Developed Countries

Executive Summary Winners And Losers Combining Russia and Ukraine: Taken together, Russia and Ukraine account for a small fraction of global trade. However, Russia is a key player in the global energy and metals markets, providing rare materials like palladium. Ukraine is a sizable agricultural producer, as well as an exporter of specialized products such as neon. Effects on global trade: Shortages of metals and agricultural goods will reverberate across the global economy, exacerbating shortages and supply disruptions. Manufacturer anxiety about the availability of raw input materials catalyzed an explosive rally in the commodity universe.  Effect on the US companies: Most US equity sectors have limited direct sales exposure to Russia. However, self-sanctioning will have an adverse immediate effect on many multinationals, while indirect effects of the war will be even more impactful. Winners and losers: At the margin, the escalation in Ukraine is a net positive for Energy, Big Tech, and Metals & Mining, while Travel, Consumer Staples, Semiconductors Manufacturers, and Automakers will be hit by shortages and surging input costs. Bottom Line:The war in Ukraine has wreaked havoc in the US equity market, even though US trade with Russia and Ukraine is insignificant and is mostly limited to energy, palladium, and other rare metals. However, US companies are affected by the scarcity of selected metals and materials, soaring prices, and supply chain disruptions. Feature Introduction The war in Ukraine has become the proverbial black swan that has blindsided even the most cautious investors. The world simply did not expect Russia to wage such a bloody, and all-out war. As such, tragically, small Ukraine has come out of obscurity, and became a focal point of the world’s attention, mostly for humanitarian reasons. While our heart goes out to the people living under fire, it is our job as investment strategists to conduct a detailed economic analysis of the effect of the war in Ukraine and sanctions on Russia’s goods and services on US equities. To do so, we will first investigate trade links between Ukraine, Russia, and the US. And then look at the indirect effects of the war on US equity sectors. Russia And Ukraine Effect On Global Trade Taken together, Russia and Ukraine account for about 3.5% of global GDP in PPP terms and only 1.9% in dollar terms. Even a deep recession in each of these economies is unlikely to cause a dent in global growth, at least not directly. Unfortunately, the indirect effects of this war are substantial. What Is Russia Producing? In 2019, Russia exported $407B in goods, which made it the 13th largest exporter in the world. It is the second-largest commodities exporter (after the US) and the second-largest oil producer, accounting for 12% of annual global output. Energy: Russia’s crude oil exports account for 8.4% of global crude consumption, while natural gas exports account for 5.9% of global consumption, and 3.4% for coal (Table 1). These energy products constitute roughly 60% of Russia’s exports. Its exports of natural gas represent close to half of all European gas imports. Table 1Russia’s Global Share In Various Commodities Nickel: Russia is also one of the top metal producers. It is the third largest producer of nickel, accounting for 4.4.% of global output. The recent surge in nickel prices reflects manufacturers’ anxiety about the potential shortages of this metal.1 Elon Musk has said that a shortage of nickel is the “biggest challenge” in “producing high-volume, long-range batteries”. Palladium: In addition, to nickel, Russia accounts for 35.6% of global palladium output. Palladium is widely used in catalytic converters, electrodes, and other types of electronics.2 Palladium prices are up 46% since the start of the year. Chart 1War Wreaked Havoc In Commodities Market Fertilizers: Together, Russia and Belarus account for about 40% of global potash production, a key ingredient in potassium-based fertilizers. Russia also produces two-thirds of all ammonium nitrate, the main source of nitrogen-rich fertilizers. Wheat and lumber: Russia produces 10% of the global supply of wheat and lumber. While Russia’s trading network is wide, the most common destinations for its exports are China (14%), Netherlands (10%), Belarus (5%), and Germany (4.6%), making its direct effect on global trade limited. What Is Ukraine Producing? Ukraine’s effect on global trade is less significant: In 2019 it exported only $49.5B, with exports dominated by agricultural products and metals (Chart 2). Food: Ukraine’s production is dominated by foodstuffs such as corn, wheat, and seed oils. Russia and Ukraine together account for 25% of global wheat exports, much of which is going to the developing nations of Africa and Asia (Chart 3). Russia and Ukraine are also significant producers of potatoes, sunflowers, and sugar beets. Chart 2Ukraine Exports Metals And Food Chart 3Wheat Is Exported To North Africa And Asia With war and sanctions, most of this output will be lost or kept for domestic consumption, accelerating food inflation, which is already rampant. Of course, the rest of the world could try to compensate for lost agricultural output, but there is a major snag: Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus are significant producers of fertilizer. Metals: Ukraine produces significant amounts of steel. ArcelorMittal and Metinvest suspended production at their Ukrainian plants last week. Auto Components: In addition, Ukraine is a major producer of automotive wire harnesses. Volkswagen, BMW, and Porsche have all had to curtail auto production due to war-related shortages. Neon: Then there are the more esoteric commodities. The bulk of semiconductor-grade neon, used in high-precision lasers, comes from Ukraine. A dearth of this critical gas could exacerbate the semiconductor shortage. While Ukraine trades predominately with its European neighbors, such as Russia, Germany, Poland, and Italy, shortages of agricultural products, semiconductors, and automotive components are likely to reverberate across the globe. The US Is An Island… Almost According to the OEC,3 in 2019 the US was the number two economy in terms of total exports ($1.51T), and the number one economy in total imports ($2.38T). Russia barely registers as the US trading partner, with only $14.B or 0.61% of total imports coming from Russia. Ukraine is even less significant for the US: Its exports constitute only $1.23B. US exports to Ukraine and Russia constitute less than 1% of its total exports. However, to uncover the potential effects of the possible halting of Russian trade on the US economy, let’s look at what goods the US is buying. The reality on the ground may be complex. Petrochemicals Refined and crude petroleum constitute about half of all Russian imports to the US and account for roughly $7 billion (Chart 4). The US sanctioning of Russian oil is unlikely to have a significant effect on the US economy: It constitutes only about 5.7% of all the US oil imports, both crude and refined, which in 2019 were about $123B. As a result, the recent US embargo of Russian oil is unlikely to have much impact. Platinum, Titanium, And Other Rare and Precious Metals US imports roughly $7B worth of platinum, over one-fifth of which is sourced from Russia. Russia also provides about 21.5% of all titanium and 23% of radioactive chemicals that the US imports. Chart 4US Imports Fuels And Rare Metals From Russia Palladium The situation with palladium is even more strained: Russia produces 42% of the palladium imported by the US while South Africa supplies another 30%. All other exports of palladium are fragmented, and producers are unlikely to be able to ramp up production fast enough. Nickel US imports only $1.4B worth of nickel per year, 11% of which is coming from Russia. Australia and Canada are the only other large producers of this metal, and it is not clear if they will be able to step in and fill in the void left by Russia. How Much Production From Russia Will Be Curtailed? The West’s official sanctions affect Russian exports of certain commodities but there is also a reluctance on the part of private companies to buy or ship Russian exports. This latter factor makes it nearly impossible to gauge just how much supply of each individual commodity will be curtailed. In addition, Putin has announced his decision to suspend some commodity exports at least until 2023. Assuming in the near term that a considerable share of Russia’s commodity exports will be blocked from global markets, the largest impact will be on oil, palladium, copper, nickel, fertilizer, and grains. The Stock Market Is Not The Economy US Companies Most Exposed To Russian Trade Most US multinational companies have limited direct sales exposure to Russia. Among those that do have some exposure (Table 2), Philip Morris comes on top of the list at 8% of sales, PepsiCo 4.3%, Mondelez 3.1%, and McDonald’s 4.5%. Apple has generated only 1.3% of its sales in Russia. Overall, the Consumer Staples sector has the highest exposure to Russia. Exodus The majority of US multinationals have announced their exit from the Russian market in protest at the war. The exodus affects wide swaths of the Russian economy, including joint ventures in energy, auto manufacturing, finance, retail, entertainment, and fast food (See Appendix for the list). The war affects US sectors in many different way, and there are winners and losers (Chart 5). Table 2US Multinationals With The Highest Exposure To Russia Chart 5Winners And Losers Investment Implications Energy Sector – Positive The US embargo of Russian oil does not have a pronounced immediate and direct effect on the US energy sector as US imports from Russia are minor. Exxon’s exit from Russia is not going to have any noticeable short-term effect on the US energy sector. On the contrary, elevated oil and gas prices create an impetus for the US shale producers to ramp up output. Oil Equipment and Services companies will be the key beneficiaries of the new energy Capex cycle. While we closed our overweight in E&P companies with a view that OPEC will open oil spigots and cure high prices, locking in a gain of 60%, we remain overweight E&S Energy industry. Consumer Staples – Negative Companies such as Mondelez, Philip Morris, and PepsiCo are most exposed to the Russian market. All three have announced that they are discontinuing or curtailing Russian operations, taking a direct hit on earnings. However, disruptions in agricultural exports from Russia and Ukraine, and accompanying soaring food prices (Chart 6), are likely to have a broad negative effect on the sector, increasing input prices while sector margins are already razor-thin. So far, the sector had been able to pass on costs to customers, but its pricing power may be limited going forward (Chart 7). Chart 6Food Price Surge Is Parabolic Chart 7Consumer Staples Have Been Able To Pass Costs On To Customers We are overweight Consumer Staples thanks to its defensive attributes in the face of overall market volatility. However, we will be monitoring this position closely. Semiconductors - Neutral Disruptions in supplies of neon, palladium, and nickel, which are essential components of the manufacturing of semiconductors, will exacerbate global chip shortages, and hit profits of semiconductor manufacturers, mostly in Asia. However, the majority of the large US semiconductor companies are chip designers and are unlikely to be affected. The only exception is Intel, which is an integrated semiconductor company. Intel has also announced that it is exiting Russia, which may have an adverse effect on its profitability. Auto Manufacturers - Negative Overall, US car manufacturers have limited direct exposure to Russia. Ford has recently closed its joint venture with a Russian car manufacturer. GM does not have a significant presence in Russia, selling only 3,000 cars a year there, of the six million it sells worldwide. Tesla’s presence in Russia is also insignificant – there are only 700 Teslas registered there. However, there are supply problems. Shortages of metals, such as palladium and nickel, widely used in catalytic converters and electrodes, will compound shortages in tight auto component markets. Travel Complex: Hotels, Restaurants, and Airlines Hilton, Marriott, and Hyatt have announced that they are halting development and new investments in Russia. While these actions on the margin will have a long-lasting negative effect on their business, a more immediate concern is that a war in Europe will suppress travel, which only recently started rebounding after COVID-19 country closures. US airlines will suffer from a double whammy of rising fuel costs, and consumer reluctance for international travel in the light of hostilities in the heart of Europe. International and business travel are the most lucrative segments of their business, the rebound of which is needed for these companies to restore profitability. We were positive on airlines in light of the reopening of international travel as the Omicron wave was receding, but now have to reconsider our optimistic stance if oil prices don’t normalize soon. Fast-food restaurant closures in Russia (Burger King, McDonald’s, Starbucks, etc.) will result in a significant hit to their bottom line. To put these actions in perspective, McDonald’s announced that temporary closures of its 750 restaurants in Russia and 180 in Ukraine will make it lose $50 million a month, resulting in a 9% hit to its revenue. In addition, these businesses are already reeling from rising food prices and consumers shifting their goods and services away from discretionary spending to necessities because of negative wage growth. We are overweight the Travel complex but are likely to downgrade it in the coming days. Big Tech – Positive According to a recent report by the IDC, the global impact of a steep decline in Information and Communications Technology (ICT) spending in Russia and Ukraine will be somewhat limited. Combined, the two countries only account for 5.5% of all ICT spending in Europe and 1% worldwide.4 Meanwhile, tech spending among Western European countries may increase in part due to expanded defense and security allocations. We believe that dislocation also creates an opportunity for US technology companies, especially in the software and cybersecurity space. Exiting the Russian market is likely to have a limited negative effect on US technology companies’ revenue, as most of them derive only a very small proportion of it from Russia. We are overweight the Software and Cybersecurity industries. Metals and Mining - Positive Disruption of the supply of metals from Russia and Ukraine creates an opportunity for US metals and mining companies, with soaring pricing promising a profits windfall. Unlike with oil and gas, an increase of supply in metals not only takes substantial investment but also takes years to bring to production. As a result, there is no respite in sight. As such, we will consider adding to our existing position, bringing allocation to an overweight. Stay tuned. Bottom Line The war in Ukraine has wreaked havoc in the US equity market, even though US trade with Russia and Ukraine is insignificant and is mostly limited to energy, palladium, and other rare metals. However, the US economy is affected by the scarcity of selected metals and materials, soaring prices, and supply chain disruptions. As is often the case, there are winners and losers: Energy, and Metals & Mining are mostly immune to the crisis and are likely to benefit by picking up slack in supply. The Technology sector, especially Software and Cybersecurity, will benefit from the disruption of the war. Consumer Staples, Travel, Auto Manufacturers, and Semiconductor Manufacturers are likely to take a hit because of shortages and soaring input prices.   Irene Tunkel Chief Strategist, US Equity Strategy irene.tunkel@bcaresearch.com     Appendix: Companies’ Self-Sanctions In Russia5 Airlines American Airlines, Delta, and United cut ticket sales partnerships with Russian airlines. All three have stopped flying over Russia. Banks Goldman Sachs became the first American bank to announce that it is exiting Russia. Citigroup also indicated that it is curtailing operations in Russia. Technology Accenture is discontinuing its operations in Russia. Airbnb (ABNB) announced that the company is suspending all operations in Russia and Belarus. Amazon (AMZN)’s cloud division, Amazon Web Services (AWS), said it would halt new sign-ups for the service in Russia and Belarus. AWS indicated that it has no data centers in Russia and, as a matter of policy, it does not do business with the Russian government. It stated that while it had Russian customers, they are all headquartered outside of Russia. Apple (AAPL) has stopped selling its products in Russia, and limited access to digital services, such as Apple Pay, inside Russia. Google confirmed that it is no longer accepting new Google Cloud customers in Russia. It has also halted its advertisement operations in the country. IBM (IBM) has suspended all business in Russia. Intel (INTC) has stopped all shipments to Russia and Belarus, the company announced. Microsoft (MSFT) is suspending all new sales of its products and services in Russia. Microsoft (MSFT) also said it will continue aiding in Ukrainian cybersecurity. Netflix (NFLX) said it will be suspending its streaming service in Russia. Spotify (SPOT) said it has closed its office in Russia “indefinitely” and restricted shows “owned and operated by Russian state-affiliated media.” Adobe stopped all new sales in Russia Uber is divesting from internet company Yandex Paypal suspended all services in Russia Big Four Accounting Firms Ernst & Young, Deloitte, KPMG, and PwC are pulling out of the country. Energy Exxon pledged to leave its last remaining oil and gas project in Russia and not to invest in new developments in the country. Credit Card Providers All three American credit card giants, Mastercard (MA), Visa (V), and American Express (Amex), have suspended all their network operations in Russia. Credit cards issued by Russian banks will not work in other countries, and cards issued elsewhere will not work for purchases in Russia. Hotels Hyatt (H), Hilton (HLT), and Marriott (MAR) are halting development and new investments in Russia. Hilton and Marriott are closing their corporate offices. Hilton is keeping its existing 26 hotels open (a fraction of the company’s 6,800 properties worldwide). Marriott hotels are franchised and the company is evaluating the ability to keep these hotels open. Industrials 3 has halted operations in Russia. Dow (DOW) has suspended all purchases of feedstocks and energy from Russia. It has also stopped all investments in the region and is supplying only limited essential goods in Russia. General Electric (GE) suspended most of its operations in Russia, with the exception of “providing essential medical equipment and supporting existing power services.” John Deere (DE) has halted shipments of its products to Russia. Caterpillar (CAT) is suspending operations at its Russian manufacturing facilities. Boeing (BA) said it would suspend support for Russian airlines. Automakers Ford (F) announced it was suspending its operations in Russia. The American automaker has a 50% stake in Ford (F) Sollers, a joint venture that employs at least 4,000 workers. GM does not have much of a presence in Russia. Entertainment Disney (DIS) is also suspending the release of its theatrical films in Russia, citing “the unprovoked invasion of Ukraine.” WarnerMedia said on February 28 that it would pause the release of “The Batman” in Russia. The company is also pausing all new business in Russia, ceasing broadcast of its channels, halting all new content licensing with Russian entities, and pausing planned theatrical and games releases. Retail Estée Lauder Companies will suspend all commercial activity in Russia, including closing every store and brand site and halting shipments to any of our retailers in Russia. The company had also already suspended business investments and initiatives in Russia. TJX has promised to divest its equity ownership in Familia, an off-price retailer with more than 400 stores in Russia. Consumer Staples Mondelez (MDLZ) said it would scale back all non-essential activities in Russia “while helping maintain continuity of the food supply.” The company said it would focus on “basic offerings,” and discontinue all new capital investments and suspend advertising spending in the country. Procter & Gamble (PG) has discontinued all new capital investments in Russia and is suspending all media, advertising, and promotional activity. The company will continue to provide basic health, hygiene, and personal care items. Philip Morris suspended planned investments and will reduce manufacturing in Russia. PepsiCo will stop selling soda in Russia but will continue to produce dairy and baby food. Restaurants Yum Brands (YUM) is closing 70 company-owned KFC restaurants and 50 Pizza Hut franchises in Russia. It will also suspend all investment and restaurant development in the country. McDonald’s (MCD) is closing some 750 restaurants in Russia. Russia’s restaurants along with another 108 in Ukraine, accounted for 9% of the company’s revenue in 2021. The company said that halting Russian operations will cost it $50 million a month. Restaurant Brands International (owner of Burger King) will end corporate support for 800 locations in Russia and will not approve any additional investment or expansion. Starbucks is closing all of its locations in Russia. Transportation UPS, DHL, and FedEx have suspended operations in Russia and Belarus.       Footnotes 1     The nickel price increase was compounded by a margin call on a major Chinese nickel producer that had accumulated a large short position through forward contracts in order to lock in a price for future delivery. 2     Palladium - Wikipedia 3    United States (USA) Exports, Imports, and Trade Partners | OEC - The Observatory of Economic Complexity 4    A New Report from IDC Looks at the Initial Impact of the Russia-Ukraine War on Global ICT Markets. 5    Which Companies Have Pulled Out of Russia? Here’s a List. - The New York Times (nytimes.com) and https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/02/business/companies-pulling-back-russia-ukraine-war-intl-hnk/index.html Recommended Allocation

Executive Summary The conflict in Ukraine will grind on until Kiev and the coastal cities fall and Russia is able to seat a government that will keep the country firmly within its sphere of influence. Rallies on slight hopes for an end to hostilities suggest that equities have more downside as they have yet to face up to the reality that the active military campaign has only begun. Surging energy prices imperil Europe’s expansion, but the net impact on the US economy will likely be modest, as increased employment and investment in the oil patch and better performance from high-yield borrowers offset higher gasoline prices. The US economy has enough momentum that it will be able to grow well above trend despite intensified inflation pressures from the Ukraine conflict. As US growth holds up, so too should S&P 500 earnings. Equities’ downside will be determined by how much P/E multiples contract. Though we expect additional near-term de-rating, we expect the market’s forward multiple will be resilient given the lack of positive-real-return alternatives. War Headwind Trumps Discount Rate Tailwind (For Now) Bottom Line: We do not think equities have bottomed, but we expect that they will generate a positive real return between now and the rest of the year. Feature All Ukraine, all the time has been the story since Russia invaded on February 24th. The headlines on the front page, the gyrations in financial markets and the internet’s perpetual loop of images from embattled cities and villages have kept the conflict front and center. Our daily meeting has revolved around updates from the ground, discussions of diplomatic moves and countermoves and the evolution of market and economic impacts. An investor could be forgiven for feeling nostalgic about the halcyon pre-invasion days when equity markets fixated on the pace of rate hikes and what they might mean for stocks with high P/E multiples. Until those days return, investors will have to figure out how to manage their way through the multiple issues raised by the conflict. We devote this week’s report to the most pressing questions that have emerged in our discussions with colleagues and other investment professionals. We don’t know how the various issues will turn out, but we offer our current thinking on the way events may impact the economy and financial markets. Conditions are evolving rapidly and we’ll change our minds as the flow of events changes but we hold tight to the central idea that markets are hoping in vain that a ceasefire might be reached before Kiev is overrun. The Military Campaign Q: How do you see the military campaign progressing? Ukrainian forces seem to be holding their own; has that changed your view of the end game? Our Geopolitical Strategy team cautions against reading too much into the plodding pace of the Russian advance. The Ukrainian military has acquitted itself well against a better endowed opponent, but the Russians still have an overwhelming advantage and show no sign of abandoning their goal. BCA continues to expect that Russia’s offensive will proceed until Kiev is captured and a pro-Russian government is installed. Russian leadership wants a buffer between NATO and its border, and it will sacrifice its own economy and inflict unlimited devastation on Ukraine to get it. Our base-case scenario is that the full fury of the fighting will continue until Russia controls the eastern half of Ukraine and its southern coast, effectively partitioning the country into a Russian east and south and a Ukrainian west. It is possible that Russia may move to take the entire country, though it seems that would be more trouble than it’s worth. Given the commitment Ukrainians have already shown to their country, stifling the resistance in the territory Russia must have (east of the Dnieper and along the coast) looks like it will be a tall order (Map 1). In our base case, the war will end once redrawn political borders allow for a new Cold War equilibrium, but the road to that new steady state may contain several twists and turns. Map 1Redrawing The Borders Q: How long do you think it will take to get to that steady state? Our Geopolitical Strategy team judges that Russian forces ought to be able to complete their mission of capturing Kiev in a matter of weeks or months and Ukraine’s coastal territory within half a year. While it appears that the victors face a determined ongoing insurgency, the clash between official forces will likely conclude by the end of the summer. We expect that Russia will move for a ceasefire once its objectives are met and a de facto partitioning of Ukraine could be accomplished by this time next year. Global investors will not wait for a full resolution before turning their attention elsewhere, but they will remain highly sensitive to any sign that the war will encompass more than Ukraine. Until Kiev falls, the risk of a broader conflict will remain high as Russia will attempt to cow all interested parties to hasten the inevitable. Conquering all of Ukraine would imply an extension of the war beyond our base-case scenario and our hypothetical timeline assumes that Russia does not attempt it because it doesn’t yet have enough boots on the ground to pull it off. The Russians will have their hands full with policing the rest of the country and the existence of a buffer zone between occupied territory east of Kiev and NATO territory on the Poland-Ukraine border may suit everyone’s interests. It will help reduce the probability of an accident that could turn into a battlefield face-off between Russia and NATO. A wider and potentially open-ended conflict would appear to be especially unwelcome from Russia’s perspective, given the way its economy is already buckling under sanctions. Involvement in a shooting war with the country holding the world’s second-largest nuclear arsenal is not in the West’s interests, either. The US and NATO have scrupulously avoided crossing the red line of direct involvement in Ukraine. Despite Ukrainian pleas, the American-European coalition will not impose a no-fly zone which could lead to head-to-head aerial combat, and no one would touch last week’s hot potato of providing Poland’s fleet of Soviet-era fighter planes to Ukraine. As heart-rending as it may be, the West is clearly willing to allow a partial conquest of Ukraine. We find it telling that Russia hasn’t extended the fight beyond the existing theater – hackers have yet to cut off access to our US-based team member’s checking and brokerage accounts or play havoc with the electric grid – and both sides’ revealed desire to limit the conflict supports our base case that they ultimately will. European anxiety will linger at Cold War-era levels, but the immediate risk of a larger conventional war on the continent should be limited once Russia neutralizes Ukraine. US Economic Impacts Q: How likely is the oil shock to tip the US economy into a recession? Chart 1Previous Shocks Have Heralded Recessions ... It took seven years for prices to grow tenfold in the decade marked by the Arab state oil embargo and the Iranian revolution, but only ten months for prices to surge 500% from the pandemic bottom in the spring of 2020. On an annual-change basis, the current move is twice as large as any past oil shocks. Sudden surges in oil prices have historically been precursors of recessions (Chart 1). The EU, Japan and oil-importing emerging countries may face dire economic consequences, but the US is relatively better positioned. The production of one unit of US GDP today requires a third of the amount of oil it did in the 1970s (Chart 2). All developed economies have benefitted from the technological progress and the shift away from manufacturing to services that has enabled a more efficient use of oil, but its status as the world’s largest oil producer separates the US from its peers in terms of its vulnerability to rising energy prices. For the first time since the EIA started reporting petroleum import and export data, the US became a net exporter of oil in 2020 and 2021 (Chart 3). Increased prices incentivize higher oil production and lift export revenues (curbs on Russian imports have the potential to increase global demand for US oil). These dynamics, in turn, lead to increased CAPEX and higher employment (Chart 4) when oil prices rise, along with marginally better credit performance, given that the energy sector is heavily represented in high-yield bond indices. Chart 2... But Oil Intensity Has Fallen ... Chart 3... Along With Import Dependency   There is a risk, however, that rising energy prices will push long-term inflation expectations higher and force the Fed to become more hawkish. They could also weigh on future consumption, as the dismal University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment Survey suggests. US households are well positioned to navigate higher inflation and higher interest rates nonetheless. A tight labor market is lifting income, particularly at the lower end of the wage distribution, while stimulus checks have allowed households to significantly reduce their level of indebtedness and amass large savings cushions. Rising wealth from financial market and home price advances will further support consumption. Chart 4Capex And Jobs Move With Prices Q: How worried are you about a growth shortfall this year? The Ukrainian conflict will unleash a spate of indirect economic effects by interfering with the supply of commodities in markets that were already quite tight. In additional to persistently high energy prices, we can expect higher prices for base metals, aluminum, steel, wheat, corn and perhaps semiconductors, as Ukraine is an important source for neon that is essential to one aspect of the chip manufacturing process. Widespread increases in input prices could give inflation an additional spur and therefore have the potential to dent consumer confidence while encouraging the Fed to tighten monetary policy more than it otherwise might. Although today’s macro backdrop has more stagflationary elements than it has had in decades, we think the US will escape its grip. Regarding consumers, we reiterate our view that they are unusually well positioned to overcome higher prices at the pump. They have built up an enormous pandemic savings cushion (largely concentrated among the bottom 70% of taxpayers who qualified for the full share of economic impact payments and the lower-income service workers who bore the brunt of job losses), seen the value of their homes rise at a rapid clip (nearly two-thirds of households own their own homes) and benefitted from robust advances in financial markets (largely reserved to households at the top of the wealth scale). Voluntary debt paydowns and rock-bottom interest rates have combined to make their debt servicing burden as light as it’s ever been in the four decades that it’s been tracked (Chart 5). Higher gasoline prices are not going to unleash a paradox-of-thrift vicious circle. Chart 5A Light Yoke The labor market is also poised to support consumption. Nonfarm payrolls are not likely to continue to expand at their 560 thousand a month clip since the start of 2021 (Chart 6), but the NFIB survey (Chart 7, top panel) and the record-high job-openings-to-unemployed ratio (Chart 7, bottom panel) indicate that businesses are still hunting for workers. The good times won’t last forever, but we maintain our view that the US economy will grow well above its 2% (inflation-adjusted) trend level this year. It has a lot of momentum, consumers have a lot of dry powder and COVID infections are dwindling by the day (Chart 8). Chart 6Job Gains Will Slow ... Chart 7... But They Won't Stop Chart 8Omigone Tighter monetary policy could cool things off, but it works with a lag and rate hikes will take a while to take effect. We endorse our US Bond Strategy colleagues’ projection of a 25-basis-point hike in the target fed funds rate at each of this year’s seven remaining FOMC meetings. That would get fed funds up to 1⅞% by year end, but the hikes would not fully filter through the economy until the second half of 2023, after a lag of six to twelve months. BCA estimates that the fed funds rate will have to exceed 3% before monetary policy begins to restrain activity. US Market Impacts Q: How much more can equities decline? Following on from the discussion of the previous growth question, we think the S&P 500 can live up to less-than-demanding consensus 2022 earnings per share (EPS) expectations. 4Q21 index EPS were $54.14 but are projected to be just $51.55 this quarter, a nearly 5% sequential decline. For the full year, 2022 S&P 500 EPS are projected to be $225.68, 4% above 4Q21’s annualized run rate ($54.14 x 4 = $216.56). Sequential declines outside of recessions are extremely unusual and a 4% four-quarter run-rate increase sets the expectations bar quite low (Chart 9). Chart 9A Low Bar Chart 10Multiple Compression Has Squeezed Stocks Most investors focus on year-over-year changes, and full-year 2022 earnings per share are expected to grow 8% versus 2021. That’s hardly a slam dunk in a decelerating economy, but the deceleration is coming from an extremely high level and it’s important to remember that earnings are measured in nominal dollars. With consensus 2022 real GDP growth and PCE price index estimates of 3.6% and 5%, respectively, nominal GDP is expected to grow 8.6%. If S&P 500 revenues grow in line with nominal GDP and buybacks shrink the index’s share count by 2-3%, 8% EPS growth is doable despite downward pressure on profit margins from rising wages and other input costs. The decline in the S&P 500 so far this year (Chart 10, top panel) has entirely been a function of multiple contraction. Forward four-quarter earnings expectations are 1% higher than they were at the start of the year (Chart 10, middle panel) but the multiple investors are willing to pay for them has dropped by 13%, from 21.7 to 18.8 (Chart 10, bottom panel). While we expect continued de-rating in the near term, we don’t foresee a decline of more than another 10% (below 17) unless the Ukraine conflict sparks a broader European war. There simply are no public market alternatives that offer investors a better chance of achieving positive real returns and historically low real interest rates would support a return to the 20s (Chart 11), where the forward multiple has lingered for most of the pandemic. Summing Up Chart 11Divergence The ideas that underpinned our pre-Ukraine view of financial markets and the US economy still apply, even though the distribution of potential outcomes has widened. We still believe that a recession is very unlikely over the next twelve months. We continue to hold that monetary policy will remain stimulative into 2023, as the fed funds rate will end this year well shy of its neutral level. We continue to flag inflation as the greatest risk to our constructive twelve-month views. Against that backdrop, we expect that equities and credit will rally once the outlines of our base-case Ukraine scenario take shape: Russia seeks peace once it topples the elected Ukrainian government, NATO and Russia exchange heated words but do not engage on the battlefield, and a rump state in western Ukraine provides a buffer against potential NATO-Russia accidents. As those events occur, COVID disruptions abate, commodity prices stop exploding higher and base effects rein in CPI prints beginning in April, inflation will start to decelerate. That should help financial markets and consumers breathe a sigh of relief and help earnings multiples to recover enough to allow the S&P 500 to generate positive real returns over the rest of the year. We remain constructive on markets and the US economy over the next twelve months. Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Jennifer Lacombe Associate Editor jenniferl@bcaresearch.com

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

Feature We are closing our overweight of the Energy sector, bringing the allocation back to neutral in the face of a great geopolitical uncertainty. We have outperformed the S&P 500 by 60% since we initiated the trade on the 22 of November 2021. The recent war in Ukraine has upended the energy market, lifting the geopolitical risk premium. With oil surging 45% since the beginning of the year, and 20% since the beginning of the war, the trade has turned into a geopolitical gamble, held hostage by the immediate actions of OPEC.  The BCA Commodity & Energy strategy expects to see an increase in the oil supply by the US shale producers, Saudi Arabia, and Gulf states, which will bring Brent crude back to $85 by the second half of 2022. This is a consensus position in the market, which is reflected in the extremely backwardated energy futures curve.  It is important to note, that while OPEC members can open the oil spigots immediately, it takes the US shale producers roughly six months to ramp up production. To do so, they need to increase their Capex. In our recent Special Report on the Energy sector, we posited that the industry is in the early innings of the new Capex cycle. To reflect this structural theme in our portfolio, we will remain overweight Energy Equipment & Services (E&S) sub-industry.  Chart 1​​​​​ Chart 2​​​​​ Bottom Line: We close overweight in the Energy industry, bringing the weight back to the benchmark. We have locked in a 60% gain since the position’s inception. We remain overweight the Energy Equipment & Services industry, as a leveraged play on the energy Capex revival. We will revisit the sector once the fog of war dissipates. ​​​​​