Natural Gas

Executive Summary The Ukraine war reinforces our key view that commodity producers will use their geopolitical leverage this year. The market is growing complacent again about Russian risks. Iran is part of the same dynamic. If US-Iran talks fail, as we expect, the Middle East will destabilize and add another energy supply risk on top of the Russian risk. The Ukraine war also interacts with our other two key views for 2022: China’s reversion to autocracy and the US’s policy insularity. Both add policy uncertainty and weigh on risk sentiment. The war also reinforces our strategic themes for the 2020s: Great Power Rivalry, Hypo-Globalization, and Populism/Nationalism. Stagflation Cometh Trade Recommendation Inception Date Return Cyclically Long Global Defensives Versus Cyclicals 2022-01-20 10.8% Bottom Line: Tactically stay long global defensives and large caps. Cyclically stay long gold, US equities, aerospace/defense, and cyber security. Feature In our annual outlook, “The Gathering Storm,” we argued that the post-pandemic world economy would destabilize due to intensifying rivalry among the leading nations. We argued that China’s reversion to autocracy, US domestic divisions, and Russia’s commodity leverage would produce a toxic brew for global investors in 2022. By January 27 it was clear to us that Russia would invade Ukraine, so the storm was arriving sooner than we thought, and we doubled down on our defensive and risk-averse market positioning. We derived these three key views from new cyclical trends and the way they interact with our underlying strategic themes – Great Power Rivalry, Hypo-Globalization, and Populism/Nationalism (Table 1). These themes are mutually reinforcing, rooted in solid evidence over many years, and will not change easily. Table 1Three Geopolitical Strategic Themes Related Report  Geopolitical Strategy2022 Key Views: The Gathering Storm The Ukraine war reinforces them: Russia took military action to increase its security relative to the US and NATO; the West imposed sanctions that reduce globalization with Russia and potentially other states; Russian aggression stemmed from nationalism and caused a spike in global prices that will spur more nationalism and populism going forward. In this report we examine how these trends will develop in the second quarter and beyond. We see stagflation taking shape and recommend investors prepare for it by continuing to favor defensive sectors, commodities, and value plays. Checking Up On Our Russia View For 2022 Our third key view for 2022 – that oil producers like Russia and Iran possessed immense geopolitical leverage and would most likely use it – is clearly the dominant geopolitical trend of the year, as manifested in the Russian invasion of Ukraine.1 Russia first invaded Ukraine in 2014 and curtailed operations after commodity prices crashed. It launched a new and larger invasion in 2022 when a new commodity cycle began (Chart 1). Facing tactical setbacks, Russia has begun withdrawing forces from around the Ukrainian capital Kyiv. But it will redouble its efforts to conquer the eastern Donbas region and the southern coastline. The coast is the most strategic territory at stake (Map 1). Chart 1Russia's Commodity-Enabled Aggression Map 1Russian Invasion Of Ukraine, 2022 The most decisive limitation on Russia’s military effort would come from a collapse of commodity exports or prices, which has not happened yet. Europe continues to buy Russian oil and natural gas, although it is debating a ban on the $4.4 billion worth of coal that it imports. With high energy prices making up for a drop in export volumes, Russian armed forces can still attempt a summer and fall campaign (Chart 2). The aim would be to conquer remaining portions of Donetsk and Luhansk, the “land bridge” to Crimea, and potentially the stretch of land between the Dnieper river and eastern Moldova, where Russian troops are already stationed. Chart 2Russia’s War Financing Ukraine’s military neutrality is the core Russian objective. Ukraine is offering neutrality in exchange for security guarantees in the current ceasefire talks. Hence a durable ceasefire is possible if the details of neutrality are agreed – Ukraine forswears joining NATO and hosting foreign military infrastructure while accepting limitations on military exercises and defense systems. The security guarantees that Ukraine demands are mostly symbolic, as the western powers that would be credible guarantors are already unwilling to use military force against Russia (e.g. the US, UK, NATO members). However, Russia’s withdrawal from Kyiv will embolden the Ukrainians, so we do not expect a durable ceasefire in the second quarter. Global investors will be mistaken if they ignore Ukraine in the second quarter, at least until core problems are resolved. What matters most is whether the war expands beyond Ukraine: The likelihood of a broader war is low but not negligible. So far the Russian regime is behaving somewhat rationally: Moscow attacked a non-NATO member to prevent it from joining NATO; it limited the size of the military commitment; and it is now accepting reality and withdrawing from Kyiv while negotiating on Ukrainian neutrality. But a major problem emerges if Russia’s military fails in the Donbas while Ukraine reneges on offers of neutrality. Any ceasefire could fall apart and the war could re-escalate. Russia could redouble its attacks on the country or conduct a limited attack outside of Ukraine to trigger a crisis in the western alliance. Moreover, if sanctions keep rising until Russia’s economy collapses, Moscow could become less rational. Finland and Sweden have seen a shift of public opinion in favor of joining NATO. Any intention to do so would trigger a belligerent reaction from Russia. These governments are well aware of the precarious balance that must be maintained to prevent war, so war is unlikely. But if their stance changes then Russia will threaten to attack. Russia would threaten to bomb these states since it cannot now credibly threaten invasion by land (Charts 3A & 3B). Chart 3ANordic States Joining NATO Would Trigger Larger War​​​​​ Chart 3BNordic States Joining NATO Would Trigger Larger War​​​​​​ The Black Sea is vulnerable to “Black Swan” events or military spillovers. Russia is re-concentrating its military efforts in the Donbas and land bridge to Crimea. Russia could expand its offensive to Odessa and the Moldovan border. Or Russia could attempt to create a new norm of naval dominance in the Black Sea. Or ships from third countries could hit mines or become casualties of war. For these and other reasons, investors should not take on additional risk in their portfolios on the basis that a durable ceasefire will be concluded quickly. Russia’s position is far too vulnerable to encourage risk-taking. Moscow could escalate tensions to try to save face. It is also critical to ensure that Russia and Europe maintain their energy trade: Neither side has an interest in total energy cutoff. Russia needs the revenue to finance its war and needs to discourage Europe from fulfilling its pledges to transition rapidly to other sources and substitutes. Europe needs the energy to avoid recession, maintain some tie with Russia, and enable its energy diversification strategy. So far natural gas flows are continuing (Chart 4). Chart 4Natural Gas Flows Continuing (So Far)​​​​​​ Chart 5Global Oil Supply/Demand Balance​​​​​​ However, risks to energy trade are rising. Russia is threatening to cut off energy exports if not paid in rubles, while the EU is beginning to entertain sanctions on energy. Russia can reduce oil or gas flows incrementally to keep prices high and prevent Europe from rebuilding stockpiles for fall and winter. Partial energy cutoff is possible. Europe’s diversification makes Russia’s predicament dire. Substantial sanction relief is highly unlikely, as western powers will want to prevent Russia from rebuilding its economy and military. Russia could try to impose significant pain on Europe to try to force a more favorable diplomatic solution. A third factor that matters is whether the US will expand its sanction enforcement to demand strict compliance from other nations, at pain of secondary sanctions: Secondary sanctions are likely in the case of China and other nations that stand at odds with the US and help Russia circumvent sanctions. In China’s case, the US is already interested in imposing sanctions on the financial or technology sector as part of its long-term containment strategy. While the Biden administration’s preference is to control the pace of escalation with China, and thus not to slap sanctions immediately, nevertheless substantial sanctions cannot be ruled out in the second quarter. Secondary sanctions will be limited in the case of US allies and partners, such as EU members, Turkey, and India. Countries that do business with Russia but are critical to US strategy will be given waivers or special treatment. Russia is not the only commodity producer that enjoys outsized geopolitical leverage amid a global commodity squeeze. Iran is the next most critical producer. Iran is also critical for the stability of the Middle East. In particular, the consequential US-Iran talks over whether to rejoin the 2015 nuclear deal are likely to come to a decision in the second quarter. Chart 6Failure Of US-Iran Talks Jeopardizes Middle East Oil Supply If the US and Iran agree to a strategic détente, then regional tensions will briefly subside, reducing global oil disruption risks and supply pressures. Iran could bring 1.3 million barrels per day of oil back online, adding to President Biden’s 1 million per day release of strategic petroleum reserves. The combination would amount to 2.3% of global demand and more than cover the projected quarterly average supply deficit, which ranges from 400k to 900k barrels per day for the rest of 2022 (Chart 5). If the US and Iran fail to agree, then the Middle East will suffer another round of instability, adding a Middle Eastern energy shock on top of the Russian shock. Not only would Iran’s 1.3 million barrels per day be jeopardized but so would Iraq’s 4.4 million, Saudi Arabia’s 10.3 million, the UAE’s 3.0 million, or the Strait of Hormuz’s combined 24 million per day (Chart 6). This gives Iran leverage to pursue nuclear weaponization prior to any change in US government that would strengthen Israel’s ability to stop Iran. We would not bet on an agreement – but we cannot rule it out. The Biden administration can reduce sanctions via executive action to prevent a greater oil shock, while the Iranians can accept sanction relief in exchange for easily reversible moves toward compliance with the 2015 nuclear deal. But this would be a short-term, stop-gap measure, not a long-term strategic détente. Conflict between Iran and its neighbors will revive sooner than expected after the deal is agreed, as Iran’s nuclear ambitions will persist. OPEC states are already producing more oil rapidly, suggesting no quick fix if the US-Iran deal falls apart. While core OPEC states have 3.5 million barrels per day in spare capacity to bring to bear, a serious escalation of tensions with Iran would jeopardize this solution. Finally, if commodity producers have geopolitical leverage, then commodity consumers are lacking in leverage. This is clear from Europe’s inability to prevent Russia’s attack or ban Russian energy. It is clear from the US’s apparent unwillingness to give up on a short-term deal with Iran. It is clear from China’s inability to provide sufficient monetary and fiscal stimulus as it struggles with Covid-19. Turkey, Egypt, and Pakistan are geopolitically significant importers of Russian and Ukrainian grain that are likely to face food insecurity and social unrest. We will address this issue below under our Populism/Nationalism theme. Bottom Line: Investors should not be complacent. Russia’s military standing in Ukraine is weak, but its ability to finance the war has not yet collapsed, which means that it will escalate the conflict to save face. What About Our Other Key Views For 2022? Our other two key views for 2022 are even more relevant in the wake of the Ukraine re-invasion. China’s reversion to autocracy is a factor in China’s domestic and foreign policy: Domestically China needs economic and social stability in the advance of the twentieth national party congress, when President Xi Jinping hopes to clinch 10 more years in power. In pursuit of this goal China is easing monetary and fiscal policy. However, with depressed animal spirits, a weakening property sector, and high debt levels, monetary policy is proving insufficient. Fiscal policy will have to step up. But even here, inflation is likely to impose a limitation on how much stimulus the authorities can utilize (Chart 7). Chart 7China Stimulus Impaired By Inflation​​​​​​ Chart 8Chinese Supply Kinks To Persist Due To Covid-19 China is also trying but failing to maintain a “Covid Zero” policy. The more contagious Omicron variant of the virus is breaking out and slipping beyond the authorities’ ability to suppress cases of the virus to zero. Shanghai is on lockdown and other cities will follow suit. China will attempt to redouble its containment efforts before it will accept the reality that the virus cannot be contained. Chinese production and shipping will become delayed and obstructed as a result, putting another round of upward pressure on global prices (Chart 8). Stringent pandemic restrictions could trigger social unrest. China is ripe for social unrest, which is why it launched the “Common Prosperity” program last year to convince citizens that quality of life will improve. But this program is a long-term program that will not bring immediate relief. On the contrary, the economy is still suffering and the virus will spread more widely, as well as draconian social restrictions. The result is that the lead up to the national party congress will not be as smooth as the Xi administration had hoped. Global investors will remain pessimistic toward Chinese stocks. In foreign affairs, China’s reversion to autocracy is reinforced by Russia’s clash with the West and the need to coordinate more closely. Xi hosted Putin in Beijing on February 4, prior to the invasion, and the two declared that their strategic partnership ushers in a “new era” of “multipolarity” and that their cooperation has “no limits,” which really means that military cooperation is not forbidden. China agreed to purchase an additional 10 billion cubic meters of Russian natural gas over 30-years. While this amount would only replace 3% of Russian natural gas exports to Europe, it would mark a 26% increase in Russian exports to China. More importantly it acts as a symbol of Chinese willingness to substitute for Europe over time. There is a long way to go for China to replace Europe as a customer (Chart 9). But China knows it needs to convert its US dollar foreign exchange reserves, vulnerable to US sanctions, into hard investments in supply security within the Eurasian continent. Chart 9Long Way To Go For China NatGas Imports To Replace EU China is helping Russia circumvent sanctions. China’s chief interest is to minimize the shock to its domestic economy. This means keeping Russian energy and commodities flowing. China could also offer military equipment for Russia. The US has expressly warned China against taking such an action. China could mitigate the blowback by stipulating that the assistance cannot be used in Ukraine. This would be unenforceable but would provide diplomatic cover. While China is uncomfortable with the disturbance of the Ukraine war – it does not want foreign affairs to cause even larger supply shocks. At the same time, China does not want Russia to lose the war or Putin’s regime to fall from power. If Russia loses, Taiwan and its western allies would be emboldened, while Russia could pursue a détente with the West, leaving China isolated. Since China faces US containment policy regardless of what happens in Russia, it is better for China to have Putin making an example out of Ukraine and keeping the Americans and Europeans preoccupied. Chart 10China Strives To Preserve EU Trade Ties China must also preserve ties with Europe. Diplomacy will likely succeed in the short run since Europe has no interest or desire to expand sanctions to China. The Biden administration will defer to Europe on the pace of sanctions – it is not willing or able to force Europe to break with China suddenly. Eventually Europe and China may sever relations but not yet – China has a powerful incentive to preserve them (Chart 10). China will also court India and other powers in an attempt to hedge its bets on Russia while weakening any American containment. Beyond the party congress, China will be focused on securing the economic recovery and implementing the common prosperity agenda. The first step is to maintain easy monetary and fiscal policy. The second step is to “let 100 flowers bloom,” i.e. relaxing social and regulatory controls to try to revive entrepreneurship and animal spirits, which are heavily depressed. Xi will have the ability to do this after re-consolidating power. The third step will be to try to stabilize economic relations with Europe and others (conceivably even the US temporarily, though no serious détente is likely). The remaining key view for 2022 is that the Biden administration’s domestic focus will be defensive and will invite foreign policy challenges. The Ukraine war vindicates this view but the question now is whether Biden has or will change tack: The Biden administration is focused on the midterm elections and the huge risk to the Democratic Party’s standing. Biden has not received a boost in opinion polls from the war. He is polling even worse when it comes to handling of the economy (Chart 11). While he should be able to repackage his budget reconciliation bill as an energy security bill, his thin majorities in both houses make passage difficult. Chart 11Biden And Democrats Face Shellacking In Midterm Election Biden’s weak standing – with or without a midterm shellacking – raises the prospect that Republicans could take back the White House in 2024, which discourages foreign nations from making any significant concessions to the United States in their negotiations. They must assume that partisanship will continue to contaminate foreign policy and lead to abrupt policy reversals. In foreign policy, the US remains reactive in the face of Russian aggression. If Russia signs a ceasefire, the US will not sabotage it to prolong Russian difficulties. Moreover Biden continues to exempt Europe and other allies and partners from enforcing the US’s most severe sanctions for fear of a larger energy shock. Europe’s avoidance of an energy ban is critical and any change in US policy to try to force the EU to cut off Russian energy is unlikely. China will not agree to structural reform or deep concessions in its trade negotiations, knowing that former President Trump could come back. The Biden administration’s own trade policy toward China is limited in scope, as the US Trade Representative Katherine Tai admitted when she said that the US could no longer aim to change China’s behavior via trade talks. Biden’s only proactive foreign policy initiative, Iran, will not bring him public kudos if it is achieved. But American inconstancy is one of the reasons that Iran may walk away from the 2015 nuclear deal. Why should Iran’s hawkish leaders be expected to constrain their nuclear program and expose their economy to future US sanctions if they can circumvent US sanctions anyway, and Republicans have a fair chance of coming back into power as early as January 2025? Biden’s unprecedented release of strategic petroleum reserves will not be able to prevent gasoline prices from staying high given the underlying supply pressures at home and abroad. This is especially true if the Iran talks fail as we expect. Even if inflation abates before the election, it is unlikely to abate enough to save his party from a shellacking. That in turn will weaken the global impression of his administration’s staying power. Hence Biden will focus on maintaining US alliances, which means allowing Europe, India, and others to proceed at a more pragmatic and dovish pace in their relations with Russia and China. Bottom Line: China’s reversion to autocracy and America’s policy insularity suggest that global investors face considerable policy uncertainty this year even aside from the war in Europe. Checking Up On Our Strategic Themes For The 2020s Russia’s invasion strongly confirmed our three strategic themes of Great Power Rivalry, Hypo-Globalization, and Populism/Nationalism. These themes are mutually reinforcing: insecurity among the leading nation-states encourages regionalization rather than globalization, while populism and nationalism encourage nations to pursue economic and security interests at the expense of their neighbors. First, the Ukraine war confirms and exacerbates Great Power Rivalry: Chart 12China And Russia Both Need To Balance Against US Preponderance Russia’s action vindicates the “realist” school of international relations (in which we count ourselves) by forcing the world to wake up to the fact that nations still care primarily about national security defined in material ways, such as armies, resources, and territories. The paradox of realism is that if at least one of the great nations pursues its national self-interest and engages in competition for security, then all other nations will be forced to do the same. If a nation neglects its national security interests in pursuit of global economic engagement and cooperation, then it will suffer, since other nations will take advantage of it to enhance their security. Hence, as a result of Ukraine, nations will give a higher weight to national security relative to economic efficiency. The result will be an acceleration of decisions to use fiscal funds and guide the private economy in pursuit of national interests – i.e. the Return of Big Government. Since actions to increase deterrence will provoke counteractions for the same reason, overall insecurity will rise. For example, the US and China will take extra precautions in case of future sanctions and war. But these precautions will reduce trust and cooperation and increase the probability of war over the long run. For the same reason, China cannot reject Russia’s strategic overture – it cannot afford to alienate and isolate Russia. China and Russia have a shared interest in countering the United States because it is the only nation that could conceivably impose a global empire over all nations (Chart 12). The US could deprive Beijing and Moscow of the regional spheres of influence that they each need to improve their national security. This is true not only in Ukraine and Taiwan but in other peripheral areas such as Belarus, the Caucasus, Central Asia, and Southeast Asia. China has much to gain from Russia. Russia is offering China privileged overland access to Russian, Central Asian, and Middle Eastern resources and markets. This resource base is vital to China’s strategic needs, given its import dependency and vulnerability to US maritime power (Chart 13). Chart 13China’s Maritime Vulnerability Forces Eurasian Strategy, Russian Alliance Investors should understand Great Power Rivalry in a multipolar rather than bipolar sense. As Russia breaks from the West, investors are quick to move rapidly to the bipolar Cold War analogy because that is what they are familiar with. But the world today has multiple poles of political power, as it did for centuries prior to the twentieth. While the US is the preponderant power, it is not hegemonic. It faces not one but two revisionist challengers – Russia and China. Meanwhile Europe and India are independent poles of power that are not exclusively aligned with the US or China. For example, China and the EU need to maintain economic ties with each other for the sake of stability, and neither the US nor Russia can prevent them from doing so. The same goes for India and Russia. China will embrace Russia and Europe at the same time, while hardening its economy against US punitive measures. India will preserve ties with Russia and China, while avoiding conflict with the US and its allies (the maritime powers), whom it needs for its long-term strategic security in the Indian Ocean basin. Ultimately bipolarity may be the end-game – e.g. if China takes aggressive action to revise the global order like Russia has done – but the persistence of Sino-European ties and Russo-Indian ties suggest we are not there yet. Second, the Ukraine war reinforces Hypo-Globalization: Since the pandemic we have argued that trade would revive on the global economic snapback but that globalization – the deepening of trade integration – would ultimately fall short of its pre-2020 and pre-2008 trajectory. Instead we would inhabit a new world of “hypo-globalization,” in which trade flows fell short of potential. So far the data support this view (Chart 14). Chart 14Globalization Falling Short Of Potential The Ukraine war has strengthened this thesis not only by concretely reducing Russia’s trajectory of trade with the West – reversing decades of integration since the fall of the Soviet Union – but also by increasing the need for nations to guard against a future Chinese confrontation with the Western world. Trust between China and the West will further erode. China will need to guard against any future sanctions, and thus diversify away from the US dollar and assets, while the US will need to do a better job of deterring China against aggression in Asia, and will thus have to diversify away from Chinese manufacturing and critical resources like rare earths. While China and Europe need each other now, the US and China are firmly set on a long-term path of security competition in East Asia. Eventually either the US or China will take a more aggressive stance and Europe will be forced to react. Since Europe will still need US support against a decaying and aggressive Russia, it will likely be dragged into assisting the US against China. Third, the Ukraine war reflects and amplifies Populism/Nationalism: Populism and nationalism are not the same thing but they both stem from the slowing trend of global income growth, the rise of inequality, the corruption of the elite political establishments, and now the rise in inflation. Nations have to devote more resources to pacifying an angry populace, or distracting that populace through foreign adventures, or both. The Ukraine war reflects the rise in nationalism. First, the collapse of the Soviet Union ushered in a period in which Moscow lost control of its periphery, while the diverse peoples could pursue national self-determination and statehood. The independence and success of the Baltic states depended on economic and military cooperation with the West, which eroded Russian national security and provoked a nationalist backlash in the form of President Putin’s regime. Ukraine became the epicenter of this conflict. Ukraine’s successful military resistance is likely to provoke a dangerous backlash from Moscow until either policy changes or the regime changes. American nationalism has flared repeatedly since the fall of the Soviet Union, namely in the Iraq war. The American state has suffered economically and politically for that imperial overreach. But American nationalism is still a potent force and could trigger a more aggressive shift in US foreign policy in 2024 or beyond. European states have kept nationalism in check and tried to subsume their various nationalist sentiments into a liberal and internationalist project, the European Union. The wave of nationalist forces in the wake of the European debt crisis has subsided, with the exception of the United Kingdom, where it flowered in Brexit. The French election in the second quarter will likely continue this trend with the re-election of President Emmanuel Macron, but even if he should suffer a surprise upset to nationalist Marine Le Pen, Europe’s centripetal forces will prevent her from taking France out of the EU or euro or NATO (Chart 15). Over the coming decade, nationalist forces will revive and will present a new challenge to Europe’s ruling elites – but global great power competition strongly supports the EU’s continued evolution into a single geopolitical entity, since the independent states are extremely vulnerable to Russia, China, and even the US unless they unite and strengthen their superstructure. Chart 15Macron Favored, Le Pen Would Be Ineffective In fact the true base of global nationalism is migrating to Asia. Chinese and Indian nationalism are very potent forces under President Xi Jinping and Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Xi is on the verge of clinching another ten years in power while Modi is still favored for re-election in 2024, so there is no reason to anticipate a change anytime soon. The effects are various but what is most important for investors is to recognize that as China’s potential GDP has fallen over the past decade, the Communist Party has begun to utilize nationalism as a new source of legitimacy, and this is expressed through a more assertive foreign policy. President Xi is the emblem of this shift and it will not change, even if China pursues a lower profile over certain periods to avoid provoking the US and its allies into a more effective coalition to contain China. Chart 16Food Insecurity Will Promote Global Unrest, Populism The surge in global prices will destabilize regimes that lack food security and contribute to new bouts of populism and nationalism. Turkey is the most vulnerable due to a confluence of political, economic, and military risks that will unsettle the state. But Egypt is vulnerable to an Arab Spring 2.0 that would have negative security implications for Israel and add powder to the Middle Eastern powder keg. Pakistan is already witnessing political turmoil. Investors may overlook any Indonesian unrest due to its attractiveness in a world where Russia and China are scaring away western investment (Chart 16). All three of these strategic themes are mutually reinforcing – and they tend to be inflationary over the long run. Great powers that redouble the pursuit of national interest – through defense spending and energy security investments – while simultaneously being forced to expand their social safety nets to appease popular discontent, will drive up budget deficits, consume a lot of natural resources, and purchase a lot of capital equipment. They will also more frequently engage in economic or military conflicts that constrain supply (Chart 17). Chart 17War And Preparation For War Are Inflationary Bottom Line: The Ukraine war is a powerful confirmation of our three strategic themes. It is also a confirmation that these themes have inflationary macroeconomic implications. Investment Takeaways Chart 18Global Investors Still Flee To US For Safety Now that great power rivalry is intensifying immediately and rapidly, and yet China’s and Europe’s economies are encountering greater difficulties, we expect stagflation to arrive sooner rather than later. High headline and core inflation, the Ukraine war, tacit Chinese support for Russia, persistent Chinese supply kinks, US and EU sanctions, US midterm elections, and a potential US-Iran diplomatic breakdown will all weigh on risk sentiment in the second quarter. In Ukraine, Russia’s position is too weak to give comfort for investors, who should continue to favor defensive over cyclical equities and US stocks over global stocks. Russia’s break with the West, and the West’s use of sanctions to prevent Russia from accessing its foreign exchange reserves, has raised new questions about the global currency reserve system and the dollar’s status within that system. Over the coming years China will redouble the efforts it began in the wake of the Great Recession to reduce its dependency on US dollar assets within its reserve basket, while also recycling new current account surpluses into non-dollar assets. However, the evidence does not suggest that King Dollar will suffer a structural breakdown. First, the world lacks alternative safe-haven assets to US Treasuries – and net foreign purchases of US bonds rose in the face of the Ukraine war (Chart 18). Second, the return of war to Europe will weaken the perceived long-term security of European currency and government bonds relative to US counterparts. Even if the Ukraine war is contained in the short run, as we expect, Russia is in structural decline and will remain a disruptive player for some time. We are not at all bearish on the euro or European bonds but we do not see the Ukraine war as increasing their value proposition, to put it lightly. The same logic extends to Japanese bonds, since China, like Russia, is an autocratic and revisionist state that threatens to shake up the security order in its neighborhood. Japan is relatively secure as a nation and we are bullish on the yen, but China’s de facto alliance with Russia weakens Japan’s security outlook over the very long run, especially relative to the United States. Thus, on a cyclical basis the dollar can depreciate, but on a structural basis the US dollar will remain the dominant reserve currency. The US is not only the wealthiest and most secure country in the world but also the largest oil producer. Meanwhile Chinese potential growth, domestic political stability, and foreign relations are all worsening. The US-Iran talks are the most critical geopolitical dynamic in the second quarter aside from Russia’s clash with the West. The fate of the 2015 nuclear deal will be decided soon and will determine whether an even bigger energy shock begins to emanate from the Middle East. We would not bet on a new US-Iran deal but we cannot rule it out. Any deal would be a short-term, stop-gap deal but would prevent an immediate destabilization of the Middle East this year. As such it would reduce the risk of stagflation. Since we expect the deal to fail, we expect a new energy shock to emerge. We see stagflation as more likely than the BCA House View. It will be difficult to lift productivity in an environment of geopolitical and political uncertainty combined with slowing global growth, rising interest rates, and a worsening commodity shock (Chart 19). We will gladly revise this stance if Biden clinches an Iran deal, China relaxes its Covid Zero policy and stabilizes domestic demand, Russia and Europe maintain energy trade, and commodity prices fall to more sustainable levels for global demand. Chart 19Stagflation Cometh Strategically we remain long gold, overweight US equities, overweight UK equities, long British pound and Japanese yen, long aerospace/defense stocks and cyber security stocks. We remain short Chinese renminbi and Taiwanese dollar and short emerging European assets. Our short Chinese renminbi trade and our short Taiwanese versus Korean equity trade are our worst-performing recommendations. However, the above analysis should highlight – and the Ukraine war should underscore – that these two economies face a fundamentally negative geopolitical dynamic. Both Chinese and Taiwanese stocks have been underperforming global peers since 2021 and our short TWD-USD trade is in the money. While we do not expect war to break out in Taiwan this year, we do expect various crisis events to occur, particularly in the lead up to the crucial Taiwanese and American 2022 midterms and 2024 presidential election. We also expect China to depreciate the renminbi when inflation peaks and commodity prices subside. Cyclically we remain long North American and Latin American oil producers and short Middle Eastern producers, based on our pessimistic read of the Iran situation. The Americas are fundamentally better protected from geopolitical risks than other regions, although they continue to suffer from domestic political risks on a country-by-country basis. Cyclically we continue to take a defensive positioning, overweighting defensive sectors and large cap equities.   Matt Gertken Chief Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      That the Russian threat fell under our third key view for 2022 implies that we did not get our priorities straight. However, consider the timing: shortly after publishing our annual outlook on December 15, the Russians issued an ultimatum to the western powers demanding that NATO stop expanding toward Russia. Diplomats from Russia and the West met on January 12-13 but Russia’s demands were not met. We upgraded the odds that Russia would invade Ukraine from 50% to 75% on January 27. Shuttle diplomacy ensued but failed. Russia invaded on February 24. Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Regional Geopolitical Risk Matrix "Batting Average": Geopolitical Strategy Trades () Section II: Special (EDIT this Header) Section III: Geopolitical Calendar

Executive Summary Natgas Price Surge Boosts Hydrogen's Prospects Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the surge in EU natural gas prices it provoked will accelerate investment in clean-hydrogen technology, which uses renewable energy to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen. This already has pushed the cost of clean – or "green" – hydrogen below the cost of competing forms of the fuel on the continent. Widespread adoption of carbon pricing will further enhance the attractiveness of green hydrogen, making it more competitive in transportation and refining applications. The cost of producing clean hydrogen in China also has fallen, owing to the competition for liquified natural gas (LNG) with the EU. Relatively low US natural gas prices are keeping the cost of green hydrogen above alternatives. The US DOE is prioritizing hydrogen development, and is funding research to reduce its cost from ~ $5/kg to $1/kg over the next 10 years. Falling clean-hydrogen costs raise the risk of stranded investment in natural-gas exploration and production. Bottom Line: The EU's drive to diversify away from Russian natural gas as quickly as possible will keep competition for scarce LNG between the EU and Asian markets high, as both bid for scarce supplies. This will redound to the benefit of clean hydrogen and its supporting technology, but might limit natgas E+P. Feature The war in Ukraine will keep the price of natural gas, particularly in its liquid state (LNG), elevated, as the EU and Asia compete for scarce supplies to refill inventories and prepare for the coming winter, along with keeping their heavy industries operating (Chart 1). In the Europe-Middle East-Africa (EMEA) markets and China, higher natgas prices, including LNG, already have lifted the cost of pulling hydrogen from natgas – so-called blue and grey hydrogen – above that of green (or "clean") hydrogen, which is produced by separating the hydrogen and oxygen in water via electrolysis. With natgas prices remaining elevated this year and next, investment in clean-hydrogen technology and its supporting infrastructure can be expected to increase. Government support for hydrogen as a clean fuel – i.e., research funding and tax support – will allow this technology to reach economies of scale and lower costs over the coming decade. Chart 1Russia's Invasion Of Ukraine Will Boost Hydrogen's Prospects Related Report  Commodity & Energy StrategySurging Metals Prices And The Case For Carbon-Capture Government policy can increase the advantage of green-hydrogen and other clean-energy technologies by adopting carbon-pricing schemes on a large scale, as well. Such schemes would assess actual – and avoidable – costs of pollution to incentivize investment in non-polluting technologies. We have argued in the past that this is best done via taxes that can provide revenues to support and fund the development of renewable energy. Ideally, such schemes would include mechanisms to offset the regressive nature of such taxes. Absent a tax, Carbon Clubs that impose tariffs or duties on states not abiding by carbon-reduction policies seeking to export to states that do employ such policies, as developed by William Nordhaus, would be useful.1 Ukraine War Improves Hydrogen Economics Governments supporting low- or zero-carbon emission technologies in their push to contain the rise in the Earth's temperature are focused on hydrogen, which, when consumed in a fuel cell, emits no pollution. Apart from being a fuel source, hydrogen also can be used to store energy. It can power electric grids when there is intermittent electricity supply, making it ideal as a back-up energy source for renewable-energy technologies – solar and wind, in particular – which, as the UK and Europe discovered last summer, can be extremely variable and unreliable. Based on its method of production, hydrogen is assigned a color – grey, blue, or green (Chart 2). In a nutshell: Chart 2Types of Hydrogen By Color Grey hydrogen is produced when steam reacts with a hydrocarbon fuel (typically natural gas) to produce hydrogen via a process known as steam-methane reforming (SMR). The downside of this technology is it can result in CO2 and carbon escaping into the environment. Blue hydrogen is created by the same SMR process as grey hydrogen; however, carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology is added to the process to reduce carbon emissions from the steam and fuel reaction. Green hydrogen – aka "clean hydrogen" – is produced with electricity from renewables like wind or solar – in a process that separates water into oxygen and hydrogen via electrolysis. Electricity is the primary cost driver in the production of green hydrogen, followed by the elctrolyzers used to separate oxygen and hydrogen (Chart 3). For this reason, countries where renewable electricity is abundant will be ideal candidates for so-called clean hydrogen. Among renewables, wind and solar are the most developed, and cheapest sources of electricity (Chart 4). As a result, the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) believes countries in the Middle East, Africa, and Oceania have the highest potential to become green hydrogen exporters.2 A constant electric load is crucial for efficient and cost-effective hydrogen production. Electrolyzers will either underperform or overheat if subjected to a variable electric load, reducing their lifespan, and hence increasing overall capital costs. This is yet another reason why countries with vast quantities of wind and solar energy will be at an advantage producing clean hydrogen. Chart 3Renewables Are Primary Cost For Green Hydrogen Chart 4Cheap Wind And Solar Electricity Can Reduce Green Hydrogen Costs Until now, deficient electrolyzer investment and production have resulted in high capital costs. Low innovation in the technology is due to a dearth of consumer demand due to the high prices, leading to a vicious cycle (Diagram 1). According to IRENA, increasing the manufacturing intensity of stacks – the primary component of the electrolyzer – could reduce the share of its cost from 45% to 30% of the total.3 Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the surge in EU natural gas prices it provoked will accelerate investment in green-hydrogen technology. The war already has pushed the cost of clean hydrogen below the cost of competing grey and blue forms of the fuel on the continent. We expect this will persist over the next two years, as the EU and Asia compete for scarce natural gas and LNG supplies going into the coming winter to rebuild depleted gas inventories, and to keep base metals smelters and refineries up and running. Diagram 1The Vicious Cycle Plaguing Hydrogen The cost of grey hydrogen from natgas was ~ $6.70/kg last month vs a mid-point estimate of ~ $5.75/kg for green hydrogen in the Europe-Middle East-Africa (EMEA) markets.4 In China, green hydrogen was running at ~ $3.20/kg vs a grey cost of ~ $5.30/kg. The US is the outlier here, given its abundance of natural gas production. Grey hydrogen cost $1.20/kg, while green hydrogen was running at ~ $3.30/kg. It is difficult to determine whether green hydrogen will remain cheaper than blue in the EMEA and China markets. Under normal conditions – absent highly backwardated fuel markets – blue hydrogen is considered a bridge to the green variant, since it only builds on the incumbent grey hydrogen production process and is cheaper (Chart 5). Approximately 90% of total hydrogen produced annually is grey. If the EU is forced to ration natgas – Germany, e.g., is preparing its population for such a contingency in the event Russian supplies are shut off – reduced fuel availability will act as a hard constraint for blue-hydrogen production. This would prolong green-hydrogen's cost advantage. Chart 5Green Hydrogen Typically Most Expensive Hue That being said, green hydrogen has its own geopolitical problems. Procuring the critical minerals and metals required to build electrolyzers can prove to be challenging, given the metals’ locations are highly concentrated in states with stressed electrical infrastructures like South Africa, which produces 85% and 70% of global iridium and platinum supply respectively (Chart 6). Both metals are in commonly used electrolyzers. Metals supply disruptions in China similar to those that occurred this past winter can affect numerous metal supply chains necessary for hydrogen production. Chart 6Concentration Risks In Hydrogen Materials Displacing High-Polluting Technology According to the IRENA, hydrogen could cover up to 12% of global energy use by 2050.5 Green hydrogen has numerous potential applications: Backstopping intermittent renewable energy; Performing as a “zero-emissions” fuel for maritime shipping and aviation; An energy source for high-heat industrial processes that cannot otherwise be electrified; A feedstock in some industrial processes, like steel production.6 The adoption of hydrogen for new applications has been slow, with uptake limited to the last decade, when fuel cell electric vehicle (FCEV) deployment started gaining traction. In addition, this energy source can be used to produce commodities such as steel, cement and glass used in construction, and ammonia needed to fertilize crops.7 In terms of size, global hydrogen demand was 90 Mt in 2020, with most of it coming from refining and industrial uses. Governments have committed to greater hydrogen use, but not nearly enough to meet net-zero energy emissions by 2050 (Chart 7).8 IRENA estimates that over 30% of hydrogen could be traded across borders by 2050, a higher share than natural gas today.9 According to the Energy Networks Association, up to a fifth of natural gas consumption currently used could be replaced by hydrogen.10 Countries most able to generate cheap renewable electricity will be best placed to produce competitive green hydrogen.11 Chart 7Hydrogen Contributes To Lower Emissions Investment Implications High natgas prices – in its pipeline and liquid forms – will redound to the benefit of clean hydrogen and its supporting technology. The relative cost advantage green hydrogen has over its grey and blue competition will persist this year and most likely in 2023, as the EU and China continue to bid for scarce natgas supplies in the wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. This could persist, if markets begin pricing the availability and future reliability of clean hydrogen on par with fossil-fuel availability. However, this will require significant increases in green-hydrogen technology investment, particularly in electrolysers. Government support – e.g., the US DOE's efforts to reduce the cost of green hydrogen to $1/kg over the next 10 years from $5/kg – will be important in this regard. The development of green-hydrogen capacity and its infrastructure could limit the further development of natural gas, which will be increasingly important during the global energy transition. The conventional natgas resource base benefits from a fully developed global infrastructure, which, if augmented with funding and tax support for carbon-capture and storage technology, will provide a necessary bridge to a low-carbon energy grid.   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   Commodity Round-Up Industrial bulks (iron ore and steel) and metals are becoming more expensive, increasing the cost of Europe’s effort to diversify away from Russian natural gas. European countries that relied on pipeline natgas from Russia will need to construct import facilities and regasification plants to switch to LNG from other exporters. Cross-border European pipelines also will be required to transport imported natural gas from the Iberian Peninsula and Eastern Europe to inland Europe. The US will be expanding LNG export facilities in the Gulf out to 2025, after which growth in export capacity will level off at ~ 10 Bcf/d. It has a large latent export capacity of ~ 187 million tons of LNG, however 48% of that capacity will come via projects currently under construction or awaiting permits. The build-out and expansion of LNG import and export facilities will be steel- and metals- intensive. Renewables-based energy the EU will look to as another alternative to Russian gas will compete with new LNG facilities’ metal demand, given green energy’s infrastructure requirements (Chart 8). The US and China will compete with the EU for these metals, as the world aims to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. The downside risk is the current COVID wave in China, and the stringent lockdown accompanying it, which started in end-March. Lockdowns will slow down economic activity and demand for metals. So far, however, copper - widely used in the nation’s large property sector - seems to have been untouched by activity in China. This is likely due to low inventory levels, the Ukraine crisis, and political uncertainty in the copper rich countries of Peru and Chile, which has slowed investment activity in the region. According to BCA’s China Investment Strategy, China’s zero-tolerance COVID policy will lead to frequent lockdowns and outweigh the positive effects of stimulus, given the high transmissibility of the Omicron variant now spreading there. Copper demand growth likely slows in China, but outside China demand for steel and base metals is holding up.. Chart 8 Footnotes 1     Please see Surging Metals Prices And The Case For Carbon-Capture, which we published 13 May 2021. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Nordhaus is the 2018 Nobel Laureate in Economics in 2018. Please see Carbon Market Clubs and the New Paris Regime published by the World Bank in July 2016. The intellectual and computational framework for this technology was developed by Nordhaus. 2     Please see Geopolitics of The Energy Transformation: The Hydrogen Factor, published by IRENA. 3    Please see Green Hydrogen Cost Reduction: Scaling Up Electrolyzers to Meet the 1.5°C Climate Goal, published by IRENA. 4    Please see Ukraine war | Green hydrogen 'now cheaper than grey in Europe, Middle East and China': BNEF, published by rechargenews.com on March 7, 2022.  5    https://www.irena.org/newsroom/pressreleases/2022/Jan/Hydrogen-Economy-… 6    Please see Hydrogen: Future of Clean Energy or a False Solution? published by Sierra Club 5 January 2022. 7     Please see Green hydrogen has long been hyped as a replacement for fossil fuels. Now, one of the industry’s biggest players is preparing its IPO published by Fortune on January 10, 2022. 8    Please see Global Hydrogen Review 2021 published by IEA November 2021. 9    Please see Hydrogen Economy Hints at New Global Power Dynamics published by IRENA on January 15, 2022. 10   Please see Hydrogen could replace 20% of natural gas in the grid from next year published by Institution for Mechanical Engineers 14 January 2022. 11    See footnote #9. Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Trades Closed in 2021  

Executive Summary Equities Are Still Attractive Versus Bonds Macroeconomic Outlook: Global growth will reaccelerate in the second half of this year provided a ceasefire in Ukraine is reached. Inflation will temporarily come down as the dislocations caused by the war and the pandemic subside, before moving up again in late 2023. Equities: Maintain a modest overweight in stocks over a 12-month horizon, favoring non-US equities, small caps, and value stocks. Look to turn more defensive in the second half of 2023 in advance of another wave of inflation. Fixed income: The neutral rate of interest in the US is around 3.5%-to-4%, which is substantially higher than the consensus view. Bond yields will move sideways this year but will rise over the long haul. Overweight Germany, France, Japan, and Australia while underweighting the US and the UK in a global bond portfolio. Credit: Corporate debt will outperform high-quality government bonds over the next 12 months. Favor HY over IG and Europe over the US. Spreads will widen again in late 2023. Currencies: As a countercyclical currency, the US dollar will weaken later this year, with EUR/USD rising to 1.18. We are upgrading our view on the yen from bearish to neutral due to improved valuations. The CNY will strengthen as the Chinese authorities take steps to boost domestic demand. Commodities: Oil prices will dip in the second half of 2022 as the geopolitical premium in crude declines and more OPEC supply comes to market. However, oil and other commodity prices will start moving higher by mid-2023. Bottom Line: The cyclical bull market in stocks that began in 2009 is running long in the tooth, but the combination of faster global growth later this year and a temporary lull in inflation should pave the way for one final hurrah for equities.   Dear Client, Instead of our regular report this week, we are sending you our Quarterly Strategy Outlook, where we explore the major trends that are set to drive financial markets in the rest of 2022 and beyond. Next week, please join me for a webcast on Monday, April 11 at 9:00 AM EDT (2:00 PM BST, 3:00 PM CEST, 9:00 PM HKT) where I will discuss the outlook. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist P.S. You can now follow me on LinkedIn and Twitter.   I. Overview We continue to recommend overweighting global equities over a 12-month horizon. However, we see downside risks to stocks both in the near term (next 3 months) and long term (2-to-5 years). In the near term, stocks will weaken anew if Russia’s stated intentions to scale back operations in Ukraine turn out to be a ruse. There is also a risk that China will need to temporarily shutter large parts of its economy to combat the spread of the highly contagious BA.2 Omicron variant. While stocks could suffer a period of indigestion in response to monetary tightening by the Fed and a number of other central banks, we doubt that rates will rise enough over the next 12 months to undermine the global economy. This reflects our view that the neutral rate of interest in the US and most other countries is higher than widely believed. If the neutral rate ends up being between 3.5% and 4% in the US, as we expect, the odds are low that the Fed will induce a recession by raising rates to 2.75%, as the latest dot plot implies (Chart 1). Chart 1The Market Sees The Fed Raising Rates To Around 3% And Then Backing Off The downside of a higher neutral rate is that eventually, investors will need to value stocks using a higher real discount rate. How fast markets mark up their estimate of neutral depends on the trajectory of inflation. We were warning about inflation before it was cool to warn about inflation (see, for example, our January 2021 report, Stagflation in a Few Months?; or our February 2021 report, 1970s-Style Inflation: Yes, It Could Happen Again). Our view has been that inflation will follow a “two steps up, one step down” pattern. We are currently near the top of those two steps: US inflation will temporarily decline in the second half of this year, as goods inflation drops but service inflation is slow to rise. The decline in inflation will provide some breathing room for the Fed, allowing it to raise rates by no more than what markets are already discounting over the next 12 months. Unfortunately, the respite in inflation will not last long. By the end of 2023, inflation will start to pick up again, forcing the Fed to resume hiking rates in 2024. This second round of Fed tightening is not priced by the markets, and so when it happens, it could be quite disruptive for stocks and other risk assets. Investors should overweight equities on a 12-month horizon but look to turn more defensive in the second half of 2023.    II. The Global Economy War and Pestilence Are Near-Term Risks BCA’s geopolitical team, led by Matt Gertken, was ringing the alarm bell about Ukraine well before Russia’s invasion. Recent indications from Russia that it will scale back operations in Ukraine could pave the way for a ceasefire; or they could turn out to be a ruse, giving Russia time to restock supply lines and fortify its army in advance of a new summertime campaign against Kyiv. It is too early to tell, but either way, our geopolitical team expects more fighting in the near term. The West is not keen to give Putin an easy off-ramp, and even if it were, it is doubtful he would take it. The only way that Putin can salvage his legacy among his fan base in Russia is to decisively win the war in order to ensure Ukraine’s military neutrality.  For his part, Zelensky cannot simply agree to Russia’s pre-war demands that Ukraine demilitarize and swear off joining NATO unless Russian forces first withdraw. To give in to such demands without any concrete security guarantees would raise the question of why Ukraine fought the war to begin with.   The Impact of the Ukraine War on the Global Economy The direct effect of the war on the global economy is likely to be small. Together, Russia and Ukraine account for 3.5% of global GDP in PPP terms and 1.9% in dollar terms. Exports to Russia and Ukraine amount to only 0.2% of G7 GDP (Chart 2). Most corporations have little direct exposure to Russia, although there are a few notable exceptions (Chart 3). Chart 2Little Direct Trade Exposure To Russia And Ukraine In contrast to the direct effects, the indirect effects have the potential to be sizable. Russia is the world’s second largest oil producer, accounting for 12% of annual global output (Chart 4). It is the world’s top exporter of natural gas. About half of European natural gas imports come from Russia. Russia is also a significant producer of nickel, copper, aluminum, steel, and palladium. Chart 3Only A Handful Of Firms Have Significant Sales Exposure To Russia Chart 4Russia is The World's Second Largest Oil Producer Russia and Ukraine are major agricultural producers. Together, they account for a quarter of global wheat exports, with much of it going to the Middle East and North Africa (Chart 5). They are also significant producers of potatoes, corn, sugar beets, and seed oils. In addition, Russia produces two-thirds of all ammonium nitrate, the main source of nitrogen-based fertilizers. Largely as a result of higher commodity prices and other supply disruptions, the OECD estimates that the war could shave about 1% off of global growth this year, with Europe taking the brunt of the hit (Chart 6). At present, the futures curves for most commodities are highly backwardated (Chart 7). While one cannot look to the futures as unbiased predictors of where spot prices are heading, it is fair to say that commodity markets are discounting some easing in prices over the next two years. If that does not occur, global growth could weaken more than the OECD expects. Chart 5Developing Economies Buy The Bulk Of Russian And Ukrainian Wheat Chart 6The War In Ukraine Could Shave One Percentage Point Off Of Global Growth Chart 7Futures Curves For Most Commodities Are Backwardated     Another Covid Wave Two years after “two weeks to flatten the curve,” the world continues to underappreciate the power of exponential growth. Suppose that it takes five days for someone with Covid to infect someone else. If everyone with Covid infects an average of six people, the cumulative number of Covid cases would rise from 1,000 to 10 million in around four weeks. Suppose you could cut the number of new infections in half to three per person. In that case, it would take about six weeks for 10 million people to be infected. In other words, mitigation measures that cut the infection rate by half would only extend how long it takes for 10 million people to be infected by two weeks. That’s not a lot.  The point is that any infection rate above one will generate an explosive rise in cases. In the pre-Omicron days, keeping the infection rate below one was difficult, but not impossible for countries with the means and motivation to do so. As the virus has become more contagious, however, keeping it at bay has grown more difficult. The latest strain of Omicron, BA.2, appears to be 40% more contagious than the original Omicron strain, which itself was about 4-times more contagious than Delta. BA.2 is quickly spreading around the world. The number of cases has spiked across much of Europe, parts of Asia, and has begun to rise in North America (Chart 8). In China, the authorities have locked down Shanghai, home to 25 million people. Chart 8Covid Cases Are On The Rise Again The success that China has had in suppressing the virus has left its population with little natural immunity; and given the questionable efficacy of its vaccines, with little artificial immunity as well. Moreover, as is the case in Hong Kong, a large share of mainland China’s elderly population remains completely unvaccinated. Chart 9New Covid Drugs Are Set To Hit The Market This presents the Chinese authorities with a difficult dilemma: Impose severe lockdowns over much of the population, or let the virus run rampant. As the logic of exponential change described above suggests, there is not much of a middle ground. Our guess is that the Chinese government will choose the former option. China has already signed a deal to commercialize Pfizer’s Paxlovid. The drug is highly effective at preventing hospitalization if taken within five days from the onset of symptoms. Fortunately, Paxlovid production is starting to ramp up (Chart 9). China will probably wait until it has sufficient supply of the drug before relaxing its zero-Covid policy. While beneficial to growth later this year, this strategy could have a negative near-term impact on activity, as the authorities continue to play whack-a-mole with Covid.   Chart 10Inflation Is Running High, Especially In The US Central Banks in a Bind Standard economic theory says that central banks should adjust interest rates in response to permanent shocks, while ignoring transitory ones. This is especially true if the shock in question emanates from the supply side of the economy. After all, higher rates cool aggregate demand; they do not raise aggregate supply. The lone exception to this rule is when a supply shock threatens to dislodge long-term inflation expectations. If long-term inflation expectations become unanchored, what began as a transitory shock could morph into a semi-permanent one. The problem for central banks is that the dislocations caused by the Ukraine war are coming at a time when inflation is already running high. Headline CPI inflation reached 7.9% in the US in February, while core CPI inflation clocked in at 6.4%. Trimmed-mean inflation has increased in most economies (Chart 10). Fortunately, while short-term inflation expectations have moved up, long-term expectations have been more stable. Expected US inflation 5-to-10 years out in the University of Michigan survey stood at 3.0% in March, down a notch from 3.1% in January, and broadly in line with the average reading between 2010 and 2015 (Chart 11). Survey-based measures of long-term inflation expectations are even more subdued in the euro area and Japan (Chart 12). Market-based inflation expectations have risen, although this partly reflects higher oil prices. Even then, the widely-watched 5-year, 5-year forward TIPS inflation breakeven rate remains near the bottom of the Fed’s comfort range of 2.3%-to-2.5% (Chart 13).1  Chart 11Long-Term Inflation Expectations Remain Contained In The US...​​​​​​ Chart 12... And In The Euro Area And Japan Chart 13The Market's Long-Term Inflation Expectations Are Near The Bottom Of The Fed's Comfort Zone Goods versus Services Inflation Most of the increase in consumer prices has been concentrated in goods rather than services (Chart 14). This is rather unusual in that goods prices usually fall over time; but in the context of the pandemic, it is entirely understandable. Chart 14Goods Prices Have Been A Major Driver Of Overall Inflation The pandemic caused spending to shift from services to goods (Chart 15). This occurred at the same time as the supply of goods was being adversely affected by various pandemic-disruptions, most notably the semiconductor shortage that is still curtailing automobile production.   Chart 15AGoods Inflation Should Fade As Consumption Shifts Back Towards Services (I) Chart 15BGoods Inflation Should Fade As Consumption Shifts Back Towards Services (II) Looking out, the composition of consumer spending will shift back towards services. Supply chain bottlenecks should also abate, especially if the situation in Ukraine stabilizes. It is worth noting that the number of ships on anchor off the coast of Los Angeles and Long Beach has already fallen by half (Chart 16). The supplier delivery components of both the manufacturing and nonmanufacturing ISM indices have also come off their highs (Chart 17). Even used car prices appear to have finally peaked (Chart 18). Chart 16Shipping Delays Are Abating Chart 17Delivery Times Are Slowly Coming Down Chart 18Used Car Prices May Have Finally Peaked On the Lookout for a Wage-Price Spiral Could rising services inflation offset any decline in goods inflation this year? It is possible, but for that to happen, wage growth would have to accelerate further. For now, much of the acceleration in US wage growth has occurred at the bottom end of the income distribution (Chart 19). It is easy to see why. Chart 20 shows that low-paid workers have not returned to the labor market to the same degree as higher-paid workers. However, now that extended unemployment benefits have lapsed and savings deposits are being drawn down, the incentive to resume work will strengthen. Chart 19Wage Growth Has Picked Up, But Mostly At The Bottom End Of The Income Distribution Chart 20More Low-Wage Employees Should Return To Work Chart 21More Workers Will Return To Their Jobs Once The Pandemic Ends The end of the pandemic should allow more workers to remain at their jobs. In January, during the height of the Omicron wave, 8.75 million US workers (5% of the total workforce) were absent from work due to the virus (Chart 21).   How High Will Interest Rates Eventually Rise? If goods inflation comes down swiftly later this year, and services inflation is slow to rise, then overall inflation will decline. This should allow the Fed to pause tightening in early 2023. Whether the Fed will remain on hold beyond then depends on where the neutral rate of interest resides. Chart 22The Yield Curve Inverted in Mid-2019 But Growth Accelerated The neutral rate, or equilibrium rate as it is sometimes called, is the interest rate consistent with full employment and stable inflation. If the Fed pauses hiking before interest rates have reached neutral, the economy will eventually overheat, forcing the Fed to resume hiking. In contrast, if the Fed inadvertently raises rates above neutral, unemployment will start rising, requiring the Fed to cut rates. Markets are clearly worried about the latter scenario. The 2/10 yield curve inverted earlier this week. With the term premium much lower than in the past, an inversion in the yield curve is not the powerful harbinger of recession that it once was. After all, the 2/10 curve inverted in August 2019 and the economy actually strengthened over the subsequent six months before the pandemic came along (Chart 22). Nevertheless, an inverted yield curve is consistent with markets expectations that the Fed will raise rates above neutral. That is always a dangerous undertaking. Raising rates above neutral would likely push up the unemployment rate. There has never been a case in the post-war era where the 3-month moving average of the unemployment rate has risen by more than 30 basis points without a recession occurring (Chart 23). Chart 23When Unemployment Starts Rising, It Usually Keeps Rising   As discussed in the Feature Section below, the neutral rate of interest is probably between 3.5% and 4% in the US. This is good news in the short term because it lowers the odds that the Fed will raise rates above neutral during the next 12 months. It is bad news in the long run because it means that the Fed will find itself even more behind the curve than it is now, making a recession almost inevitable. The Feature Section builds on our report from two weeks ago. Readers familiar with that report should feel free to skip ahead to the next section. III. Feature: A Higher Neutral Rate Conceptually, the neutral rate is the interest rate that equates the amount of investment a country wants to undertake at full employment with the amount of savings that it has at its disposal.2  Anything that reduces savings or increases investment would raise the neutral rate (Chart 24). Chart 24The Savings-Investment Balance Determines The Neutral Rate Of Interest A number of factors are likely to lower desired savings in the US over the next few years: Households will spend down their accumulated pandemic savings. US households are sitting on $2.3 trillion (10% of GDP) in excess savings, the result of both decreased spending on services during the pandemic and the receipt of generous government transfer payments (Chart 25). Household wealth has soared since the start of the pandemic (Chart 26). Conservatively assuming that households spend three cents of every additional dollar in wealth, the resulting wealth effect could boost consumption by 4% of GDP. Chart 25Plenty Of Pent-Up Demand Chart 26Net Worth Has Soared Since The Pandemic The household deleveraging cycle has ended (Chart 27). Household balance sheets are in good shape. After falling during the initial stages of the pandemic, consumer credit has begun to rebound. For the first time since the housing boom, mortgage equity withdrawals are rising. Banks are easing lending standards on consumer loans across the board. Chart 27US Household Deleveraging Pressures Have Abated Chart 28Baby Boomers Have Amassed A Lot Of Wealth Baby boomers are retiring. They hold over half of US household wealth, considerably more than younger generations (Chart 28). As baby boomers transition from being savers to dissavers, national savings will decline. Government budget deficits will stay elevated. Fiscal deficits subtract from national savings. While the US budget deficit will come down over the next few years, the IMF estimates that the structural budget deficit will still average 4.9% of GDP between 2022 and 2026 compared to 2.0% of GDP between 2014 and 2019 (Chart 29).Chart 29Fiscal Policy: Tighter But Not Tight On the investment front: The deceleration in trend GDP growth, which depressed investment spending, has largely run its course.3 According to the Congressional Budget Office, real potential GDP growth fell from over 3% in the early 1980s to about 1.9% today. The CBO expects potential growth to edge down only slightly to 1.7% over the next few decades (Chart 30). After moving broadly sideways for two decades, core capital goods orders – a leading indicator for capital spending – have broken out to the upside (Chart 31). Capex intention surveys remain upbeat (Chart 32). The average age of the nonresidential capital stock currently stands at 16.3 years, the highest since 1965 (Chart 33). Chart 30Much Of The Deceleration In Potential Growth Has Already Happened Chart 31Positive Signs For Capex (I) Chart 32Positive Signs For Capex (II) Chart 33An Aging Capital Stock Similar to nonresidential investment, the US has been underinvesting in residential real estate (Chart 34). The average age of the housing stock has risen to a 71-year high of 31 years. The homeowner vacancy rate has plunged to the lowest level on record. The number of newly finished homes for sale is half of what it was prior to the pandemic. Chart 34US Housing Is In Short Supply   The New ESG: Energy Security and Guns The war in Ukraine will put further upward pressure on the neutral rate, especially outside of the United States. After staging a plodding recovery following the euro debt crisis, European capital spending received a sizable boost from the launch of the NextGenerationEU Recovery Fund (Chart 35). As Mathieu Savary points out in his latest must-read report on Europe, capital spending will rise further in the years ahead as European governments accelerate efforts to make their economies less reliant on Russian energy. Germany has already announced plans to construct three new LNG terminals. The push to build out Europe’s energy infrastructure is coming at a time when businesses are looking to ramp up capital spending. As in the US, Europe’s capital stock has aged rapidly over the past decade (Chart 36). Chart 35European Capex Should Recover Chart 36European Machines Need More Than Just An Oil Change   Chart 37The War In Ukraine Calls For More Spending Across Europe Meanwhile, European governments are trying to ease the burden from rising energy costs. For example, France has introduced a rebate on fuel. It is part of a EUR 20 billion package aimed at cutting heating and electricity bills. European military spending will rise. Military spending currently amounts to 1.5% of GDP, well below NATO’s threshold of 2% (Chart 37). Germany has announced that it will spend EUR 100 billion more on defense. European governments will also need to boost spending to accommodate Ukrainian refugees. The UN estimates that four million refugees have left Ukraine, with the vast majority settling in the EU.   A Smaller Chinese Current Account Surplus? The difference between what a country saves and invests equals its current account balance. Historically, China has been a major exporter of savings, which has helped depress interest rates abroad. While China’s current account surplus has declined as a share of its own GDP, it has remained very large as a share of global ex-China GDP, reflecting China’s growing weight in the global economy (Chart 38). Many analysts assume that China will double down on efforts to boost exports in order to offset the drag from falling property investment. However, there is a major geopolitical snag with that thesis: A country that runs a current account surplus must, by definition, accumulate assets from the rest of the world. As the freezing of Russia’s foreign exchange reserves demonstrates, that is a risky proposition for a country such as China. Rather than increasing its current account surplus, China may seek to bolster its economy by raising domestic demand. This could be achieved by either boosting domestic infrastructure spending or raising household consumption. Notably, China’s credit impulse appears to have bottomed and is set to increase in the second half of the year. This is good news not just for Chinese growth but growth abroad (Chart 39). Chart 38Will China Be A Source Of Excess Savings? Chart 39China's Credit Impulse Appears To Have Bottomed The IMF’s latest projections foresee China’s current account surplus falling by more than half between 2021 and 2026 as a share of global ex-China GDP. If this were to happen, the neutral rate in China and elsewhere would rise. IV. Financial Markets A. Portfolio Strategy Chart 40The Markets Wobbled And Then Recovered After The Beginning Of The Last Four Fed Rate Cycles As noted in the overview, if the neutral rate turns out to be higher than currently perceived, the Fed is unlikely to induce a recession by raising rates over the next 12 months. That is good news for equities. A look back at the past four Fed tightening cycles shows that stocks often wobble when the Fed starts hiking rates, but then usually rise as long as rates do not move into restrictive territory (Chart 40). Unfortunately, a higher neutral rate also means that investors will eventually need to value stocks using a higher discount rate. It also means that any decline in inflation this year will not last. The US economy will probably start to overheat again in the second half of 2023. This will set the stage for a second, and more painful, tightening cycle in 2024. Admittedly, there is a lot of uncertainty over our “two steps up, one step down” forecast for inflation. It is certainly possible that the “one step down” phase does not last long and that the resurgence in inflation we are expecting in the second half of next year occurs earlier. It is also possible that investors will react negatively to rising rates, even if the economy is ultimately able to withstand them. As such, only a modest overweight to equities is justified over the next 12 months, with risks tilted to the downside in the near term. More conservative asset allocators should consider moving to a neutral stance on equities already, as my colleague Garry Evans advised clients to do in his latest Global Asset Allocation Quarterly Portfolio Outlook.   B. Fixed Income Stay Underweight Duration Over a 2-to-5 Year Horizon Our recommendation to maintain below-benchmark duration in fixed-income portfolios panned out since the publication of our Annual Outlook in December, with the US 10-year Treasury yield rising from 1.43% to 2.38%. We continue to expect bond yields in the US to rise over the long haul. Conceptually, the yield on a government bond equals the expected path of policy rates over the duration of the bond plus a term premium. The term premium is the difference between the return investors can expect from buying a long-term bond that pays a fixed interest rate, and the return from rolling over a short-term bill. The term premium has been negative in recent years. Investors have been willing to sacrifice return to own long-term bonds because bond prices usually rise when the odds of a recession go up. The fact that monthly stock returns and changes in bond yields have been positively correlated since 2001 underscores the benefits that investors have received from owning long-term bonds as a hedge against unfavorable economic news (Chart 41). However, now that inflation has emerged as an increasingly important macroeconomic risk, the correlation between stock returns and changes in bond yields could turn negative again. Unlike weak economic growth, which is bad for only stocks, high inflation is bad for both bonds and stocks. Chart 41Correlation Between Stock Returns And Bond Yields Could Turn Negative If bond yields start to rise whenever stock prices fall, the incentive to own long-term bonds will decline. This will cause the term premium to increase. Assuming the term premium rises to about 0.5%, and a neutral rate of 3.5%-to-4%, the long-term fair value for the 10-year US Treasury yield is 4%-to-4.5%. This is well above the 5-year/5-year forward yield of 2.20%.   Move from Underweight to Neutral Duration Over a 12-Month Horizon Below benchmark duration positions usually do well when the Fed hikes rates by more than expected over the subsequent 12 months (Chart 42). Chart 42The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing Given our view that US inflation will temporarily decline later this year, the Fed will probably not need to raise rates over the next 12 months by more than the 249 basis points that markets are already discounting. Thus, while a below-benchmark duration position is advisable over a 2-to-5-year time frame, it could struggle over a horizon of less than 12 months. Our end-2022 target range for the US 10-year Treasury yield is 2.25%-to-2.5%. Chart 43Bond Sentiment And Positioning Are Bearish Supporting our decision to move to a neutral benchmark duration stance over a 12-month horizon is that investor positioning and sentiment are both bond bearish (Chart 43). From a contrarian point of view, this is supportive of bonds.   Global Bond Allocation BCA’s global fixed-income strategists recommend overweighting German, French, Australian, and Japanese government bonds, while underweighting those of the US and the UK. They are neutral on Italy and Spain given that the ECB is set to slow the pace of bond buying. The neutral rate of interest has risen in the euro area, partly on the back of more expansionary fiscal policy across the region. In absolute terms, however, the neutral rate in the euro area is still quite low, and possibly negative. Unlike in the US, where inflation has risen to uncomfortably high levels, much of Europe would benefit from higher inflation expectations, as this would depress real rates across the region, giving growth a boost. This implies that the ECB is unlikely to raise rates much over the next two years. As with the euro area, Japan would benefit from lower real rates. The Bank of Japan’s yield curve control policy has been put to the test in recent weeks. To its credit, the BoJ has stuck to its guns, buying bonds in unlimited quantities to prevent yields from rising. We expect the BoJ to stay the course. Unlike in the euro area and Japan, inflation expectations are quite elevated in the UK and wage growth is rising quickly there. This justifies an underweight stance on UK gilts. Although job vacancies in Australia have climbed to record levels, wage growth is still not strong enough from the RBA’s point of view to justify rapid rate hikes. As a result, BCA’s global fixed-income strategists remain overweight Australian bonds. Finally, our fixed-income strategists are underweight Canadian bonds but are contemplating upgrading them given that markets have already priced in 238 basis points in tightening over the next 12 months. Unlike in the US, high levels of consumer debt will also limit the Bank of Canada’s ability to raise rates.   Modest Upside in High-Yield Corporate Bonds Credit spreads have narrowed in recent days but remain above where they were prior to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Since the start of the year, US investment-grade bonds have underperformed duration-matched Treasurys by 154 basis points, while high-yield bonds have underperformed by 96 basis points (Chart 44). The outperformance of high-yield relative to investment-grade debt can be explained by the fact that the former has more exposure to the energy sector, which has benefited from rising oil prices. Looking out, falling inflation and a rebound in global growth later this year should provide a modestly supportive backdrop for corporate credit. High-yield spreads are still pricing in a default rate of 3.8% over the next 12 months (Chart 45). This is well above the trailing 12-month default rate of 1.3%. Our fixed-income strategists continue to prefer US high-yield over US investment-grade. Chart 44Spreads Have Narrowed Over The Past Two Weeks But Remain Above Pre-War Levels Chart 45Spread-Implied Default Rate Is Too High   European credit is attractively priced and should benefit from any stabilization in the situation in Ukraine. Our fixed-income strategists prefer both European high-yield and investment-grade bonds over their US counterparts. As with equities, the bull market in corporate credit will end in late 2023 as the Fed is forced to resume raising rates in 2024 in the face of an overheated economy.   C. Currencies Chart 46Widening Interest Rate Differentials Have Supported The Dollar The US Dollar Will Weaken Starting in the Second Half of 2022 Since bottoming last May, the US dollar has been trending higher. While the dollar could strengthen further in the near term if the war in Ukraine escalates, the fundamental backdrop supporting the greenback is starting to fray. If US inflation comes down later this year, the Fed is unlikely to raise rates by more than what markets are already discounting over the next 12 months. Thus, widening rate differentials will no longer support the dollar (Chart 46). The dollar is a countercyclical currency: It usually weakens when global growth is strengthening and strengthens when global growth is weakening (Chart 47). The dollar tends to be particularly vulnerable when growth expectations are rising more outside the US than in the US (Chart 48). Chart 47The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency Chart 48Better Growth Prospects Abroad Will Weigh On The US Dollar Global growth should rebound in the second half of the year once the pandemic finally ends and the situation in Ukraine stabilizes. Growth is especially likely to recover in Europe. This will support the euro, a dovish ECB notwithstanding. Chester Ntonifor, BCA’s Foreign Exchange Strategist, expects EUR/USD to end the year at 1.18.   The Dollar is Overvalued The dollar’s ascent has left it overvalued by more than 20% on a Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) basis (Chart 49). The PPP exchange rate equalizes the price of a representative basket of goods and services between the US and other economies. PPP deviations from fair value have done a reasonably good job of predicting dollar movements over the long run (Chart 50). Chart 49USD Remains Overvalued Chart 50Valuations Matter For FX Long-Term Returns Reflecting the dollar’s overvaluation, the US trade deficit has widened sharply (Chart 51). Excluding energy exports, the US trade deficit as a share of GDP is now the largest on record. Equity inflows have helped finance America’s burgeoning current account deficit (Chart 52). However, these inflows have ebbed significantly as foreign investors have lost their infatuation with US tech stocks. Chart 51The US Trade Deficit Has Widened Chart 52Net Inflows Into US Equities Have Dried Up Dollar positioning remains stretched on the long side (Chart 53). That is not necessarily an obstacle in the short run, given that the dollar tends to be a momentum currency, but it does suggest that the greenback could weaken over a 12-month horizon as more dollar bulls jump ship.     The Yen: Cheaper but Few Catalysts for a Bounce The trade-weighted yen has depreciated by 6.4% since the start of the year. The yen is 31% undervalued relative to the dollar on a PPP basis (Chart 54). In a nod to these improved valuations, we are upgrading our 12-month and long-term view on the yen from bearish to neutral. Chart 53Still A Lot of Dollar Bulls Chart 54The Yen Has Gotten Cheaper       While the yen is unlikely to weaken much from current levels, it is unlikely to strengthen. As noted above, the Bank of Japan has no incentive to abandon its yield curve control strategy. Yes, the recent rapid decline in the yen is a shock to the economy, but it is a “good” shock in the sense that it could finally jolt inflation expectations towards the BoJ’s target of 2%. If inflation expectations rise, real rates would fall, which would be bearish for the currency.   Favor the RMB and other EM Currencies The Chinese RMB has been resilient so far this year, rising slightly against the dollar, even as the greenback has rallied against most other currencies. Real rates are much higher in China than in the US, and this has supported the RMB (Chart 55). Chart 55Higher Real Rates In China Have Supported The RMB Chart 56The RMB Is Undervalued Based On PPP   Despite the RMB’s strength, it is still undervalued by 10.5% relative to its PPP exchange rate (Chart 56). While productivity growth has slowed in China, it remains higher than in most other countries. The real exchange rates of countries that benefit from fast productivity growth typically appreciates over time. China holds about half of its foreign exchange reserves in US dollars, a number that has not changed much since 2012 (Chart 57). We expect China to diversify away from dollars over the coming years. Moreover, as discussed earlier in the report, the incentive for China to run large current account surpluses may fade, which will result in slower reserve accumulation. Both factors could curb the demand for dollars in international markets. Chart 57Half Of Chinese FX Reserves Are Held In USD Assets A resilient RMB will provide a tailwind for other EM currencies. Many EM central banks began to raise rates well before their developed market counterparts. In Brazil, for example, the policy rate has risen to 11.75% from 2% last April. With inflation in EMs likely to come down later this year as pandemic and war-related dislocations subside, real policy rates will rise, giving EM currencies a boost.   D. Commodities Longer-Term Bullish Thesis on Commodities Remains Intact BCA’s commodity team, led by Bob Ryan, expects crude prices to fall in the second half of the year, before moving higher again in 2023. Their forecast is for Brent to dip to $88/bbl by end-2022, which is below the current futures price of $97/bbl. Chart 58Dearth Of Oil Capex Will Put A Floor Under Oil Prices The risk to their end-2022 forecast is tilted to the upside. The relationship between the Saudis and the US has become increasingly strained. This could hamper efforts to bring more oil to market. Hopes that Iranian crude will reach global markets could also be dashed if, as BCA’s geopolitical strategists expect, the US-Iran nuclear deal falls through.  A cut-off of Russian oil could also cause prices to rise. While Urals crude is being sold at a heavy discount of $30/bbl to Brent (compared to a discount of around $2/bbl prior to the invasion), it is still leaving the country. In fact, Russian oil production actually rose in March over February. An escalation of the war would make it more difficult for Russia to divert enough oil to China, India, and other countries in order to evade Western sanctions. Looking beyond this year, Bob and his team see upside to oil prices. They expect Brent to finish 2023 at $96/bbl, above the futures price of $89/bbl. Years of underinvestment in crude oil production have led to tight supply conditions (Chart 58). Proven global oil reserves increased by only 6% between 2010 and 2020, having risen by 26% over the preceding decade.   Stay Positive on Metals As with oil, there has been little investment in mining capacity in recent years. While a weaker property market in China will weigh on metals prices, this will be partly offset by increased infrastructure spending. The shift towards green energy will also boost metals prices. The typical electric vehicle requires about four times as much copper as a typical gasoline-powered vehicle. Huge amounts of copper will also be necessary to expand electrical grids.   Favor Gold Over Cryptos After breaking above $2,000/oz, the price of gold has retreated to $1,926/oz. In the near term, gold prices will be swayed by geopolitical developments. Longer term, real rates will dictate the direction of gold prices. Chart 59 shows that there is a very strong correlation between the price of gold and TIPS yields. If we are correct that the neutral rate of interest is 3.5%-to-4% in the US, real bond yields will eventually need to rise from current levels. Gold prices are quite expensive by historic standards, which represents a long-term risk (Chart 60). Chart 59Strong Correlation Between Real Rates And Gold Chart 60Gold Is Quite Pricey From A Historical Perspective That said, we expect the bulk of the increase in real bond yields to occur only after mid-2023. As mentioned earlier, the Fed will probably not have to deliver more tightening that what markets are already discounting over the next 12 months. Thus, gold prices are unlikely to fall much in the near term. In any case, we continue to regard gold as a safer play than cryptocurrencies. As we discussed in Who Pays for Cryptos?, the long-term outlook for cryptocurrencies remains daunting. Many of the most hyped blockchain applications, from DeFi to NFTs, will turn out to be duds. Concerns that cryptocurrencies are harming the environment, contributing to crime, and enriching a small group of early investors at the expense of everyone else will lead to increased regulatory scrutiny. Our long-term target for Bitcoin is $5,000.   E. Equities Equities Are Still Attractively Priced Relative to Bonds Corporate earnings are highly correlated with the state of the business cycle (Chart 61). A recovery in global growth later this year will bolster revenue, while easing supply-chain pressures should help contain costs in the face of rising wages. It is worth noting that despite all the shocks to the global economy, EPS estimates in the US and abroad have actually risen this year (Chart 62). Chart 61The Business Cycle Drives Earnings Chart 62Global EPS Estimates Have Held Up Reasonably Well Chart 63Equities Are Still Attractive Versus Bonds As Doug Peta, BCA’s Chief US Strategist has pointed out, the bar for positive earnings surprises for Q1 is quite low: According to Refinitiv/IBES, S&P 500 earnings are expected to fall by 4.5% in Q1 over Q4 levels. Global equities currently trade at 18-times forward earnings. Relative to real bond yields, stocks continue to look reasonably cheap (Chart 63). Even in the US, where valuations are more stretched, the earnings yield on stocks exceeds the real bond yield by 570 basis points. At the peak of the market in 2000, the gap between earnings yields and real bond yields was close to zero.   Favor Non-US Markets, Small Caps, and Value Valuations are especially attractive outside the US. Non-US equities trade at 13.7-times forward earnings. Emerging markets trade at a forward P/E of only 12.1. Correspondingly, the gap between earnings yields and real bond yields is about 200 basis points higher outside the US. In general, non-US markets fare best in a setting of accelerating growth and a weakening dollar – precisely the sort of environment we expect to prevail in the second half of the year (Chart 64). US small caps also perform best when growth is strengthening and the dollar is weakening (Chart 65). In contrast to the period between 2003 and 2020, small caps now trade at a discount to their large cap brethren. The S&P 600 currently trades at 14.4-times forward earnings compared to 19.7-times for the S&P 500, despite the fact that small cap earnings are projected to grow more quickly both over the next 12-months and over the long haul (Chart 66). Chart 64A Weaker Dollar And Stronger Global Economy Are Tailwinds For Non-US Stocks Chart 65US Small Caps Usually Fare Well When The Economy Is Strengthening And The Dollar Is Weakening Globally, growth stocks have outperformed value stocks by 60% since 2017. However, only one-tenth of that outperformance has come from faster earnings growth (Chart 67). This has left value trading nearly two standard deviations cheap relative to growth. Chart 66Small Caps Look Attractive Relative To Large Caps Chart 67Value Remains Cheap Chart 68Higher Yields Tend To Flatter Bank Stocks And Usually Weigh On Tech Tech stocks are overrepresented in growth indices, while banks are overrepresented in value indices. US banks have held up relatively well since the start of the year but have not gained as much as one would have expected based on the significant increase in bond yields (Chart 68). With the deleveraging cycle in the US coming to an end, US banks sport both attractive valuations and the potential for better-than-expected earnings growth. European banks should also recover as the situation in Ukraine stabilizes. They trade at only 7.9-times forward earnings and 0.6-times book. On the flipside, structurally higher bond yields will weigh on tech shares. Moreover, as we discussed in our recent report entitled The Disruptor Delusion, a cooling in pandemic-related tech spending, increasing market saturation, and concerns about Big Tech’s excessive power will all hurt tech returns.   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1     The Federal Reserve targets an average inflation rate of 2% for the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) index. The TIPS breakeven is based on the CPI index. Due to compositional differences between the two indices, CPI inflation has historically averaged 30-to-50 basis points higher than PCE inflation. This is why the Fed effectively targets a CPI inflation rate of about 2.3%-to-2.5%. 2     These savings can either by generated domestically or imported from abroad via a current account deficit. 3    Theoretically, there is a close relationship between trend growth and the equilibrium investment-to-GDP ratio. For example, if real trend growth is 3% and the capital stock-to-GDP ratio is 200%, a country would need to invest 6% of GDP net of depreciation to maintain the existing capital stock-to-GDP ratio. In contrast, if trend growth were to fall to 2%, the country would only need to invest 4% of GDP. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations   Current MacroQuant Model Scores

Special Report

Executive Summary The Good: There are compelling reasons to believe the Ukraine war will not break out into a broader NATO-Russia war, i.e. World War III. The Bad: The 1945 peace settlement is breaking down and the world is fundamentally less stable. Even if the Ukraine war is contained, other wars are likely in the coming decade. The Ugly: Russia is not a rising power but a falling power and its attempt to latch onto China will jeopardize global stability for the foreseeable future. Secular Rise In Geopolitical Risk Is Empirical Trade Recommendation Inception Date Return LONG GOLD (STRATEGIC) 2019-12-06 32.3% Bottom Line: Within international equities, favor bourses that are least exposed to secular US geopolitical conflict with Russia and China, particularly in the Americas, Western Europe, and Oceania. Feature Two weeks ago our Global Investment Strategy service wrote a report called “The Economic And Financial Consequences Of The War In Ukraine,” arguing that while the war’s impact on commodity markets and financial conditions would be significant, the global economy would continue to grow and equity prices would rise over the coming 12 months. Related Report  Geopolitical Strategy2022 Key Views: The Gathering Storm This companion special report will consider the geopolitical consequences of the Ukraine war. The primary consequence is that “Great Power Struggle” will intensify, as the return of war to Europe will force even the most pacific countries like Germany and Japan to pursue their national security with fewer illusions about the capacity for global cooperation. Globalization will continue to decay into “Hypo-Globalization” or regionalism, as the US severs ties with Russia and China and encourages its allies to do the same. Specifically, Germany will ultimately cleave to the West, China will ultimately cleave to Russia, a new shatter-belt will emerge from East Europe to the Middle East to East Asia, and US domestic politics will fall short of civil war. Given that US financial assets are already richly priced, global investors should seek to diversify into cheaper international equities that are nevertheless geopolitically secure, especially those in the Americas, western Europe, and Oceania. Global Versus Regional Wars Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is a continuation of a regional war that started in 2014. The war has been contained within Ukraine since 2014 and the latest expansion of the war is also contained so far. The war broke out because Russia views a western-allied Ukraine as an intolerable threat to its national security. Its historic grand strategy calls for buffer space against western military forces. Moscow feared that time would only deepen Ukraine’s bonds with the West, making military intervention difficult now but impossible in the future. As long as Russia fails to neutralize Ukraine in a military-strategic sense, the war will continue. President Putin cannot accept defeat or the current stalemate and will likely intensify the war until he can declare victory, at least on the goal of “de-militarization” of Ukraine. So far Ukraine’s battlefield successes and military support from NATO make a Russian victory unlikely, portending further war. If Ukraine and Russia provide each other with acceptable security guarantees, an early ceasefire is possible. But up to now  Ukraine is unwilling to accept de-militarization and the loss of Crimea and the Donbass, which are core Russian demands (Map 1). Map 1Russian Invasion Of Ukraine, 2022 Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has caused a spike in the global geopolitical risk index, which is driven by international media discourse (Chart 1). The spike confirms that geopolitical risk is on a secular upward trend. The trough occurred after the fall of the Soviet Union when the world enjoyed relative peace and prosperity. The new trend began with the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and the US’s preemptive invasion of Iraq. This war initiated a fateful sequence in which the US became divided and distracted, Russia and China seized the opportunity to rebuild their spheres of influence, and international stability began to decline. Chart 1Secular Rise In Geopolitical Risk Is Empirical Now Russia’s invasion of Ukraine presents an opportunity for the US and its allies to rediscover their core national interests and the importance of collective security. This implies increasing strategic pressure not only on Russia but also on China and their ragtag group of allies, including Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea. The world will become even less stable in this context. Chart 2Russian War Aims Limited Still, Russia will not expand the Ukraine war to other states unless it faces regime collapse and grows desperate. The war is manifestly a stretch for Russia’s military capabilities and a larger war would weaken rather than strengthen Russia’s national security. NATO utterly overwhelms Russia’s military capacity, even if we are exceedingly generous and assume that China offers full military support along with the rest of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (Chart 2). As things stand Russia still has the hope of reducing Ukraine without destroying its economic foundation, i.e. commodity exports. But an expansion of the war would destroy the regime – and possibly large swathes of the world given the risk of nuclear weapons in such a scenario. If Russia’s strategic aim were to rebuild the Soviet Union, then it would know that it would eventually need to fight a war with NATO and would have attacked critical NATO military bases first. At very least it would have cut off Europe’s energy supplies to induce a recession and hinder the Europeans from mounting a rapid military defense. It would have made deeper arrangements for China to buy its energy prior to any of these actions. At present, about three-fifths of Russian oil is seaborne and can be easily repurposed, but its natural gas exports are fixed by pipelines and the pipeline infrastructure to the Far East is woefully lacking (Chart 3). The evidence does not suggest that Russia aims for world war. Rather, it is planning on a war limited to eastern and southern Ukraine. Chart 3Russia Gas Cutoff Would Mean Desperation, Disaster None of the great powers are willing or forced to wage war with Russia directly. The US and UK are the most removed and hence most aggressive in arming Ukraine but they are still avoiding direct involvement: they have repeatedly renounced any intention of committing troops or imposing a no-fly zone over Ukraine and they are still limiting the quality of their defense aid for fear of Russian reprisals. The EU is even more keen to avoid a larger war. Germany and France are still attempting to maintain basic level of economic integration with Russia. China is not likely to enter the war on Russia’s behalf – it will assist Russia as far as it can without breaking economic relations with Europe. The war’s limitations are positive for global investors but only marginally. The law that governs the history of war is the law of unintended consequences. Investors should absolutely worry about unintended consequences, even as they strive to be clear-headed about Russia’s limited means and ends. If Russia fails or grows desperate, if it makes mistakes or miscalculates, if the US is unresponsive and aggressive, or if lesser powers attempt to provoke greater American or European security guarantees, then the war could spiral out of control. This risk should keep every investor alive to the need to maintain a reasonable allocation to safe-haven assets.  If not, the end-game is likely a deliberate or de facto partition of Ukraine, with Russia succeeding in stripping Crimea and the Donbass from Ukraine, destroying most of its formal military capacity, and possibly installing a pro-Russian government in Kyiv. Western Ukraine will become the seat of a government in exile as well as the source of arms and materiel for the militant insurgency that will burn in eastern Ukraine. Over the course of this year Russia is likely to redouble its efforts to achieve its aims – a summer or fall campaign is likely to try to break Ukraine’s resistance. But if and when commodity revenues dry up or Russia’s economic burden becomes unbearable, then it will most likely opt for ceasefire and use Ukrainian military losses as proof of its success in de-militarizing the country. Why Germany Will Play Both Sides But Ultimately Cleave To The West A critical factor in limiting the war to Ukraine is Europe’s continued energy trade with Russia. If either Russia or Europe cuts off energy flows then it will cause an economic crash that will destabilize the societies and increase the risk of military miscalculation. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz once again rejected a European boycott of Russian energy on March 23, while US President Joe Biden visited and urged Europe to intensify sanctions. Scholz argued that no sanctions can be adopted that would hurt European consumers more than the Kremlin. Scholz’s comments related to oil as well as natural gas, although Europe has greater ability to boycott oil, implying that further oil supply tightening should be expected. Germany is not the only European power that will refuse an outright boycott of Russian energy. Russia’s closest neighbors are highly reliant on Russian oil and gas (Chart 4). It only takes a single member to veto EU sanctions. While several western private companies are eschewing business with Russia, other companies will pick up the slack and charge a premium to trade in Russian goods. Chart 4Germany Will Diversify Energy But Not Boycott Russia Chart 5Economically, Germany Will Cleave To The West Germany’s insistence on maintaining a basic level of economic integration with Russia stems from its national interest. During the last Cold War, Germany got dismembered. Germany’s whole history consists of a quest for unification and continental European empire. Modern Germany is as close to that goal as possible. What could shatter this achievement would be a severe recession that would divide the European Union, or a war in Europe that would put Germans on the front lines. An expansion of the US sanction regime to cover all of Russia and China would initiate a new cold war and Germany’s economic model would collapse due to restrictions on both the import and export side. Germany’s strategy has been to maintain security through its alliance with America while retaining independence and prosperity through economic engagement with Russia and China. The Russia side of that equation has been curtailed since 2014 and will now be sharply curtailed. Germany has also been increasing military spending, in a historic shift that echoes Japan’s strategic reawakening over the past decade in face of Chinese security competition. Chart 6Strategically, Germany Will Cleave To The West But Germany will be extremely wary of doing anything to accelerate the process of economic disengagement with China. China does not pose a clear and present military threat to Germany, though its attempt to move up the manufacturing value chain poses an economic threat over time. As long as China does not provide outright military support for Russia’s efforts in Ukraine, and does not adopt Russia’s belligerence against neighboring democracies like Taiwan, Germany will avoid imposing sanctions. This stance will not be a major problem with the US under the Biden administration, which is prioritizing solidarity with the allies, but it could become a major problem in a future Republican administration, which will seek to ramp up the strategic pressure on China. Ultimately, however, Germany will cleave to the West. Germany is undertaking a revolution in fiscal policy to increase domestic demand and reduce export dependency. Meanwhile its export-driven economy is primarily geared toward other developed markets, which rake up 70% of German exports (78% of which go to other EU members). China and the former Soviet Union pale in comparison, at 8% and 3% respectively (Chart 5). From a national security perspective Germany will also be forced to cleave to the United States. NATO vastly outweighs Russia in the military balance. But Russia vastly outweighs Germany (Chart 6). The poor performance of Russia’s military in Ukraine will not console the Germans given Russian instability, belligerence, and nuclear status. Germany has no choice but to rely on the US and NATO for national security. If the US conflict with China escalates to the point that the US demands Germany carry a greater economic cost, then Germany will eventually be forced to yield. But this shift will not occur if driven by American whim – it will only occur if driven by Chinese aggression and alliance with Russia. Which brings us to our next point: China will also strive to retain its economic relationship with Germany and Europe. Why China Will Play Both Sides But Ultimately Cleave To Russia Chart 7China Will Delay Any Break With Europe The US cannot defeat China in a war, so it will continue to penalize China’s economy. Washington aims to erode the foundations of China’s military and technological might so that it cannot create a regional empire and someday challenge the US globally. Chinese cooperation with other US rivals will provide more occasions for the US to punish China. For example, Presidents Biden and Xi Jinping talked on March 18 and Biden formally threatened China with punitive measures if Beijing provides Russia with military aid or helps Russia bypass US sanctions. Since China will help Russia bypass sanctions, US sanctions on China are likely this year, sooner or later. Europe thus becomes all the more important to China as a strategic partner, an export market, and a source of high-quality imports and technology. China needs to retain close relations as long as possible to avoid a catastrophic economic adjustment. Europe is three times larger of an export market for China than Russia and the former Soviet Union (Chart 7). Chart 8China Cannot Reject Russia When push comes to shove, however, China cannot afford to reject Russia. Russia’s decision to break ties with Europe reflects the Putin regime’s assessment that the country cannot preserve its national security against the West without allying with China. Ultimately Russia offers many of the strategic benefits that China needs. Most obviously, if China is ever forced into a military confrontation with the West, say over the status of Taiwan, it will need Russian assistance, just as Russia needs its assistance today. China’s single greatest vulnerability is its reliance on oil imported from the Persian Gulf, which is susceptible to American naval interdiction in the event of conflict. Russia and Central Asia form the second largest source of food, energy, and metals for China (Chart 8). Russia provides an overland route to the supply security that China craves. Chart 9Russia Offers Key To China's Eurasian Strategy Russia also wields immense influence in Central Asia and significant influence in the Middle East. These are the critical regions for China’s Eurasian strategy, symbolized in the Belt and Road Initiative. Chinese investment in the former Soviet Union has lagged its investment in the Middle East and the rest of Asia but the Ukraine war will change that. China will have an historic opportunity to invest in the former Soviet Union, on favorable terms, to secure strategic access all the way to the Middle East (Chart 9). China will always prioritize its East Asian neighbors as investment destinations but it will also need alternatives as the US will inevitably seek to upgrade relations with Southeast Asia. Another reason China must accept Russia’s overtures is that China is aware that it would be strategically isolated if the West pulled off a “Reverse Kissinger” maneuver and allied with Russia. This option seems far-fetched today but when President Putin dies or is overthrown it will become a fear for the Chinese. There has never been deep trust between the Chinese and Russians and the future Russian elite may reject the idea of vassalage to China. Therefore just as Russia needs China today, China will need Russia in the future. Why The Middle East Will Rumble Again The Middle East is destabilizing once again and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine will reinforce this trajectory. Most directly, the reduction in grain exports from Russia and Ukraine will have a disproportionate impact on food supplies and prices in countries like Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, Libya, and Lebanon (Chart 10).   A new shatter-belt will take shape not only in Russia’s and China’s neighborhood, as they seek to establish spheres of influence, but also in the Middle East, which becomes more important to Europe as Europe diversifies away from Russia. Part of the strategic purpose of Russia’s invasion is to gain greater naval access to the Black Sea and Mediterranean, and hence to expand its ability to project power across the Middle East and North Africa. This is both for general strategic purposes and to gain greater leverage over Europe via its non-Russian energy and supply sources. Chart 10A New Shatter-Belt Emerging The critical strategic factor in the Middle East is the US-Iran relationship. If the two sides arrange a strategic détente, then Iranian oil reserves will be developed, the risk of Iraqi civil war will decline, and the risk of general war in the Middle East will decline. This would be an important reduction of oil supply risk in the short and medium term (Chart 11). But our base case is the opposite: we expect either no deal, or a flimsy deal that does not truly reduce regional tensions. Chart 11Middle East Still Unstable, Still Essential A US-Iran nuclear deal might come together soon – we cannot rule it out. The Biden administration is willing to lift sanctions if Iran freezes its nuclear program and pledges to reduce its militant activities in the region. Biden has reportedly even provided Russia with guarantees that it can continue trading with Iran. Theoretically the US and Russia can cooperate to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. Russia’s pound of flesh is that Ukraine be neutralized as a national security threat. However, any US-Iran deal will be a short-term, stop-gap measure that will fall short of a strategic détente. Iran is an impregnable mountain fortress and has a distinct national interest in obtaining deliverable nuclear weapons. Iran will not give up the pursuit of nuclear weapons because it cannot rely on other powers for its security. Iran obviously cannot rely on the United States, as any security guarantees could be overturned with the next party change in the White House. Tehran cannot rely on the US to prevent Israel from attacking it. Therefore Iran must pursue its own national survival and security through the same means as the North Koreans. It must avoid the predicaments of Ukraine, Libya, and Iraq, which never obtained nuclear weaponization and were ultimately invaded. Insofar as Iran wants to avoid isolation, it needs to ally with Russia and China, it cannot embark on a foreign policy revolution of engagement with the West. The Russians and Chinese are unreliable but at least they have an interest in undermining the United States. The more the US is undermined, the more of a chance Iran has to make progress toward nuclear weapons without being subject to a future US attack. Chart 12Iran’s Other Nuclear Option Of course, the US and Israel have declared that nuclear weaponization is a red line. Israel is willing to attack Iran whereas Japan was not willing to attack North Korea – and where there is a will there is a way. But Iran may also believe that Israel would be unsuccessful. It would be an extremely difficult operation. The US has not shown willingness to attack states to prevent them from going nuclear. A split between the US and Israel would be an excellent foreign policy achievement for Tehran. The US may desire to pivot away from the Middle East to focus on containing Russia and China. But the Middle East is critical territory for that same containment policy. If the US abandons the region, it will become less stable until a new security order emerges. If the US stays involved in the region, it will be to contain Iran aggressively or prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons by force. Whatever happens, the region faces instability in the coming decade and the world faces oil supply disruptions as a result. Iran has significant leverage due to its ability to shutter the Strait of Hormuz, the world’s premier oil chokepoint (Chart 12). Why A Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis Looms Chart 13US Cannot Deter China Without Triggering Crisis There is a valid analogy between Ukraine and Taiwan: both receive western military support, hence both pose a fundamental threat to the national security of Russia and China. Yet both lack a mutual defense treaty that obligates the US alliance to come to their defense. This predicament led to war in Ukraine and the odds of an eventual war in Taiwan will go up for the same reason. In the past, China could not prevent the US from arming Taiwan. But it is increasingly gaining the ability to take Taiwan by force and deter the US from military intervention. The US is slated to deliver at least $8.6 billion worth of arms by 2026, a substantial increase in arms sales reminiscent of the 1990s, when the Third Taiwan Strait Crisis occurred (Chart 13). The US will learn from Russian aggression that it needs to improve its vigilance and deterrence against China over Taiwan. China will view this American response as disproportionate and unfair given that China did nothing to Ukraine. Chart 14Taiwanese Opinion Hard To Reconcile With Mainland Rule China is probably just capable of defeating Taiwan in a war but Beijing has powerful economic and political incentives not to take such an enormous risk today, on Russia’s time frame. However, if the 2022-24 election cycle in Taiwan returns the nominally pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party to power, then China may begin to conclude that peaceful reunification will be politically unachievable. Already it is clear from the steady course of Taiwanese opinion since the Great Recession that China is failing to absorb Taiwan through economic attraction (Chart 14). As China’s trend economic growth falters, it will face greater sociopolitical instability at home and an even less compelling case for Taiwan to accept absorption. This will be a very dangerous strategic environment. Taiwan is the epicenter of the US-China strategic competition, which is the primary geopolitical competition of the century because China has stronger economic foundations than Russia. China will become even more of a threat to the US if fortified by Russian alliance – and China’s fears over US support for Taiwan necessitate that alliance. Why The US Will Avoid Civil War None of the headline geopolitical risks outlined above – NATO-Russia war, Israeli-Iranian war, or Sino-Taiwanese war – would be as great of risks if the United States could be relied on to play a stable and predictable role as the world’s leading power. The problem is that the US is divided internally, which has led to erratic and at times belligerent foreign policy, thus feeding the paranoia of US rivals and encouraging self-interested and hawkish foreign policies, and hence global instability. Chart 15True, A Second US Civil War Is Conceivable It seems likely that US political polarization will remain at historic peaks over the 2022-24 election cycle. The Ukraine war will probably feed polarization by adding to the Democratic Party’s woes. Inflation and energy prices have already generated high odds that Republicans will retake control of Congress. But midterm churn is standard political clockwork in the US. The bigger risk is stagflation or even recession, which could produce another diametric reversal of White House policy over a mere four-year period. Former President Donald Trump is favored to be the Republican presidential nominee in 2024 – he is anathema to the left wing and unorthodox and aggressive in his foreign and trade policies. If he is reelected, it will be destabilizing both at home and abroad. But even if Trump is not the candidate, the US is flirting with disaster due to polarization and uncertainties regarding the constitution and electoral system. Chart 16Yet US Polarization Is Peaking... Aided By Foreign Threats US polarization is rooted in ethnic, ideological, regional, and economic disparities that have congealed into pseudo-tribalism. The potential for domestic terrorism of whatever stripe is high. These divisions cannot said to be incapable of leading to widespread political violence, since Americans possess far more firearms per capita than other nations (Chart 15). In the event of a series of negative economic shocks and/or constitutional breakdown, US political instability could get much worse than what was witnessed in 2020-21, when the country saw large-scale social unrest, a contested election, and a rebellion at the Capitol. Yet we would take the other side of the bet. US polarization will likely peak in the coming decade, if it has not peaked already. The US has been extremely polarized since the election of 1800, but polarization collapsed during World War I, the Great Depression, and World War II. True, it rose during the Cold War, but it only really ignited during the Reagan revolution and economic boom of the 1980s, when wealth inequality soared and the Soviet Union collapsed (Chart 16). The return of proactive fiscal policy and serious national security threats will likely drive polarization down going forward. Investment Takeaways The good news is that the war in Ukraine is unlikely to spread to the rest of Europe and engender World War III. The bad news is that the risk of such a war has not been higher for decades. Investors should hedge against the tail risk by maintaining significant safe-haven assets such as gold, cash, Treasuries, and farmland. Chart 17Investment Takeaways Europe and China will strive to maintain their economic relationship, which will delay a total breakdown in East-West relations. However, Germany and Europe will ultimately cleave to the US, while China will ultimately cleave to Russia, and the pace of transition into a new bifurcated world will accelerate depending on events. If the energy shock escalates to the point of triggering a European or global economic crash, the pace of strategic confrontation will accelerate. The global peace that emerged in 1945 is encountering very significant strains comparable to the most precarious moments of the Cold War. The Cold War period was not peaceful everywhere but the US and USSR avoided World War III. They did so on the basis of the peace settlement of 1945. The reason the 1945 peace regime is decaying is because the US, the preponderant power, is capable of achieving global hegemony, which is threatening to other great powers. The US combines the greatest share of wealth and military power and no single power can resist it. Yet a number of powers are capable of challenging and undermining it, namely China, but also Russia in a military sense, as well as lesser powers. The US is internally divided and struggling to maintain its power and prestige. The result is a return to the normal, anarchic structure of international relations throughout history. Several powerful states are competing for national security in a world that lacks overarching law. Great Power struggle is here to stay. Investors must adjust their portfolios to keep them in tune with foreign policies – in addition to monetary and fiscal policies. Given that US and Indian equities are already richly valued, in great part reflecting this geopolitical dynamic, investors should look for opportunities in international markets that are relatively secure from geopolitical risk, such as in the Americas, Western Europe, and Oceania (Chart 17).   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 Tight Inventories Spike Metals Russia's war against Ukraine is a watershed moment, which will realign production, distribution and consumption of commodities globally. The development of new sources of the critical metals desperately needed to build out renewable energy grids and the drive to secure access to oil, gas and coal will intensify along political lines. China, reinforced by Russia, will lead the East, while the US and its allies will lead the West, in a redux of the Cold War. Local politics will intrude on this process, as left-of-center governments in important commodity-producing states secure their electoral victories and claim greater shares of commodity revenues. The rebuilding of defense systems, particularly in Europe, will compete with the renewable-energy transition. This will stress already-tight metals markets, where low inventories will predispose markets to higher volatility a la this week's oil, natgas and nickel price spikes. This will retard economic growth. In the short term, CO2 emissions will surge. Longer term, the transition to net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 will be pushed back years, as states compete for access to commodities. East-West trade restrictions and hoarding of commodities secured via trade within these respective blocs, as is occurring presently, will increase. Bottom Line: Russia's war against Ukraine is a watershed moment.  The development of new sources of the critical metals desperately needed to build out renewable energy grids, and the drive to secure access to oil, gas and coal will intensify. China, reinforced by Russia, will lead the East, while the US and its allies will lead the West, in a redux of the Cold War. Feature Russia's war with Ukraine provoked a watershed moment for Europe: Leaders suddenly realized they had to reverse decades of energy dependence on Russia, rebuild their militaries, and sustain a massive buildout of the continent's renewable-energy generation and grid. This occurred as inventories of the basic commodities required to achieve all of these objectives were stretched so tight that the mere threat of the cutoff of pipeline natural gas was enough to send benchmark EU natgas prices to a record $113/MMBtu, up nearly 80% from the previous day's close before it settled back to still-elevated levels (Chart 1). Oil inventories also were stretched extremely thin even before Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine 24 February (Chart 2). The situation is not improving, since, in the wake of the Ukraine war, numerous refiners and trading companies now are observing self-imposed sanctions against taking any Russian oil or refined products. It is worthwhile remembering this began before the US and UK announced they would ban all imports of Russian material this week.1 This will stretch supply chains by unknow durations – the movement of crude from Russia to a refiner could take months instead of weeks, until new trade patterns are established. Chart 1Little Flex In EU Gas Inventories Chart 2Little Flex In EU Gas Inventories   Global economic and policy uncertainty is massively elevated, with percent changes in oil and gas prices swinging on a double-digit basis daily. This makes it extremely difficult to bid or offer oil cargoes in the physical market or make markets (i.e., bid or offer) in the futures markets, which has the effect of compounding uncertainty and volatility. Fundamentals – supply, demand and inventories – take a back seat to fear and uncertainty in such markets. This makes it virtually impossible to assign a probability to any price outcomes based on supply and demand – the true definition of uncertainty in the Frank Knight sense – and to make long-term capex decisions over the long term.2 We raised our 2022 and 2023 Brent forecasts on the back of the massive uncertainty in the markets to $90/bbl and $85/bbl, respectively, right after Russia's invasion of Ukraine. We assume 1Q22 Brent will average $100/bbl. We expect core OPEC 2.0 producers – Saudi Arabia, UAE and Kuwait – will increase production beginning in 2Q22; US shale-oil output will rise, and ~ 1.2mm b/d of Iranian production will return to market in 2H22. Among the risks to our forecasts are a failure by core OPEC 2.0 to lift output (we expect an announcement at the end of this month when the producer coalition meets); lower-than-expected US shale output, and a failure to resolve the Iran nuclear deal with the US. Our modeling indicated these outcomes could lift Brent to between $120/bbl and $140/bbl by 2023 (Chart 3). We will be updating our forecasts next week.3 Chart 3Brent Forwards Lift EU's Watershed Metals Moment EU leadership is setting out to reverse decades of energy dependence on Russia, rebuild their militaries, and sustain a massive buildout of the continent's renewable-energy grid, all a result of the Ukraine war. This will require massive investment in metals mining and refining, along with steel-making capacity. Already, Germany is pledging to increase LNG import capacity and measures to reduce its dependence on Russian natural gas by 75% this year.4 The EU is looking to restore its natgas inventories to 90% of capacity before next winter, and has pledged to double down on renewables, in order to remove member-state dependence on Russian energy exports.5 These ambitious goals are up against the hard reality of scarce base metals supply globally. This will be exacerbated going forward by actions taken by and against Russia. The Russia-Ukraine crisis will destabilize metal markets, given supply uncertainty from Russia and its contribution to global supply. The commodities heavyweight constitutes 6%, 5% and 4% of global primary aluminum, refined nickel and copper production. Against the backdrop of very low global inventories in these metals (Chart 4), the prices of all three hit record highs over the last few days due to uncertain supply (Chart 5). LME nickel prices more than quadrupled on Tuesday as traders rushed to cover short positions and margin calls. Chart 4Low Inventories... Chart 5...Lead To Price Volatility Uncertainty has engulfed metal markets, with a Western ban on Russian metal imports still a possibility. Putin’s announcement regarding raw material export restrictions will further fuel supply uncertainty.6 As in the case of oil, private entities’ self-sanctioning, sanctions on the Russian financial system, and war-related supply chain disruptions are causing current Russian metal export disruptions.7 So far, Western sanctions on commodities have not directly interfered with metal flows from Russia. But markets are taking it day to day. Supply disruptions and sanctions force the formation of new trade patterns, as private entities aim to maximize arbitrage opportunities. For example, high European aluminum price spreads incentivized shipments from China, the world’s largest producer and consumer of refined aluminum. Normally, Europe relies on Russia for aluminum supplies. Rising European physical premiums for delivered metal, caused by Russian export disruptions, will see trading companies take advantage of arbitrage opportunities in other commodities as well. Europe's Risk Profile Rising Since the Ukraine war began, rising European physical premiums in commodities ranging from metals to natgas indicate the continent – more so than others – is particularly vulnerable to Russian export disruptions. Europe’s reliance on Russian energy and its supply disruptions will raise operating costs for smelters and refiners on the continent, threatening smelter shutdowns similar to those we saw this past winter. Markets were expecting power price relief over the warmer months and higher smelting activity. Elevated fuel and power prices, however, will constrain metals refining in Europe, and could shut or close even more smelters, keeping refined metals supply scarce and prices high. Rebuilding Europe's Defenses EU leaders are scheduled to take up a new energy and defense funding proposal today, which media reports are describing as "massive" (no detail provided ahead of the meeting, of course). This program reportedly will be akin to the EU's $2 trillion COVID-relief fund.8 The EU's fast response to defense shortfalls comes against the backdrop discussed above regarding super-tight metals markets, which now face a further complication of unpredictable local politics in metals-producing states. Some of these states have voted left-of-center governments into office, which now appear to be intent on nationalizing mining operations.9 Chile, e.g., accounts for ~ 30% of global copper ore output, and is in the process of re-writing its constitution, which will change tax and royalty law, and could pave the way for nationalization of copper and lithium mines. This political risk compounds any long-term planning operations by consumers like the EU and producers. Investment Implications Energy markets – broadly defined to include oil, gas and coal along with the base metals required for renewables and their supporting grids and electric vehicles – are being rocked by Russia's war with Ukraine. Base metals, in particular, will have to find price levels that destroy demand among competing uses, if the EU's dual-track plan to build out its renewables generation and restore a military capability is approved. A "massive" funding effort in Europe, coupled with equally massive efforts in the US and China – both intent on building out their renewable generation and grids, as well as expanding their defensive capabilities – will be extremely difficult to pull off. Critical base metals inventories remain low, and prices are high because demand exceeds supply for the foreseeable future (Chart 6). Chart 6Tight Inventories Spike Metals The EU will join a world in which the other two great economic centers – the US and China – will engage in a geopolitical competition over access to and control of scarce base metals, oil, gas and coal resources. Russia will remain aggressive toward the West, at least until the Putin regime falls, and will play an ancillary role to China. Fossil fuels and base metals have been starved for capex for more than a decade. Governmental pronouncements will not reverse this. These markets will remain tight, and will get tighter in order to allocate increasingly scarce supply with rapidly growing demand. As such, we remain long commodity-index exposure (S&P GSCI and the COMT ETF), along with equity exposure to oil and gas producers via the XOP ETF, and the XME and PICK ETFs to retain exposure to base metals and bulks producers and traders.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1     Please see Russian tankers at sea despite ‘big unknown’ over who will buy oil, published by ft.com on March 7, 2022. 2     Please see Explained: Knightian uncertainty, published by mit.edu for discussion. 3    Please see Oil Risk Premium Abates, But Still Remains, which we published on February 25, 2022. 4    Please see Germany Revives LNG Import Plans to Cut Reliance on Russian Natural Gas in Marked Policy Shift, published by naturalgasintel.com on March 1, 2022. 5    Please see Climate change: EU unveils plan to end reliance on Russian gas, published by bbc.co.uk on March 8, 2022, and The EU plan to drastically ramp renewables to replace Russian gas, published by pv-magazine.com on March 9, 2022. 6    Please see Russia to Omit Raw Material Exports but Omits Details, published by Bloomberg on March 9, 2022. 7     Please see here for Which companies have stopped doing business with Russia? 8    Please see Ukraine: ECB governing council to meet as crisis intensifies, published on March 8, 2022 by greencentralbanking.com. 9    Please see Chile a step closer to nationalizing copper and lithium, published by mining.com on March 7, 2022, and Add Local Politics To Copper Supply Risks, which we published on November 25, 2021.   Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations

Executive Summary Euro Natgas Soars; LME Nickel Squeezed Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak's threat to halt shipmentsof natgas on Nord Stream 1 to Europe lifted European gas prices 25% overnight, and will reverberate for years. We make the odds of a cut-off of Russian natgas exports to the EU low but not extremely low. Russia’s war is about the status of Ukraine. Russia needs the EU markets, and the EU needs Russia's gas. However, if Russia follows through on Novak's threat, it would be a major disruption for gas markets in the short term. Over the medium to long term, US shale gas producers, LNG terminal operators and exporters will benefit from new demand. On the import side, China likely benefits most from Russia's need to re-route gas. But this will require substantial infrastructure investment to monetize Russia's gas supplies and as such will take years to realize. Separately, the LME has shut down its nickel markets following an explosive 250% rally over two days that took prices above $100,000/MT. Nickel settled at ~ $80,000/MT before the LME closed the market today for margin calls on shorts squeezed by the surge in prices to make margin calls. Bottom Line: We remain long commodity-index exposure (S&P GSCI and the COMT ETF), along with equity exposure to oil and gas producers via the XOP ETF. We also remain long the XME and PICK ETFs to retain exposure to base metals and bulks.

Executive Summary Nuclear Worries Take Center Stage Vladimir Putin has now committed himself to orchestrating a regime change in Kyiv. Anything less would be seen as a defeat for him. Assuming he succeeds, and it is far from obvious that he will, the resulting insurgency will drain Russian resources. Along with continued sanctions, this will lead to a further deterioration in Russian living standards and growing domestic discontent. If Putin concludes that he has no future, the risk is that he will decide that no one else should have a future either. Although there is a huge margin of error around any estimate, subjectively, we would assign an uncomfortably high 10% chance of a civilization-ending global nuclear war over the next 12 months. These odds place some credence on Brandon Carter’s highly controversial Doomsday Argument. Even if World War III is ultimately averted, markets could experience a freak-out moment over the next few weeks, similar to what happened at the outset of the pandemic. Google searches for nuclear war are already spiking. Despite the risk of nuclear war, it makes sense to stay constructive on stocks over the next 12 months. If an ICBM is heading your way, the size and composition of your portfolio becomes irrelevant. Thus, from a purely financial perspective, you should largely ignore existential risk, even if you do care about it greatly from a personal perspective. Bottom Line: The risk of Armageddon has risen dramatically. Stay bullish on stocks over a 12-month horizon. All In on Sanctions In the criminal justice system, there is a reason why the punishment for armed robbery is lower than for murder. If the punishment were the same, an armed robber would have a perverse incentive to kill his victim in order to better conceal his crime. The same logic applies, or at least used to apply, to geopolitics: You do not impose maximum sanctions from the get-go because that removes your ability to influence your enemy with the threat of further sanctions. Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the West chose to go all in on sanctions, levying every type imaginable with the exception of those entailing a big cost to the West (such as cutting off Russian energy exports). Most notably, many Russian banks have been blocked from the SWIFT messaging system while the Russian central bank’s foreign exchange reserves have been frozen. Even FIFA has barred Russia from international competition, just weeks before it was set to participate in the qualifying rounds of the 2022 World Cup. At this point, there is not much more that can be done on the sanctions front. This leaves military intervention as the only avenue available to further pressure Russia. A growing chorus of Western pundits, some of whom could not have picked out Ukraine on a map two weeks ago, have begun clamoring for regime change… this time, in Moscow. As one might imagine, this is not something that sits well with Putin. Last week, he declared that “No matter who tries to stand in our way or … create threats for our country and our people, they must know that Russia will respond immediately, and the consequences will be such as you have never seen in your entire history.” To ensure there was no uncertainty about what he was talking about, he proceeded to place Russia’s nuclear forces on “special regime of combat duty.” Yes, It’s Possible The Putin regime has used nuclear weapons of a sort in the past. The FSB likely orchestrated the poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko with polonium-210 in 2006, leaving traces of the radioactive substance scattered in dozens of places across London. As former US presidential advisor and Putin biographer Fiona Hill said in a recent interview with Politico, “Every time you think, “No, he wouldn’t, would he?” Well, yes, he would.” Admittedly, there is a big difference between dropping polonium into a cup of tea at the Millennium hotel in Mayfair and dropping a 10-megaton nuclear bomb on London or any other major Western city. Still, if Putin feels that he has no future, he may try to take everyone down with him. The collapse in the ruble, and what is sure to be a major plunge of living standards across Russia, could foment internal opposition to Putin. A quiet retirement is not an option for him. Based on the latest exchange rates, Russia’s GDP is smaller than Mexico’s and barely higher than that of Illinois (Chart 1). While denying gas to Europe is a very real threat, it has a limited shelf life. Europe will aggressively build out infrastructure to process LNG imports. Chart 1Russia's Economic Power Has Faded In a few years, the one viable weapon that Russia will have at its disposal is its nuclear arsenal. As Dutch historian Jolle Demmers has said, “It is precisely the decline and contraction of Russian power, coupled with the possession of nuclear weapons and a tormented repressive president, that poses great risks.” Some of the world’s most prominent strategic thinkers flagged these risks before the invasion, but with little effect. The Mother of All Risks In simulated war games, it is generally difficult to get participants to cross the nuclear threshold, but once they do, a full-blown nuclear exchange usually ensues.1 The idea of “limited” nuclear war is a mirage.  How high are the odds of such a full-blown war? I must confess that my own feelings on the matter are heavily colored by my writings on existential risk. As I argued in Section XII of my special report, “Life, Death, and Finance in the Cosmic Multiverse,” we are probably greatly understating existential risk, especially when we look prospectively into the future. Although there is a huge margin of error around any estimate, subjectively, we would assign an uncomfortably high 10% chance of a civilization-ending global nuclear war over the next 12 months. These odds place some credence on Brandon Carter’s highly controversial Doomsday argument (See Box 1). A Paradox for Investors For investors, existential risk represents a paradoxical concept. If an ICBM is heading your way, the question of whether you are overweight or underweight stocks would be pretty far down on your list of priorities. And even if you were inclined to think about your portfolio, how would you alter it? In a full-blown global nuclear war, most stocks would go to zero while governments would probably be forced to default or inflate away their debt. Gold might retain some value – provided that you kept it in your physical possession – but even then, you would still have trouble exchanging it for anything of value if nothing of value were available to purchase. This means that from a purely financial perspective, you should largely ignore existential risk, even if you do care greatly about it from a personal perspective. What, then, can we say about the current market environment? I touched on many of the key issues in Monday’s Special Alert, in which we tactically downgraded global equities from overweight to neutral. I encourage readers to consult that report for our latest market views. In the remainder of today’s report, allow me to elaborate on a couple of key themes. A Freak-Out Moment Is Coming Chart 2Nuclear Worries Take Center Stage The market today reminds me of early 2020. We wrote a report on February 21 of that year entitled “Markets Too Complacent About The Coronavirus,” in which we noted that a full-blown pandemic “could lead to 20 million deaths worldwide,” and that “This would likely trigger a global downturn as deep as the Great Recession of 2008/09, with the only consolation being that the recovery would be much more rapid than the one following the financial crisis.” Many saw that report as alarmist, just as they saw our subsequent decision to upgrade stocks in March as cavalier.  Even if you knew in February 2020 that the S&P 500 would reach an all-time high later that year, you should have still shorted equities aggressively on a tactical basis. I feel the same way about the present. Google searches for nuclear war are spiking (Chart 2). A freak-out moment is coming, which will present a good buying opportunity for investors. Just to be on the safe side, I picked up a couple of bottles of Potassium Iodide earlier this week. When I checked the pharmacy again yesterday, all the bottles were sold out. They are now being hawked on Amazon for ten times the regular price. From Cold War to Hot Economy? The spike in commodity prices – especially energy prices – will have a negative near-term impact on global growth, while also limiting the ability of central banks to slow the pace of planned rate hikes (Chart 3). In general, inflation expectations and oil prices move together (Chart 4).   Chart 3Central Banks: Caught Between A Rock And A Hard Place   Chart 4Inflation Expectations And Oil Prices Go Hand-In-Hand Assuming the geopolitical situation stabilizes in a few months, oil prices should come down. The forward curve for oil is heavily backwardated now: The spot price for Brent is $111/bbl while the December 2022 price is $93/bbl (Chart 5). BCA’s commodity strategists expect the price of Brent oil to fall to $88/bbl by year-end. The decline in energy prices should provide some relief to global growth and risk assets in the back half of the year, which is one reason we are more constructive on equities over a 12-month horizon than a 3-month horizon. Looking out beyond the next year or two, the new cold war will lead to higher, not lower, interest rates. Increased spending on defense and alternative energy sources will prop up aggregate demand, especially in Europe where the need to diversify away from Russian gas is greatest. As Chart 6 shows, capex in the euro area cratered following the euro debt crisis. Capital spending via the Recovery Fund and other sources will rise significantly over the next few years. Chart 5The Brent Curve Is Heavily Backwardated Chart 6European Capex Is Poised To Increase In addition, the shift to a multipolar world will expedite the retreat from globalization. Rising globalization was an important force restraining inflation – and interest rates – over the past few decades. Lastly, the ever-present danger of war could prompt households to reduce savings. It does not make sense to save for a rainy day if that day never arrives. Lower savings implies a higher equilibrium rate of interest. As we discussed in our recent report entitled “A Two-Stage Fed Tightening Cycle,” after raising rates modesty this year, the Fed will resume hiking rates towards the end of 2023 or in 2024, as it becomes clear that the neutral rate in nominal terms is closer to 3%-to-4% rather than the 2% that the market assumes. The secular bull market in equities will likely end at that point. In summary, equity investors should be somewhat cautious over the next three months, more optimistic over a 12-month horizon, but more cautious again over a longer-term horizon of 2-to-5 years. Box 1The Doomsday Argument In A Nutshell Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1     For example, an article from the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation discusses a Reagan administration war game called “Proud Prophet,” an exercise the Americans hatched to test the theory of limited nuclear strikes. The result of this exercise was that the “Soviet Union perceived even a low-yield nuclear strike as an attack, and responded with a massive missile salvo.” Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores

Executive Summary Hopes of an imminent peace deal between Russia and Ukraine will be dashed. The conflict will worsen over the coming days. As was the case during the original Cold War, both sides will eventually forge an understanding that allows the pursuit of mutually beneficial arrangements. A stabilization in geopolitical relations, coupled with fading pandemic headwinds, should keep global growth above trend this year, helping to support corporate earnings. The era of hyperglobalization is over. While central banks will temper their plans to raise rates in the near term, increased spending on defense and energy independence will lead to higher interest rates down the road. How Stocks Fared During The Cuban Missile Crisis Bottom Line: The near-term outlook for risk assets has deteriorated. We are downgrading global equities from overweight to neutral on a tactical 3-month horizon. We continue to expect stocks to outperform bonds on a 12-month horizon as the global economic recovery gains momentum. On an even longer 2-to-5-year horizon, equities are likely to struggle as interest rates rise more than expected.   Dear Client, Given the rapidly evolving situation in Ukraine, we are sending you our thoughts earlier than normal this week. We will continue to update you as events warrant it. Best regards, Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist   False Dawn In the lead-up to the invasion, Vladimir Putin assumed that Ukrainian forces would fold just as quickly as US-backed Afghan forces did last summer. He also presumed that the rest of the world would reluctantly accept Russia’s takeover of Ukraine. Both assumptions appear to have been proven wrong. Even if Putin succeeds in installing a puppet government in Kyiv, a protracted insurgency is sure to follow. In the initial days of the invasion, Russian troops generally tried to avoid harming civilians, partly in the hope that Ukrainians would see the Russian military as liberators. Now that this hope has been dashed, a more brutal offensive could unfold. This would trigger even more sanctions, leading to a wider gulf between Russia and the West. It is highly doubtful that sanctions will dissuade Putin from trying to subdue Ukraine. Putin made a name for himself by staging a successful invasion of Chechnya in 1999, just three years after the Yeltsin government had suffered a major defeat there. To withdraw from Ukraine now, without having fomented a regime change in Kyiv, would be a humiliating outcome for him. In this light, BCA’s geopolitical team, led by Matt Gertken, has argued that ongoing peace talks taking place on the border of Ukraine and Belarus are unlikely to amount to much. The situation will get worse before it gets better. Market Implications It always feels a bit crass writing about finance during times like this, but as investment strategists, it is our job to do so. With that in mind, we would make the following observations: Global equities are likely to suffer another leg down in the near term as hopes of an imminent peace deal fizzle. Consequently, we are downgrading our view on global stocks from overweight to neutral on a 3-month horizon. Nimble investors with a low risk tolerance should consider going underweight equities. We are shifting our stance on US stocks from underweight to neutral on a 3-month horizon. Europe could face significant pressures from near-term disruptions to Russian gas supplies. It does not make much sense for Russia to export gas if it is effectively barred from accessing the proceeds of its sales. Central and Eastern Europe will be particularly hard hit (Chart 1). Chart 1Central and Eastern Europe Would Suffer The Most From A Russian Energy Blockade For now, we are maintaining an overweight to stocks on a 12-month horizon. While it will take a month or two, both sides will ultimately forge an understanding whereby Russia and the West continue to publicly bad-mouth each other while still pursuing mutually beneficial arrangements. Remember that during the Cold War, the Soviet Union continued to sell oil to the West. Even the Cuban Missile Crisis had only a fleeting impact on equities (Chart 2). Chart 2How Stocks Fared During The Cuban Missile Crisis Chart 3European Fiscal Policy Will Remain Structurally Looser Over The Coming Years Assuming that any reduction in Russian energy exports is temporary, oil prices will eventually recede. BCA’s commodities team, led by Bob Ryan, expects Brent to settle to $88/bbl by the end of 2022 (down from the current spot price of $101/bbl and close to the forward price of $87/bbl). Like oil, gold prices have upside in the near term but should edge lower once the dust settles.    Global growth should remain solidly above trend in 2022 as pandemic-related headwinds fade and fiscal policy turns more expansionary. Even before the Ukraine invasion, the structural primary budget deficit in Europe was set to swing from a small surplus to a deficit (Chart 3). The emerging new world order will lead to sizable additional military spending, as well as increased outlays towards achieving energy independence (new LNG terminals, more investment in renewables, and perhaps even some steps towards restarting nuclear power programs). China will also step up credit easing and fiscal stimulus. This will not only benefit the Chinese economy, but it will also provide some much-needed support to European exporters (Chart 4). While credit spreads are apt to widen further in the near term, corporate bonds should benefit from stronger growth later this year. US high-yield bonds are pricing in a jump in the default rate from 1.3% over the past 12 months to 4.2% over the coming year, which seems somewhat excessive (Chart 5).  Chart 4Chinese Policy Will Be A Tailwind For Growth Chart 5Credit Markets Are Pricing In An Excessive Default Rate Central banks will temper their plans to raise rates in the near term. Investors and speculators are net short duration at the moment, which could amplify any downward move in bond yields (Chart 6). However, over a multi-year horizon, recent events will lead to both higher inflation and interest rates. Larger budget deficits will sap global savings. The retreat from globalization will also put upward pressure on wages and prices. As defensive currencies, the US dollar and the Japanese yen will strengthen in the near term as the conflict in Ukraine escalates. Looking beyond the next few months, the dollar will weaken. On a purchasing power parity basis, the dollar is amongst the most expensive currencies (Chart 7). For example, relative to the euro, the dollar is 22% overvalued (Chart 8). The US trade deficit has doubled since the start of the pandemic, even as equity inflows have dipped (Chart 9). Speculators are long the greenback, which raises the risk of an eventual reversal in dollar sentiment. Chart 6Short Duration Is A Crowded Trade Chart 7The US Dollar Is Overvalued…   Chart 8...Especially Against The Euro The freezing of Russia’s foreign exchange reserves will encourage China to diversify away from US dollars towards hard assets such as land and infrastructure in economies where they are less likely to be seized. It will also encourage the Chinese authorities to bolster domestic demand and permit a further modest appreciation of the RMB since these two steps will reduce the current account surpluses that make foreign exchange accumulation necessary. EM currencies will benefit from this trend. Chart 9The Trade Deficit Is A Headwind For The Dollar In summary, the near-term outlook for risk assets has deteriorated. We are downgrading global equities from overweight to neutral on a tactical 3-month horizon. We continue to expect stocks to outperform bonds on a 12-month horizon as the global economic recovery gains momentum. On an even longer 2-to-5-year horizon, equities are likely to struggle as interest rates rise more than expected. Trade Update: We closed our long Brent oil trade for a gain of 24% last week. Earlier today, we were stopped out of the trade we initiated on September 16, 2021 going long the Russian ruble and the Brazilian real. The BRL leg was up 6.2% at the time of termination while the RUB leg was down 23.1% (based on the Bloomberg RUB/USD Carry Return Index as of 4pm EST today). Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores

Executive Summary Risk Premium Abates, But Does Not Disappear The risk premium in crude oil and natural gas prices is abating, and we expect that to continue. In the immediate aftermath of Russia's invasion, Brent crude oil traded close to $105/bbl on Thursday. At the urging of China's Xi Jinping, Russian President Vladimir Putin suggested he is prepared to enter negotiations with Ukraine in Minsk to discuss the latter's neutrality. Whether Ukraine is amenable to negotiations framed in this manner remains to be seen. Nothing has changed in supply-demand balances for oil or natgas. Markets are tight, and more supply is needed. In this highly fluid situation, we project Brent crude oil will average $100.00/bbl in 1Q22; $90.30/bbl in 2Q22; $85.00/bbl in 3Q22; and $85.00/bbl in 4Q22 (see Chart). Our estimate for 2023 Brent averages $85.00/bbl. Upside risk dominates in the near term. We expect the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Kuwait, the only members of OPEC 2.0 with the capacity to increase and sustain higher production, to lift output by 1.75mm b/d. The Iran nuclear deal likely gets a boost from the Russian invasion, which will hasten the return of ~ 1.0mm b/d of production in 2H22, perhaps sooner. We also expect the US, and possibly the OECD, to release strategic petroleum reserves, but, as typically is the case, this will have a fleeting impact on markets and pricing. These supply increases will return prices closer to our base case forecast, which we raise slightly to $85/bbl from 2H22 to end-2023. If we fail to see an increase in core-OPEC production, or the US shales, or if Iranian barrels are not returned to export markets, oil prices have a good chance of moving to $140/bbl, as can be seen in the accompanying Chart. Bottom Line: We remain long commodity-index exposure (S&P GSCI and the COMT ETF), along with equity exposure to oil and gas producers via the XOP ETF.  

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)