEC 2.0, then demand will be destroyed. Note that in 1979, 2008, and 2014, Russian military invasions coincided with a peak in global oil prices. Chart 2Geopolitical Risks Cause Resource Squeeze Chart 3Can US Replace Russia For Europe? Not Really. If other supply problems emerged simultaneously, the slowdown could be especially disruptive. If US-Iran negotiations fail, then another energy supply risk will emerge immediately this spring. The implication is not only a rise in oil prices but also a resilient dollar, which is also the implication of the Fed’s looming rate hikes. Defensive plays would tend to beat cyclical plays, at least in the short run until the crisis abates. But it is important to look at previous examples of Russian aggression to test this hypothesis. US Market Response To Russian Belligerence When Russia invaded Georgia in August 2008, the attack had limited impact on global financial markets, which were focused on the subprime mortgage crisis unfolding on Wall Street. Naturally stocks underperformed bonds, cyclicals underperformed defensives, and value went sideways against growth. Small caps rallied at first versus large caps but then hit a turning point from outperformance to underperformance (Chart 4). Note that the invasion began while President Putin watched the summer Olympics live in Beijing. So one cannot rule out a limited military action against Ukraine in the near term just because Putin is also headed to Beijing for this winter’s Olympics. When Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2014, seizing the Crimean peninsula in the Black Sea, the attack had a greater impact on global financial markets than with Georgia, although Ukraine’s relevance to the global economy was (and is) still limited. Chart 4Market Reaction To Russia Invasion Of Georgia, 2008 Chart 5Market Reaction To Russia Invasion Of Ukraine, 2014 Bonds outperformed stocks, cyclicals were flat-to-up against defensives (energy clearly outperformed defensives), and small caps stumbled but then beat out large caps (Chart 5). Energy stocks theoretically stood to benefit but crashed later that year due to supply glut and China policy tightening. In 2022 the situation is different from these previous Russian invasions in that the world is already in the thrall of an energy supply squeeze brought on by various factors. China’s economy is growing slowly but authorities are easing policy. A comparison of the winter of 2021-22 with that of 2013-14, when Russia invaded Crimea, suggests that energy stocks have already far outpaced growth and defensives (Chart 6). Energy small caps, however, could rally substantially against large cap peers. Tactically US investors should maintain a risk-averse positioning until the Russians make a military decision and the West announces its retaliatory measures. This analysis suggests that cyclicals and small caps face volatility but can ultimately grind higher after the onset of any new war in Ukraine. The magnitude of the war will obviously matter, which is why we maintain a defensive tactical positioning. The next question centers on the medium-term policy impact of Biden’s external risks. Chart 6Market Context: 2022 Versus 2014 Implications For US Midterms And Policy It is possible that Biden’s external risks will play a role in the 2022 midterms. It depends on which risks materialize. Most likely a Russian re-invasion of Ukraine would have a negative effect on the Democrats, especially if it adds to voters’ inflation woes. Major foreign policy successes or failures have a substantial impact on a president’s re-election chances but midterms are less obvious. Midterms almost always go against the president’s party because the previous election’s losers turn out in droves while winners sit home in complacency or disillusionment. The midterm electorate tends to be older, whiter, and more educated than the presidential electorate. Chart 7 shows only midterm elections in which external risks – such as foreign policy – played a major role. In the House, the only time the president’s party gained seats was in 2002, though it only lost four seats in 1962. In the Senate, the president’s party gained seats in 1962, 2002, and 2018 and only lost 2 seats in 1954. From these points we can draw the following conclusions: Chart 7US Midterm Elections: Ruling Party Performance Amid Foreign Policy Crises Foreign policy crises do not generally help the president’s party. While major crises like 9/11 helped the Republicans, and the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis minimized Democrats’ losses, nevertheless the 1942 midterm occurred after Pearl Harbor and the Democrats lost seats. Minor crises like the 1958 “Lebanon Crisis” also do not help. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2014 falls under this category and did not help President Obama’s Democrats. A major threat to the homeland can help the president’s party on the margin. This is the significance of 1962 and 2002. The ruling party either minimized losses or made absolute gains in the House, while gaining seats in the Senate. (The 2018 midterm is the other case in which the president’s party gained Senate seats, amid President Trump’s trade war with China, but Republicans suffered heavily in the House.) Wartime escalation and entanglement hurt the president’s party. President Johnson’s Democrats suffered deep losses in 1966, as did President George W. Bush’s Republicans in 2006. Obama’s troop surge in Afghanistan was not the main issue but did not help his party in 2010. Ceasefires and peace treaties do not help the president’s party, even when the end of the war is seen as a victory. World War I was drawing to a close in 1918 but Democrats suffered for having gotten the US involved. Democrats also lost in 1946, despite US triumph in WWII. The Korean war ended on a far more ambivalent note and Republicans suffered at the ballot box. Vietnam was drawing to an ignominious close in 1974, which also occurred in the aftermath of the Arab oil embargo, recession, and Watergate scandal, so no surprise Republicans lost seats. If there is a foreign policy crisis this year, the “best case” for Biden’s Democrats – in crass political terms – would be one that engenders a patriotic rally, like happened with the Cuban Missile Crisis or 9/11. If Democrats only lose four seats in 2022, like Kennedy in 1962, they will have a one-seat majority in the House. However, this best-case scenario is unlikely. As noted, 1962 and 2002 consisted of direct threats to the US homeland. All other crises either hurt or did not help the president’s party. In 2014, while voters had other things on their minds that year, Russia’s invasion of Crimea reinforced criticisms of Obama’s foreign policy already centered on Libya, Syria, and Iran. Obama responded with sanctions and aid to Ukraine, as Biden threatens to do today. Democrats lost 13 seats in the House and 9 seats in the Senate. A similar negative impact should be expected if Russia re-invades in 2022. Biden is already vulnerable: his approval rating collapsed after his messy withdrawal from Afghanistan (reinforcing the fourth bullet about ending wars above). A new foreign policy crisis could cement the narrative of foreign policy incompetence. It matters a great deal whether an exogenous crisis automatically hurts the voter’s pocketbook. If it does, then any initial rally around the flag will fade over time, leaving the negative material impact behind and angering voters. In 1974, President Ford’s approval rating shot up above 50% as he took over from Nixon, yet his party still suffered from the inflationary economic backdrop and dour foreign policy backdrop. In 1978, President Carter’s approval rating also recovered to nearly 50% in time for the vote but it was not enough to overcome inflationary malaise – and Iranian oil strikes began in September (Chart 8). If we subtract the Misery Index (unemployment plus inflation) from the president’s approval rating, we see that Kennedy had a 70% approval during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and Bush had a 62% approval in 2002. But Johnson and Carter were sinking toward 35% during their first midterms, which is where Biden stands today (Chart 9). Chart 8Different Reactions For Different Crises Chart 9Best And Worst Case Scenarios Of Foreign Policy Crisis For Democrats Thus Biden’s external risks, depending on which ones materialize, suggest that the Democratic Party will face another headwind in November. Democrats are very likely to lose the House and somewhat likely to lose the Senate. Gridlock is already setting in – as will be apparent with the potential government shutdown over the February 18 deadline to pass spending bills. But the midterm will formalize it. Policy uncertainty will continue to creep up and weigh on investor risk appetite this year. In other words, even if cyclicals rally through a Ukraine conflict, they may not outperform defensives later this year. Investment Takeaways Cyclically we are booking an 15.6% gain on our long energy trade and will convert it to a long US energy small caps relative to large caps trade. The external risks highlighted in this report would push up oil prices at least initially (Chart 10). However, volatility will pick up from here. OPEC 2.0 will want to keep Brent crude prices from settling above the $90 per barrel that starts to crimp demand, as our Commodity & Energy Strategy argues. Higher prices will also encourage new production, including from the US shale patch (Chart 11). Note that energy stocks, like other cyclicals, tend to underperform during midterm election years as policy uncertainty affects markets. Chart 10Book Gains On Tactical Long Energy Equities Trade Chart 11US Oil Producers Will Step Up  Tactically we recommend closing our long industrials / short consumer discretionary for a gain of 11.6%. Normally, consumer discretionary stocks are the best performing sector during midterm election years while industrials are the worst. But because of China’s policy easing, we took a tactical bet that the opposite would occur at the start of the year. However, external risks should now cause this situation to reverse by pushing up the dollar, penalizing industrials, without hurting the American consumer too much (Chart 12). Industrial equities are pricing in strong capex intentions but geopolitical conflicts would weigh on those intentions, while new orders and core durable goods orders could suffer a bit (Chart 13). The midterms will come into focus later this year and weigh on industrials as well. Chart 12Close Long Industrials Trade For Now Chart 13Industrials Still Attractive On Cyclical Basis Cyclically stick with cyber security stocks. They have sold off along with the tech sector as interest rates rise. But long cyber security is a secular investment thesis based on digitization of the economy, rising cyber crime, and geopolitical risk. Tensions with Russia, proxied by the fall in the ruble and rise in aerospace/defense stocks, point to the fact that investors recognize international tensions will remain high (Chart 14). Cyber space will remain an area of conflict even if physical conflict does not materialize. Growth stocks should also revive later as midterm policy uncertainty picks up. Chart 14Cyber Security Is A Secular Trade ... Buy The Dip Chart 15Overweight Health Care Amid Political Risk Tactically stick with overweight health care on rising uncertainty and expectations that the dollar will pick up (Chart 15). Defensives, especially health, should also outperform as the year goes on and midterms approach. Pricing power is returning to the sector but the Biden administration only has a little legislative ammunition left and its regulatory focus lies elsewhere for now.     Matt Gertken Vice President 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 Table A4APolitical Capital: White House And Congress Table A4BPolitical Capital: Household And Business Sentiment Table A4CPolitical Capital: The Economy And Markets