Russia
Highlights Our top five “black swan” risks for 2022: Social unrest in China; Russian invasion of all of Ukraine; unilateral Israeli strikes on Iran; a cyber attack that goes kinetic; and a failure of OPEC 2.0. Too early to buy the dip on Russian assets: President Biden says Putin will probably “move in” and re-invade Ukraine, Russian embassy staff have been evacuating Ukraine, the US and UK have been providing more arms to Ukraine, and the US is warning of a semiconductor embargo against Russia. Talks resume in Geneva on Friday. Tactically investors should take some risk off the table, especially if linked to Russia and Europe. Stay short the Russian ruble and EM Europe; stay short the Chinese renminbi and Taiwanese dollar; stay long cyber security stocks; and be prepared for oil volatility. Convert tactical long equity trades to relative trades: long large caps versus small caps, long defensives versus cyclicals, and long Japanese industrials versus German industrials. Feature Chart 1Recession Probability And Yield Curve The 2/10-year yield curve is flattening and now stands at 79 bps, while the implied probability of a recession over the next 12 months troughed at 5.9% in April 2021, and as of December 2021 stood at 7.7% (Chart 1). Apparently stagflation and recession are too high of a probability to constitute a “black swan” risk for this year. Black swans are not only high impact but also low probability. In this year’s annual “Five Black Swan” report, the last of our 2022 outlook series, we concentrate on impactful but unlikely events. These black swans emerge directly from the existing themes and trends in our research – they are not plucked at random. The key regions are highlighted in Map 1. Black Swan #1: Major Social Unrest Erupts In China China’s financial problems are front and center risks for investors this year. They qualify as a “Gray Rhino” rather than “Black Swan” risk.1 It is entirely probable that China’s financial and property sector distress will negatively impact Chinese and global financial markets in 2022. What investors are not expecting is an eruption of social unrest in China that fouls up the twentieth national party congress this fall and calls into question the Communist Party’s official narrative that it is handling the pandemic and the underlying economic transition smoothly. Social unrest is a major risk around the world in the face of the new bout of inflation. Most of the democracies have already changed governments since the pandemic began, recapitalizing their political systems, but major emerging markets – Russia, India, Turkey, Brazil – have not done so. They have seen steep losses of popular support for both political leaders and ruling parties. There is little opinion polling from China and people who are surveyed cannot speak openly. It is possible that the government’s support has risen given its minimization of deaths from the pandemic. But it is also possible that it has not. Beijing’s policies over the past few years have had a negative impact on the country’s business elite and foreign relations. There are disgruntled factions within China, though the current administration has a tight grip over the main organs of power. Since President Xi is trying to clinch his personal rule this fall, sending China down a path of autocracy that proved disastrous under Chairman Mao Zedong, it is possible he will face surprise resistance. China’s economic growth is decelerating, clocking in at a 4.0% quarter-on-quarter growth rate at the end of last year. While authorities are easing policy to secure the recovery, there is a danger of insufficient support. Private sentiment will remain gloomy, as reflected by weak money velocity and a low propensity to spend among both businesses and households (Chart 2). The government will continue to be repressive in the lead up to the political reshuffle. At least for the first half of the year the economy will remain troubled. Structurally China is ripe for social unrest. It suffers from high income inequality and low social mobility, comparable to the US and Brazil, which are both struggling with political upheaval (Chart 3). Chart 2China's Private Sector Still Depressed In addition China is keeping a stranglehold over Covid-19. This “Zero Covid” policy minimizes deaths but suppresses economic activity. Strict policy has also left the population with a very low level of natural immunity and the new Omicron variant is even more contagious than other variants. Hence the regime is highly likely to double down to prevent an explosive outbreak. The service side of the economy will continue to suffer if strict lockdowns are maintained, exacerbating household and business financial difficulties (Chart 4). Yet in other countries around the world, government decisions to return to lockdowns have sparked unrest. Chart 4Zero Covid Policy: Not Sustainable Beyond 2022 China’s “Misery Index” (unemployment plus inflation) is rising sharply. While misery is ostensibly lower than that of other emerging markets, China’s unemployment data is widely known to be unreliable. If we take a worst-case scenario, looking at youth unemployment and fuel prices, misery is a lot higher (Chart 5). The youth, who are having the hardest time finding jobs, are also the most likely to protest if conditions become intolerable (Chart 6). Of course, if social unrest is limited to students, it will lack support among the wider populace. But it is inflation, not youth activism, that is the reason for China’s authorities to be concerned, as inflation is a generalized problem that affects workers as well as students. Chart 5China's Misery Index Is Higher Than It Looks Chart 6China's Troubled Youth Why would protesters stick their necks out knowing that the Communist Party will react ferociously to any sign of instability during President Xi Jinping’s political reshuffle? True, mainland Chinese do not have the propensity to political activism that flared up in protests in Hong Kong in recent years. Also the police state will move rapidly to repress any unrest. Yet the entire focus of Xi Jinping’s administration, since 2012, has been the restoration of political legitimacy and prevention of popular discontent. Xi has cracked down on corruption, pollution, housing prices, education prices, and has announced his “Common Prosperity” agenda to placate the low and middle classes.2 The regime has also cracked down on the media, social media, civil society, and ideological dissent to prevent political opposition from taking root. If the government were not concerned about social instability, it would not have been adopting these policies. Disease, often accompanied by famines or riots, has played a role in the downfall of six out of ten dynasties, so Beijing will not be taking risks for granted (Table 1). Table 1Disease And Downfall Of Chinese Dynasties Social instability would have a major impact as it would affect China’s stability and global investor sentiment toward China. Western democracies would penalize China for violations of human rights, leaving China even more isolated. Bottom Line: Investors should stay short the renminbi and neutral Chinese equities. Foreign investors should steer clear of Chinese bonds in the event of US sanctions. After the party congress this fall there will be an opportunity to reassess whether Xi Jinping will “let a hundred flowers bloom,” thus improving the internal and external political and investment environment, but this is not at all clear today. Black Swan #2: Russia Invades All (Not Just Part) Of Ukraine US-Russia relations are on the verge of total collapse and Russian equities have sold off, in line with our bearish recommendations in reports over the past two years. Russia’s threat of re-invading Ukraine is credible. Western nations are still wishy-washy about the counter-threat of economic sanctions, judging by German Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s latest comments, and none are claiming they will go to war to defend Ukraine.3 Russia is looking to remove the threat of Ukraine integrating militarily and economically with the West. The US and UK are providing Ukraine with defense weaponry even as Russia specifically demands that they cease to do so. President Putin may choose short-term economic pain for long-term security gain. The consensus view is that if Russia does invade, it will undertake a limited invasion. But what if Russia invades all of Ukraine? To be clear, a full invasion is unlikely because it would be far more difficult and costly for Russia. It would go against Putin’s strategy of calculated risk and limited conflict. Table 2 compares Russia and Ukraine in size and strength, alongside a comparison of the US and Iraq in 2002. This is not a bad comparison given that Ukraine’s and Iraq’s land area and active military personnel are comparable. Table 2Russia-Ukraine Balance Of Power 2022 Compared To US-Iraq 2002 Russia would be biting off a much bigger challenge than the US did. Ukraine’s prime age population is 2.5 times larger than Iraq’s in 2002, and its military expenditure is three times bigger. The US GDP and military spending were 150 and 250 times bigger than Iraq’s, while Russia’s GDP and military spending are about ten times bigger than Ukraine’s today. Iraq was not vital to American national security, whereas Ukraine is vital to Russia; Russia has more at stake and is willing to take greater risks. But Ukraine is in better shape to resist Russian occupation than Iraq was to resist American. The point is that the US invasion went smoothly at first, then got bogged down in insurgency, and ultimately backfired both in political and geopolitical terms. Russia would be undertaking a massive expense of blood and treasure that seems out of proportion with its goal, which is to neutralize Ukraine’s potential to become a western defense ally and host of “military infrastructure.” However, there are drawbacks to partial invasion. The remainder of the Ukrainian state would be unified and mobilized, capable of integrating with the western world, and willing to support a permanent insurgency against Russian troops in eastern Ukraine. Russia has forces in Belarus, Crimea, and the Black Sea, as well as on Ukraine’s eastern border, giving rise to fears that Russia could attempt a three-pronged invasion of the whole country. In short, it is conceivable that Russian leaders could make the Soviet mistake of overreaching in the military aims, or that a war in eastern Ukraine could inadvertently expand into the west. If Russia tries to conquer all of Ukraine, the global impact will be massive. A war of this size on the European continent for the first time since World War II would shake governments and populations to their bones. The borders with Poland, Romania, the Baltic states, Slovakia, Hungary, Finland and the Black Sea area would become militarized (Map 2). NATO actions to secure its members and fortify their borders would exacerbate tensions with Russia and fan fears of a wider war. Trade flows would become subject to commerce destruction, affecting even neutral nations, including in the Black Sea. Energy supplies would tighten further, sending Russia and probably Europe into recession. The disruption to business and travel across eastern Europe would be deep and lasting, not only due to sanctions but also due to a deep risk-aversion that would affect foreign investors in the former Soviet Union and former Warsaw Pact. Germany would be forced to quit sitting on the fence, as it would be pressured by the US and the rest of Europe to stand shoulder to shoulder in the face of such aggression. Finland and Sweden would be much more likely to join NATO, exacerbating Russia’s security fears. Russia would suffer a drastic loss of trade, resulting in recession, and its currency collapse would feed inflation (Chart 7). Chart 7Inflation Poses Long-Term Threat To Putin Regime Ultimately the consequences would be negative for the Putin regime and Russia as a result of recession and international isolation. But in the short run the Russian people would rally around the flag and support a war designed to prevent NATO from stationing missiles on their doorstep. And their isolation would not be total, as they would strengthen ties with China and conduct trade via proxy states in the former Soviet Union. Bottom Line: A full-scale invasion of all of Ukraine is highly unlikely because it would be so costly for Russia in military, economic, and political terms. But the probability is not zero, especially because a partial re-invasion could lead to a larger war. While global investors would react in a moderate risk-off matter to a limited war in eastern Ukraine, a full-scale war would trigger a massive global flight to safety as it would call into question the entire post-WWII peace regime in Europe. Black Swan #3: Israel Attacks Iran The “bull market in Iran tensions” continues as there is not yet a replacement for the 2015 nuclear deal that the US abrogated. Our 2022 forecast that the UAE would get caught in the crossfire was confirmed on January 17 when Iran-backed Houthi rebels expanded their range of operations and struck Abu Dhabi (Map 3). The secret war is escalating and US-led diplomacy is faltering. Iran is not going to give up its nuclear program. North Korea achieved nuclear arms and greater military security and is now developing first and second strike capabilities. Meanwhile Ukraine, which faces another Russian invasion, exemplifies what happens to regimes that give up nuclear arms (as do Libya and Iraq). Iran appears to be choosing the North Korean route. While we cannot rule out a minor agreement between President Biden and Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi, we can rule out a substantial deal that halts Iran’s nuclear and missile progress. Here’s why: Any day now Iran could reach nuclear “breakout capacity,” with enough highly enriched uranium to construct a nuclear device (Table 3).4 Table 3Iran’s Violations Of 2015 Nuclear Deal Since US Exit Within Iran’s government, the foreign policy doves have been humiliated and kicked out of office while the hawks are fully in control. No meaningful agreement can be reached before 2024 because of the risk that the US will change ruling parties again and renege on any promises. Iran is highly incentivized to make rapid progress on its nuclear program now. The US will not be able to lead the P5+1 coalition to force Iran to halt its program because of its ongoing struggles with Russia and China. China is striking long-term cooperation deals with Iran. Israel has a well-established record of taking unilateral action, specifically against regional nuclear programs, known as the “Begin Doctrine.”5 Israel’s threats are credible on this front, although Iran is a much greater operational challenge than Iraq or Syria. Iran’s timeline from nuclear breakout to deliverable nuclear weapon is 12-24 months.6 Iran’s missile program is advanced. Missile programs cannot be monitored as easily as nuclear activity, so foreign powers base the threshold on nuclear capability rather than missile capability. Iran had a strong incentive to move slowly on its nuclear and missile programs in earlier years, to prevent US and Israeli military interference. But as it approaches breakout capacity it has an incentive to accelerate its tempo to a mad dash to achieve nuclear weaponization before the US or Israel can stop it. Now that time may have come. The Biden administration is afraid of higher oil prices and Israeli domestic politics are more divided and risk-averse than before. And yet Iran’s window might close in 2025, as the US could turn aggressive again depending on the outcome of the 2024 election. Hence Iran has an incentive to make its dash now. The US and Israel will restate their red lines against Iranian nuclear weaponization and brandish their military options this year. But the Biden administration will be risk-averse since it does not want to instigate an oil shock in an election year. Israel is more likely than the US to react quickly and forcefully since it is in greatest danger if Iran surprises the world with rapid weaponization. Here are the known constraints on unilateral Israeli military action: Limited Israeli military capability: Israel would have to commit a large number of aircraft, leaving its home front exposed, and even with US “bunker buster” bombs it may not penetrate the underground Fordow nuclear facility.7 Limited Israeli domestic support: The Israeli public is divided on whether to attack Iran. The post-Netanyahu government recently came around to endorsing the US’s attempt to renegotiate the nuclear deal. Limited US support: Washington opposes Israeli unilateralism that could entangle the US into a war. Israel cannot afford to alienate the US, which is its primary security guarantor. Iranian instability: The Iranian regime is under economic distress due to “maximum pressure” sanctions. It is vulnerable to social unrest, not least because of its large youth population. These constraints have been vitiated in various ways, which is why we raise this Israeli unilateralism as a black swan risk: Where there’s a will, there’s a way: If Israel believes its existence will be threatened, it will be willing to take much greater operational risks. It has already shown some ability to set back Iran's centrifuge program beyond the expected.8 Israeli opinion will harden if Iran breaks out: If Iran reaches nuclear breakout or tests a nuclear device, Israeli opinion will harden in favor of military strikes. Prime Minister Naftali Bennett has an incentive to take hawkish actions before he hands the reins of government over to a partner in his ruling coalition as part of a power-sharing agreement. The ruling coalition is so weak that a collapse cannot be ruled out. US opposition could weaken: Biden will have to explore military options if talks fail and Iran reaches nuclear breakout capacity. Once the midterms are over, Israel may have even more freedom to act, while a gridlocked Biden may be looking to shift his focus to foreign policy. Iranian stability: Iran’s social instability has not resulted in massive unrest or regime fracture despite years of western sanctions and a global recession/pandemic. Yet now energy prices are rising and Iran has less reason to believe sanction regimes will be watertight. From Israeli’s point of view, even regime change in Iran would not remove the nuclear threat once nuclear weapons are obtained. Finally, while Israel cannot guarantee that military strikes would successfully cripple Iran’s nuclear program and prevent weaponization, Israel cannot afford not to try. It would be a worse outcome to stand idly by while Iran gets a nuclear weapon than to attack and fail to set that program back. Hence the likeliest outcome over the long run is that Iran pursues a nuclear weapon and Israel attacks to try to stop it, even if that attack is likely to fail (Diagram 1). Diagram 1Game Theory: Will Israel Attack Iran? Bottom Line: A unilateral Israeli strike is unlikely but would have a massive impact, as 21% of global oil and 26% of natural gas flows through the Strait of Hormuz, and conflict could disrupt regional energy production and/or block passage through the strait itself. Black Swan #4: Cyber Attacks Spill Into Real World Investors are very aware of cyber security risks – it holds a respectable though not commanding position in the ranks of likely crisis events (Table 4). Our concern is that a cyber attack could spill over into the real world, impairing critical infrastructure, supply chains, and/or prompting military retaliation. Table 4Cyber Events Underrated In Consensus View Of Global Risks Russian attacks on US critical infrastructure by means of ransomware gangs disrupted a US fuel pipeline, meat-packing plant, and other critical infrastructure in 2021. Since then the two countries have engaged in negotiations over cyber security. The Russian Federal Security Bureau has cracked down on one of the most prominent gangs, REvil, in a sign that the US and Russia are still negotiating despite the showdown over Ukraine.9 Yet a re-invasion of Ukraine would shatter any hope of cooperation in the cyber realm or elsewhere. Russia is already using cyberattacks against Ukraine and these activities could expand to Ukraine’s partners if the military conflict expands. Should the US and EU impose sweeping sanctions that damage Russia’s economy, Russia could retaliate, not only by tightening energy supply but also by cyber attacks. Any NATO partners or allies would be vulnerable, though some states will be more reactive than others. Interference in the French election, for example, would be incendiary. The key question is: if Russia strikes NATO states with damaging cyber attacks, at what point would it trigger Article V, the mutual defense clause? There are no established codes of conduct or red lines in cyber space, so the world will have to learn each nation’s limits via confrontation and retaliation. Similar cyber risks could emerge from other conflicts. China is probably not ready to invade Taiwan but it has an interest in imposing economic costs on the island ahead of this fall’s midterm elections. Taiwan’s critical role in the semiconductor supply chain means that disruptions to production would have a global impact. Israel and the US have already used cyber capabilities to attack Iran and set back its nuclear program. These capabilities will be necessary as Iran approaches breakout capacity. Yet Iran could retaliate in a way that disrupts oil supplies. North Korea began a new cycle of provocations last September, accelerated missile tests over the past four months, and is dissatisfied with the unfinished diplomatic business of the Trump administration. In the wake of the last global crisis, 2010, it staged multiple military attacks against South Korea. South Korea may be vulnerable due to its presidential elections in May. The semiconductor or electronics supply chain could be interrupted here as well as in Taiwan. Bottom Line: There is no code of conduct in cyber space. As geopolitical tensions rise, and nations test the limits of their cyber capabilities, there is potential for critical infrastructure to be impaired. This could exacerbate supply chain kinks or provoke kinetic responses from victim nations. Black Swan #5: OPEC 2.0 Falls Apart The basis of the OPEC 2.0 cartel is Russian cooperation with Saudi Arabia to control oil supply and manage the forward price curve. Backwardation, when short-term prices are higher than long-term, is ideal for these countries since they fear that long-term prices will fall. In a world where Moscow and Riyadh both face competition from US shale producers as well as the green energy revolution, cooperation makes sense. Yet the two sides do not trust each other. Cooperation broke down both in 2014 and 2020, sending oil prices plunging. Falling global demand ignited a scramble for market share. Interestingly, Russian military invasions have signaled peak oil price in 1979, 2008, and 2014. Russia, like other petro-states, has greater room for maneuver when oil revenues are pouring in. But high prices also incentivize production, disincentivize cartel discipline, and trigger reductions in global demand (Chart 8). Chart 8Russian Invasions And Oil Price Crashes Broadly speaking, Saudi oil production rose modestly during times of Russian military adventures, while overall OPEC production was flat or down, and Russian/Soviet production went up (Chart 9). Chart 9Saudi And OPEC Oil Production During Russian Military Adventures Since 2020, we have held that OPEC 2.0 would continue operating but that the biggest risk would come in the form of a renewed US-Iran nuclear deal that freed up Iranian oil exports. In 2014, the Saudis increased production in the face of the US shale threat as well as the Iranian threat. This scenario is still possible in 2022 but it has become a low-probability outcome. Even aside from the Iran dynamic, there is some probability that Russo-Saudi cooperation breaks down as global growth decelerates and new oil supply comes online. Bottom Line: The world’s inflation expectations are elevated and closely linked to oil prices. Yet oil prices hinge on an uneasy political agreement between Russia and Saudi Arabia that has fallen apart twice before. If Russia invades Ukraine, or if US withdraws sanctions on Iran, for example, then Saudi Arabia could make a bid to expand its market share and trigger price declines in the process. Two Bonus Black Swans: Turkey And Venezuela Turkey lashes out: Our Turkish Political Capital Index shows deterioration for President Recep Erdogan’s political capital across a range of variables (Table 5). With geopolitical pressures increasing, and domestic politics heating up ahead of the 2023 elections, Erdogan’s behavior will become even more erratic. His foreign policy could become aggressive, keeping the lira under pressure and/or weighing on European assets. Table 5Turkey: Erdogan’s Political Capital Wearing Thin Venezuela’s Maduro falls from power: Venezuelan regime changes often follow from military coups. These coups do not only happen when oil prices collapse – sometimes the army officers wait to be sure prices have recovered. Coup-throwers want strong oil revenues to support their new rule. An unexpected change of regimes would affect the oil market due to this country’s giant reserves. Bottom Line: Turkey’s political instability could result in foreign aggression, while Venezuela’s regime could collapse despite the oil price recovery. Investment Takeaways We are booking profits on our tactical long trades on large caps and defensive sectors. We will convert these to relative trades: long large caps over small caps, and long defensives over cyclicals. We also recommend converting our tactical long Japan trade into long Japanese industrials / short German industrials equities. If US-Russia diplomacy averts a war we will reconsider. Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 “Gray Rhino” is a term coined by author Michele Wucker to describe large and probable risks that people neglect or avoid. For more, see thegrayrhino.com. 2 Xi Jinping recently characterized the “common prosperity” agenda as follows: “China has made it clear that we strive for more visible and substantive progress in the well-rounded development of individuals and the common prosperity of the entire population. We are working hard on all fronts to deliver this goal. The common prosperity we desire is not egalitarianism. To use an analogy, we will first make the pie bigger, and then divide it properly through reasonable institutional arrangements. As a rising tide lifts all boats, everyone will get a fair share from development, and development gains will benefit all our people in a more substantial and equitable way.” See World Economic Forum, “President Xi Jinping’s message to The Davos Agenda in full,” January 17, 2022, weforum.org. 3 Chancellor Scholz, when asked whether Germany would avoid using the Nord Stream II pipeline if Russia re-invaded Ukraine, said, "it is clear that there will be a high cost and that all this will have to be discussed if there is a military intervention against Ukraine.” He was speaking with NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg. See Hans Von Der Burchard, “Scholz: Germany will discuss Nord Stream 2 penalties if Russia attacks Ukraine,” Politico, January 18, 2022, politico.eu. 4 For the Begin Doctrine, see Meir Y. Soloveichik, “The Miracle of Osirak,” Commentary, April 2021, commentary.org. 5 The estimate of 12-24 months to mount a nuclear warhead on a missile has been cited by various credible sources, including David Albright and Sarah Burkhard, “Highlights of Iran’s Perilous Pursuit of Nuclear Weapons,” Institute for Science and International Security, August 24, 2021, isis-online.org, and Eric Brewer and Nicholas L. Miller, “A Redline for Iran?” Foreign Affairs, December 23, 2021, foreignaffairs.com. 6 See Edieal J. Pinker, Joseph Szmerekovsky, and Vera Tilson, “Technical Note – Managing a Secret Project,” Operations Research, February 5, 2013, pubsonline.informs.org, as well as “What Can Game Theory Tell Us About Iran’s Nuclear Intentions?” Yale Insights, March 17, 2015, insights.som.yale.edu. 7 See Josef Joffe, “Increasingly Isolated, Israel Must Rely On Nuclear Deterrence,” Strategika 35 (September 2016), Hoover Institution, hoover.org. 8 The sabotage of the Iran Centrifuge Assembly Center at the Natanz nuclear facility in July 2020 “set back Iran’s centrifuge program significantly and continues to do so,” according to David Albright, Sarah Burkhard, and John Hannah, “Iran’s Natanz Tunnel Complex: Deeper, Larger Than Expected,” Institute for Science and International Security, January 13, 2022, isis-online.org. For a recent positive case regarding Israel’s capabilities, see Mitchell Bard, “Military Options Against Iran,” Jewish Virtual Library, American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise, January 2022, jewishvirtuallibrary.org. 9 For the FSB and REvil, see Chris Galford, “Russian FSB arrests members of REvil ransomware gang following attacks on U.S. infrastructure,” Homeland Preparedness News, January 18, 2022, homelandprepnews.com. For the Colonial Pipeline and JBS attacks, and other ransomware attacks, see Jonathan W. Welburn and Quentin E. Hodgson, “How the United States Can Deter Ransomware Attacks,” RAND Blog, August 9, 2021, rand.org. Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months)
Highlights The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), Iraq, the UAE and Kuwait – the OPEC 2.0 states capable of increasing production this year – will have to step up for coalition members unable to lift output, including Russia. US shale-oil output also will have to increase to cover demand. The COVID-19 omicron variant has proven to be less severe than anticipated, which likely will translate into a faster recovery in oil demand than was expected in December. One risk looms large: China's zero-COVID policy greatly reduced virus transmission in the country; however, this also reduced natural antibody protection in its population. This is exacerbated by a lack of mRNA vaccine availability. Faltering supply and strong demand will keep inventories tight, reducing buffers to supply shocks – e.g., the Kirkuk–Ceyhan Oil Pipeline explosion this week. We are returning our Brent forecast for 2022 to $80/bbl; for 2023, we continue to expect $81/bbl (Chart of the week). Our forecast assumes OPEC 2.0 will increase supply so as to keep Brent prices below $90/bbl. US shale-oil output also is expected to rise. We continue to see oil-price risk skewed to the upside. Still, demand-destruction from high prices or widespread omicron-induced lockdowns remain clear risks to our outlook. Feature Given the relatively mild symptoms associated with the COVID-19 omicron variant, global oil demand likely will continue to recover lost ground and return to trend sooner than expected. Faltering supply from OPEC 2.0 member states means prices will remain elevated, and perhaps push higher. On the back of these fundamentals, we are restoring our Brent price forecast to $80/bbl for this year, and $81/bbl for 2023. This is the consensus view, and we find ourselves in the uncomfortable position of sharing it. Presently, the oil market is bulled up, expecting high prices this year and next, with Brent forecasts clustering in the $80-$85/bbl range out to 2025.1 Some headline-grabbing forecasts call for $100-plus prices, as top OPEC 2.0 producers – e.g. Russia, Angola and Nigeria– continue to strain in their efforts to restore production, and demand remains buoyant (Chart 2). A consensus usually emerges after most market participants have adjusted their positioning to reflect a commonly held view. This usually is a temporary equilibrium. The market typically finds the highest-pain price trajectory required to shatter the consensus view – e.g., selling off because widely held demand expectations are too high or supply expectations are too low, and vice versa. Ultimately, a fundamental shock destabilizes the consensus, and prices move higher or lower to reflect the new reality. The biggest risks to our price forecast are demand destruction from high prices or widespread omicron-induced lockdowns.2 To keep prices from finding a new equilibrium above $90/bbl, a policy response from OPEC 2.0 to increase production will be required. In addition, US shale-oil output will have to increase. This is not to say we are dismissing above-consensus price realizations: Inventories will continue to draw hard as long as the level of supply remains below demand. This will leave little in the way of buffer stocks to even out price spikes, as the Ceyhan pipeline explosion demonstrated earlier this week.3 Geopolitical tensions are high in eastern Europe as Russia and the West square off, and in the Persian Gulf as Iran squares off against GCC states and the US.4 These structural and geopolitical risks leave markets exposed to volatile price spikes. OPEC 2.0 Falters Our forecast is contingent on the core OPEC 2.0 member states ex-Russia – KSA, Iraq, the UAE and Kuwait – increasing production by an average of ~ 3.34mmb/d in 2022 and 2.76 mmb/d in 2023 relative to 2021. Most of the increases comes from KSA, Iraq and UAE (Chart 3). In addition, we expect US shale-oil producers to increase their average output by 0.6mm b/d this year, and 1.07mm b/d in 2023 relative to 2021 (Chart 4). In 2022, US crude oil supply reaches 11.7mm b/d, and in 2023 it goes to 12.13mm b/d in our estimates. The slower increase in US output this year largely is a function of the delay we expect in assembling rigs and crews to significantly lift production from current levels. These production increases are needed to make up for ongoing downgrades of OPEC 2.0 member states' ability to increase output, including Russia, where we expect crude oil production to remain flat at a little over 10mm b/d this year on average (Table 1). Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) To Dec23 Back in July 2021, the coalition agreed to restore 400k b/d of production taken off the market in the wake of COVID-19 demand destruction. Thus far, the coalition has only managed to restore ~ 1.86mm b/d of the 2mm b/d pledged for August to December 2021, according to the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies (OIES). For this year, the OIES notes OPEC 2.0 "will struggle to return more than 2 mb/d of withheld supplies in 2022, compared to the headline target of 3.76 mb/d."5 Our view rests on a policy call at the end of the day: We believe OPEC 2.0 – KSA in particular – is well aware of the demand-destruction potential high nominal prices and a strong USD pose, particularly as the US Fed is embarking on a rate-hike program to accompany the quantitative-tightening measures recently adopted. Absent a concerted effort to raise production by the core OPEC 2.0 states ex-Russia and the US shale producers, prices could move above $86/bbl as supply tightens and demand continues to rise. This can be seen in The Chart of the Week (the dashed brown curve depicting our estimate for prices without higher production). Importantly, even if such a concerted effort emerges, a failure to resolve the Iran nuclear talks with the US and its allies this year would keep more than 1mm b/d of production from returning to the market. This would push average Brent prices this year and next to or above $90/bbl. Oil Demand Recovery To Continue Provided we do not see widespread lockdowns resulting from the rapid transmission of the omicron variant, we expect global demand to grow close to 4.8mm b/d this year and 1.6mm b/d in 2023 (Chart 5). This reflects our view that – baring too-high prices or another full-scale COVID-induced lockdown in a key market like China – demand resumes its return to trend. It is important to point out that the increase in oil demand we expect is being driven by economic growth, which means consumers likely can withstand high prices, just as long as they do not become excessive – i.e., entrenched above $90/bbl in our view. Chart 5Global Oil Demand Forecast Remains Steady Chart 6OPEC 2.0 Production Policy Kept Supply Below Demand In our base case model, we continue to see markets remaining balanced (Chart 6) – assuming we get the policy calls right – and OECD oil inventories falling (Chart 7). Even with an uptick in inventories, which presently are 31.5mm barrels above the 2010-14 average, days-forward-cover for the OECD will remain low (Chart 8). Chart 7Crude Inventories Continue To Draw Investment Implications The consensus view calls for oil prices to remain at current elevated levels, and to perhaps push higher. We share that view – and have maintained it for some time – which gives us pause. A consensus not only reflects a shared view. It likely reflects broad similarities in the way market participants are positioned in their capex, investment and trading outlooks. This is inherently unstable. We expect oil prices to remain elevated, and have returned our 2022 Brent forecast to $80/bbl on average. Our 2023 forecast for Brent remains $81/bbl. We continue to recommend positions that benefit from tightening markets in which forward curves are backwardated and likely to remain so. Even if we see production increasing – from the OPEC 2.0 core producers ex-Russia and the US shales – we still expect forward Brent and WTI curves to remain backwardated (prompt-delivery prices exceed deferred-delivery prices). We remain long the S&P GSCI and the COMT ETF to express this view. If we fail to see production increase to keep prices from breaching and sustaining levels above $90/bbl, long index exposure will post higher gains. The risk to our view is two-fold: 1) High prices leading to demand-destruction, which is made more acute when the USD is strong; and 2) widespread omicron-induced lockdowns, which could once again reduce consumption and lead to global supply-chain gridlock. High prices leading to demand destruction, or another round of lockdowns would force us to reconsider our positioning. Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com Paula Struk Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy paula.struk@bcaresearch.com Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish It's very early days, but EU experts are reviewing a draft plan leaked to the media earlier this month, which could result in gas- and nuclear-powered generation being included among sustainable energy sources, and suitable to bridge the global energy transition to renewable power. The draft of the common classification system for EU funding of sustainable economic activities, or taxonomy, apparently states gas plants can earn a “transitional” label if they meet several criteria, including an emissions limit of 270g of CO2e/kWh, or if their annual emissions average 550kg CO2e/kW or less over 20 years. This criterion would be applied to judging environmental performance of a gas plant over 20 years, but offers no guarantee that its emissions would drop over time. The chair of the expert panel said draft rules for nukes raised questions over "whether a plant can guarantee its green credentials today, if its obligation to manage nuclear waste – one of the main environmental concerns about the fuel – does not kick in until as late as 2050," according to euractiv.com, which broke the story earlier this month. Base Metals: Bullish Indonesia has become more restrictive with exports of raw commodities in order to attract more downstream investments and to play a bigger role in producing finished goods. Of these commodities, Indonesia’s supply of nickel, relative to the world is the highest, constituting ~ 38% of total global nickel supply. In 2020, the nation banned nickel ore exports, and is now considering a progressive export tax on low nickel content products such as ferronickel and nickel pig iron. This tax could reduce foreign investment in Indonesia’s nickel mines and global supply, which would, all else equal, support prices. These developments arrive on the back of low nickel inventories, which helped prices of the key battery metal reach a 10-year high last week (Chart 9). Precious Metals: Bullish In 2021, gold ETFs were hit by outflows of ~ $9 billion, the main reason the yellow metal was unable to reach its 2020 high above the $2,000/oz mark (Chart 10). For this year, we expect a supportive gold market, as real interest rates will remain weak despite the Fed’s hawkish tilt to lift nominal interest rates higher. In line with BCA’s Foreign Exchange Strategy service, we expect the USD to fall over the 12-18 month horizon, which will also bolster gold. Chart 9 Footnotes 1 Please see Column: Oil prices expected to rise with big variation in projections: Kemp, published by reuters.com on January 19, 2022. 2 High nominal oil prices and a strong USD compound the former demand-destruction risk. The latter risk of wide-spread omicron-induced lockdowns is elevated in China at present. Its success in shutting down the transmission of earlier COVID-19 mutations has reduced the amount of antibodies to the virus in the population. This is compounded by a lack of mRNA vaccine production and distribution, which leaves the country at risk to wide-spread omicron transmission. In states with large shares of the population carrying COVID-19 antibodies – e.g., the UK – omicron is less of a risk and is on course to becoming endemic. Please see 2022 Key Views: Past As Prelude For Commodities and Endemic COVID-19 Will Spur Commodities' Next Leg Higher which we published on December 16, 2021 and January 13, 2022 for discussions. 3 Oil flows are expected to return to normal in short order. Please see Halted Iraq-Turkey flows to resume within hour: Botas, published by argusmedia.com on January 19, 2022. 4 Please see Russia/Ukraine: Implications From Kazakhstan and Geopolitical Charts For The New Year published by BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy service on January 7 and 14, 2022, respectively, for discussions. 5 Please see Key Themes for the Global Energy Economy in 2022 published by the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies on January 18, 2022. Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Trades Closed in 2021
Highlights Unless the US and NATO abandon Ukraine, the odds of Russia capturing parts of Ukraine are non-trivial over the next three years. Escalating geopolitical tensions will compel Russian policymakers to continue with tight monetary and fiscal policies. This bodes ill for domestic growth. A strong US dollar and volatility in oil prices further warrants investor caution on Russian financial markets. Feature Chart 1The Ruble And Local Government Bonds Appear Toppy! The news developments surrounding Ukraine will ebb and flow, but Ukraine will remain a source of volatility for Russian financial markets. In turn, investors should be cautious on the ruble and other financial assets going forward (Chart 1). Unless the US and Europe abandon their political and military support to Ukraine and preclude the latter’s possibility to join NATO, Russia will escalate pressure and a partial invasion of Ukraine cannot be ruled out. Although US President Joe Biden has recently agreed to some compromises regarding the Russia-Ukraine conflict, odds are presently low that the US and Europe completely withdraw their political, financial and military support to Ukraine. Hence, Russia will further escalate pressures on Ukraine. The US-Russia confrontation originates primarily from each side’s national strategic interest relating to the post-Soviet space. On the one hand, Russia’s strategy is to control the ex-USSR area and not allow NATO’s expansion near its borders. On the other hand, America’s grand strategy is to prevent the rise and strengthening of regional powers. It sees opportunities to develop economic, political, and military ties with the ex-USSR countries to counter any resurgence of Russian expansionism. In this context, Ukraine’s aspiration to join NATO and the European Union in the future remains the major point of contention between the US and Russia. Russia will do whatever it takes to prevent Ukraine’s accession into NATO. In short, Ukraine accession into NATO is the Kremlin’s true red line. President Putin’s article “The Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians” published last summer underlined the importance of Ukraine to Russia’s national strategic interests. Our Geopolitical Strategy service has recently published a report titled Russia/Ukraine: Don’t Be Complacent.1 In this report, BCA’s Chief Geopolitical Strategist Matt Gertken has argued the following: Ukraine has unique strategic value to Russia. Ukraine serves as critical buffer territory protecting Moscow and the Russian core from any would-be invaders. Due to Russia’s lack of geological borders, Ukraine offers Russia a land and sea/water buffer. It is Ukraine’s physical existence and unique strategic value – not its democratic leanings or ideological orientation – that ensures perpetual tensions with post-Soviet Russia. Russia has a strategic imperative to reassert control or at least prevent control of Ukraine by foreign powers. Yet it is highly unlikely that Russia would try to invade and conquer all of Ukraine. Instead, Russia will focus on Ukraine’s access to the Black Sea, as it is of the most strategic interest to the former. Hence, only Ukraine’s southern coastline around Crimea is at risk today (Map 1). Russia is not bluffing – its military build-up poses a credible threat. Thus, if the West rejects Moscow’s core demands, war is likely. For now, the US is unlikely to disavow Ukraine from potential NATO membership. From America’s point of view, doing so would be denying the self-determination of nations, capitulating to Russian coercion and demoralizing the Ukrainians as well as other US allies and partners around the world. So long as Ukraine remains on the path to join NATO, Russia would always feel insecure in a NATO-centric US-dominated security order in Europe and would be enticed to protect its national interests. Russia does not deem the West’s threat of sanctions as prohibitive of invasion. Also, Russia is not making a show of military force merely to ensure that the Nord Stream II pipeline goes into operation. Russia will not back down if the pipeline is guaranteed. High energy prices, particularly rising natural gas prices in Europe, might offer the Kremlin some insurance that European allies of the US will not impose harsh sanctions on Russia. This is especially relevant amid shortages of natural gas. Moscow may believe that Germany would restrain the EU, and the EU would restrain the US and force it to make concessions regarding Ukraine. Macro Policy To Remain Tight Chart 2Russia: Inflation Is Squeezing The Purchasing Power Of Households Faced again with rising geopolitical uncertainty, Russian policymakers will be compelled to carry on with tight monetary and fiscal policies. These will stem growth and are bad for share prices. Yet, orthodox macro policies will limit upside in local long-term bond yields and sovereign credit spreads. Rising inflation poses a serious threat to the Russian economy and the government’s popularity. Despite strong wage growth, rapidly rising inflation is eroding household disposable income growth in real terms (Chart 2). The upshot is weak sentiment among households and tame consumer spending (Chart 3). Even President Putin chimed in on the issue of inflation as he called on the Central Bank of Russia (CBR) to “take control over inflation.” In short, the central bank will continue its aggressive rate hiking cycle. Fiscal policy will be tight too. The government is expected to cut fiscal spending by 2.3 percentage points of GDP next year. This would result in a negative fiscal thrust for 2022 of around 0.6% of GDP (Chart 4). Chart 3Russia: Consumption Growth Is Tame Chart 4Russia: Fiscal Policy Will Be Restrictive In 2022 Chart 5Russia: Yield Curve Inversion Points To Weaker Growth The 10-year/6-month yield curve has already inverted (Chart 5). Such inversion is projecting another downturn in the Russian economy. Bottom Line: Russian authorities will keep a hawkish monetary and fiscal policy stance in the face of rising domestic inflation dynamics and threats of new sanctions. Investment Strategy Non-trivial odds of conflict in Ukraine mean the risk premium in Russian financial markets could flare up. Besides, the US dollar will rise further and oil price volatility will likely increase. In light of these, we have the following investment recommendations: Absolute return investors should be cautious on Russian financial markets. The ruble – both the spot rate and on a total return basis - appears toppy (Chart 1 above). When the ruble depreciates, the absolute performance of Russian stocks and domestic bonds is always negative. In particular, the total return on Russian local bonds (based on JP Morgan’s GBI total return index) in US dollars has formed a head-and-shoulders pattern (Chart 1, bottom panel). EM dedicated equity portfolios should downgrade Russian equities to underweight. Critically, a soft patch in oil prices bodes ill for the relative performance of Russian equities to EM (Chart 6). Further, geopolitical risks will also drive the risk premium of Russian equities higher. Fixed income investors should downgrade Russian local currency government bonds from overweight to neutral. Importantly, foreign holdings of Russian local currency bonds remain elevated at 21% of total local currency bonds outstanding. In addition, restrictive macro policy amid weak economic growth makes us maintain our bet on the yield curve inversion - paying 1-year swap rates alongside receiving 10-year rates. Finally, we recommend an overweight stance on sovereign US dollar credit within an EM credit portfolio (Chart 7). Chart 7Russia: Stay Overweight Sovereign Credit! Chart 6A Soft Patch In Oil Prices Warrants Underweighting Russian Equities Andrija Vesic Associate Editor andrijav@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Available on https://www.bcaresearch.com/reports/view_report/33964/gps.
Highlights A partial reinvasion of Ukraine cannot be ruled out. The constraints on Russia are not prohibitive, especially amid global energy shortages. On this issue, it is better to be alarmist than complacent. We would put the risk of a partial re-invasion of Ukraine as high as 50/50, albeit with an uncertain time frame over 12-36 months. The negative impact of conflict may not stay contained within Russian and eastern European markets. The US and EU are now threatening major retaliatory sanctions if Russia invades. In response Russia could reduce energy exports, exacerbating global shortages and damaging Europe’s overall economy. Investors should stay short Russian assets and overweight developed European equities over emerging European peers. Stay long gold and GBP-CZK. The dollar will be flat-to-up. Feature Chart 1Ruble Faces More Downside From Geopolitics Geopolitical tensions surrounding Russia remain unresolved and investors should continue to reduce holdings of assets exposed to any renewed conflict in Ukraine and the former Soviet Union. The ruble has dropped off its peaks since early November when strategic tensions revived (Chart 1). Presidents Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin held their second bilateral summit on a secure video link on December 7 to discuss the situation in Ukraine, where Russia has amassed 95,000-120,000 troops on the border in a major show of force. Russia also mustered troops in April and only partially drew them down after the Biden-Putin summit in Geneva where the two sides agreed to hold talks to address differences. The two presidents agreed to hold consultations regarding Ukraine. Putin accused NATO of building up Ukraine’s military and demanded “reliable, legally fixed guarantees excluding the expansion of NATO in the eastern direction and the deployment of offensive strike weapons systems in the states adjacent to Russia.”1 President Putin’s red line against Ukraine joining NATO is well known. Recently he said his red line includes the placement of western military infrastructure or missile systems in Ukraine. Biden refused to accept any limits on NATO membership in keeping with past policy. After the summit National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan said, “I will tell you clearly and directly [Biden] made no such commitments or concessions. He stands by the proposition that countries should be able to freely choose who they associate with.” 2 Biden, who had conferred with the UK, France, Germany, and Italy prior to the call, outlined the coordinated economic sanctions that would be leveled against Russia if it resorted to military force, as well as defense aid that would go to Ukraine and other eastern European countries. Thus Putin gave an ultimatum and Biden rebuffed it – and yet the two agreed to keep talking. The Russians have since said that they will present proposals to the Americans in less than a week. Talks are better than nothing. But neither side has given concrete indication of a change in position that would de-escalate strategic tensions – instead they have both raised the stakes. Therefore investors should proceed with the strong presumption that tensions will remain elevated or escalate in the coming months. Clearing Away Misconceptions Before going further we should clear away a few misconceptions about the current situation: Ukraine has unique strategic value to Russia. Like Belarus, but unlike Central Asia, Ukraine serves as critical buffer territory protecting Moscow and the Russian core from any would-be invaders. Russia lacks firm geological borders so it protects itself by means of distance and winter. This grand strategy succeeded against King Charles XII of Sweden, Napoleon, and Hitler. The collapse of the Soviet Union left Russia shorn of much of its buffer territory. Ukraine also offers access to the Black Sea. Russia has long striven to gain access to warm-water ports. The loss of control over Ukraine resulted in a loss of access. Russia’s seizure of Crimea in 2014 only partially rectified the situation. Ukraine’s southern coastline around Crimea is the territory at risk today (Map 1). It is Ukraine’s physical existence and unique strategic value – not its democratic leanings or ideological orientation – that ensures perpetual tensions with post-Soviet Russia. Russia has a strategic imperative to reassert control or at least prevent control by foreign powers. Ideological opposition may make things worse but an anti-Russian Ukrainian dictator would also face Russian coercion or aggression, perhaps even more than the current weak democracy. In fact Russia is trying to force Ukraine to revise its constitution and adopt a federal structure so as to grant greater autonomy to separatist regions Donetsk and Luhansk that Russia helped break away in 2014. But Ukraine has not relented to Moscow’s demands of political reform. It is not authoritarianism but a permanent foreclosure of Ukrainian membership in the EU and NATO that Moscow is after. Yet it is highly unlikely that Russia would try to invade and conquer all of Ukraine. Ukraine is the largest country by territory in Europe and has 255,000 active soldiers and 900,000 reserves (contra Russia’s 1 million active and 2 million reserves) who would defend their freedom and sovereignty against an invader.3 Russia would not be able to stage a full-scale invasion with the 175,000 maximum troop buildup that US intelligence is warning about. It would have to mobilize fully, dangerously neglecting other vast dimensions of its national security, and would inevitably get bogged down fighting a vicious insurgency backed by the NATO powers. It would save blood and treasure by paralyzing Ukraine’s politics and preventing it from allying with western militaries, which is what Putin is attempting to do today. Putin uses foreign adventures to strengthen his grip at home but an adventure of this nature would impose such burdens as to threaten his grip at home. A limited re-invasion of Ukraine could yield historic strategic advantages to Russia. Moscow could focus on a partial military incursion that would annex or shore up Donbass, or extend its control from Donbass to the Black Sea, conceivably all the way to the Dnieper river. This pathway would yield Russia maritime access and a buffer space to fortify Crimea. Naval warfare could also yield control of deep-water ports (Yuzhne, Odessa, Mykolaiv, Chornomorsk), control of the mouth of the Dnieper, control of the canal that supplies water to Crimea, and a means of bottling up the Ukrainian navy and preventing foreign maritime assistance. Ukraine would be further weakened and Russia would have a larger beachhead in Ukraine for future pressure tactics. Russia is not bluffing – its military buildup poses a credible threat. If there is anywhere Russia’s threats are credible, it is in taking military action against former Soviet republics like Georgia (2008) and Ukraine (2014) that have pro-western leanings yet lack the collective security of the NATO alliance. At very least, given that Russian forces did deploy in Ukraine in 2014, Russian action in Ukraine cannot be ruled out. The military balance has not changed so significantly in that time and strongly favors Russia (Chart 2). The US has provided around $2.5 billion in military aid to Ukraine since 2014, and has sent lethal weapons including Javelin anti-tank missiles and launchers since 2017-18, including $450 million worth of military aid under the Biden administration (and $300 million just authorized by Congress on December 7). NATO allies have also provided defense aid. This is part of Putin’s complaint but these new arms are not game changers that would prevent Russia from taking military action. Thus if the West rejects Moscow’s core demands, war is likely. This is true even if Russia would prefer to achieve its aims through political and economic rather than military means. Russia does not deem the West’s threat of sanctions as prohibitive of invasion. The West’s sanctions since 2014 have failed to change Russia’s government, strategy, or posture in Ukraine. Yes, European nations joined the US in imposing sanctions. But Germany also pursued the Nord Stream II pipeline as a means of bypassing Ukraine and working directly with Russia to preserve economic engagement and energy security. Former Chancellor Merkel forced the pipeline through despite the objections of eastern Europeans and the United States. The allies also formed the “Normandy Quartet,” excluding the US, to force Ukraine to accept the Minsk agreements on resolving the conflict. Thus the lesson of 2014-21 is not that NATO allies stood shoulder-to-shoulder in defense of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity but rather that Germany and the EU, and the EU and the US, have major differences in interests and risk-tolerance in dealing with Russia. Russia does not face, or may think it does not face, a united front among the western powers. A partial reinvasion of Ukraine would bring the western allies together initially but probably not for long. Russia determines the timing of any new military incursion in Ukraine. Winter is not the ideal time to invade Ukraine, though it is possible. Russia could act in spring 2022, as the US has warned, but it could also act in the summer of 2023, the spring of 2024, or other times. From a strategic point of view, Russia has enjoyed a historic window of opportunity since 2001 when the US got bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq and then the US and the EU got bogged down in economic and financial crisis. Given that the American political establishment is withdrawing from foreign quagmires, reactivating fiscal policy, bulking up the military-industrial complex, and making a dedicated effort to revitalize its global alliances, Russia may believe that its historic window is closing. Russia’s domestic fundamentals are deteriorating over time. Putin could decide it is necessary to seize strategic ground in Ukraine sooner rather than later. Bottom Line: Ukraine offers unique and irreplaceable buffer space and maritime access to Russia. Russia’s military actions in 2014 led to stalemate, such that Russia remains insecure, Ukraine remains defiant, and the West is still entertaining defense cooperation or even NATO membership with Ukraine. Yet the Crimea conflict also revealed a lack of concert among western powers exemplified by Germany’s Nord Stream II pipeline. Today Russia has the military capability to seize another slice of Ukrainian territory. Western retaliatory actions would be painful but may not be deemed prohibitive. Investors cannot rule out a partial re-invasion of Ukraine. Nord Stream Pipeline Is Not The Sole Factor Is Russia not making a show of military force merely to ensure that Nord Stream II pipeline goes into operation? Will Russia not back down if the pipeline is guaranteed? A common view in Washington and the financial industry is that Russia’s military buildup is just a bluff, i.e. Moscow’s aggressive way of demanding that Germany’s new government and the European Union approve Nord Stream. The pipeline finished construction in September but now awaits formal regulatory certification. Approval was originally expected by May 2022 but has now been delayed. The pipeline would carry 55 billion cubic meters of natural gas into Europe, about half of Russia’s current export capacity outside of Ukraine. Ukraine’s total capacity is around 150 billion cubic meters. The pipeline enables Russia and Germany to bypass Ukraine, whose conflicts with Moscow since 2004 have threatened Germany’s energy security. About 18% of EU’s total energy imports come from Russia, whilst this figure is 16% for Germany. That is about 0.5% and 0.2% of EU and German GDP, respectively. Meanwhile Russian energy exports to Germany and the EU make up 0.8% and 5.6% of GDP, respectively (Chart 3). The problem with this reasoning is that the US conceded Nord Stream to Russia over the summer. The US initially raised the threat of sanctions because the pipeline strengthened Russo-German ties, diminished Ukraine’s leverage, and deprived the US of a chance to sell liquefied natural gas to Europe. But the Biden administration proved unwilling to take this aggressive approach. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken has a long history of arguing that the US should prioritize strong relations with its European allies rather than punitive measures to try to block Russian gas sales. Biden met with outgoing Chancellor Angela Merkel in July and agreed to let Nord Stream go forward. The only proviso was that Russia not “weaponize natural gas,” i.e. withhold supplies for geopolitical purposes, as it has done in the past.4 Before Russia’s military threats, Germany and the EU were expected to certify the pipeline by no later than May 2022 and an earlier certification looked possible because of Europe’s low natural gas supplies. Yet Russia, fresh off parliamentary elections, did precisely what Germany said it was not supposed to do. The pipeline was completed in September and reports of Russian limitations on natural gas supply surfaced in October. Moscow not only weaponized the gas but also mustered its army on the Ukrainian border again. Putin may have feared that the new German government, which officially took office on December 8, would change policy and refuse to certify the pipeline. He also could have feared that the US Congress would pass a Republican-backed provision that would require Biden to impose sanctions that would halt the pipeline. But these explanations are not satisfactory. First, the German government was not likely to halt Nord Stream. Quite the opposite, Berlin has pushed against all opposition to speed the pipeline into action. It only delayed the regulatory approval when Russia did the one thing that Germany had expressly prohibited, which was weaponize natural gas. Second, the US Congress was never likely to pass mandatory sanctions on Nord Stream operators. The Democrats opposed it, as it would have tied Biden’s hands, whereas presidents always retain discretion over foreign policy and national security. Even moderate Republicans opposed the measure, for the same reason. If either of these were the reason for Putin’s latest buildup, then the buildup will probably dissipate in the coming months. Putin also wants to force Ukraine to implement the Minsk agreements. But the Biden administration adopted the Minsk framework in June for the first time, which was a concession to Russia. So the latest military threats are not solely about coercing Europe to approve the pipeline or Ukraine to implement Minsk. Putin is driving at something else. Putin’s Focus On Ukraine And NATO Putin used military pressure on Ukraine’s border to force the US to accept the pipeline and the Minsk agreements. He is now using the same tactic to raise the stakes and demand that the US and its allies permanently rule out NATO membership and defense cooperation with Ukraine. Biden rejected the first demand during the summit, as mentioned. There is no way that the US or NATO will forswear any and all eastward expansion. Even on Ukraine specifically, Biden cannot give Russia a legal guarantee because it would require a 60-seat majority in the Senate (not likely). Any future president would retain prerogative over the matter anyway and Putin knows this. Moreover Ukraine is never going to join NATO. Russia would attack. And NATO members would not be unanimous (as is required for new members) because the collective defense treaty would require them to defend Ukraine. They would be signing up for a war with Russia. Still Biden is unlikely to disavow Ukrainian NATO membership because to do so would be to deny the self-determination of nations, capitulate to Russian coercion, and demoralize the Ukrainians, whom the US hopes will maintain a plucky resistance against Russian domination. It would also demoralize US allies and partners – namely Taiwan, which also lacks a formal defense treaty and would be forced to sue for peace with China in the face of American abandonment. Biden’s refusal to ban Ukraine from NATO is encapsulated in Diagram 1, an exercise in game theory that exemplifies why the risk of war should not be dismissed. Diagram 1Game Theory Suggests Russia Will Keep Applying Military Pressure Biden may give private or executive assurances on Ukraine and NATO but Putin will know that these mean nothing since Biden may be out of office as early as January 2025 and then Putin would have to renegotiate. America is not a credible negotiator because partisanship has resulted in extreme foreign policy vacillations – the next president could revoke the deal. Even after Putin is gone Russia would have to negotiate with the US to prevent the US from arming Ukraine. Hence Moscow may decide to reduce Ukraine and improve Russia’s strategic position by force of arms. This is true even if Biden forswears the NATO option, as Diagram 1 illustrates. Putin’s second demand – that the US not provide offensive weapon systems in countries adjacent to Russia – is more material. This is what the new round of talks will focus on. This new Ukraine line of talks is separate, more urgent and important, than the other bilateral dialogues on the arms race, and cyber-war. US-Russia talks on Iran are also urgent, however, and Russia’s cooperation there may be contingent on US concessions regarding Ukraine. The US may be willing to stop its defense cooperation with Ukraine but not with other allies and partners, however. It is also not clear what Putin will accept. These negotiations will have to be watched. Biden cannot make major concessions with a gun to his head. It is unclear how far the US is willing to concede on defense cooperation with countries around Russia. The US may quietly abandon Ukraine but then it would need to reinforce its other defense relationships. If Putin draws down the troops, and Biden calls a stop to defense aid to Ukraine, then a crisis may be averted. What Could Go Wrong? Economic sanctions under consideration in Washington are significant: the US could freeze bank transactions, expand restrictions on trading Russian sovereign and corporate debt, and lobby Belgium to kick Russia off the SWIFT financial messaging system. However, these sanctions may not be effective in preventing Russia from using military force. Russia has weathered US sanctions since 2014, and the smaller and weaker Iranian economy has weathered maximum pressure sanctions since 2019. Energy producers like Russia and Iran have maximum geopolitical leverage when global energy inventories draw down, as is the case today. Even in the face of Russian military aggression, the Biden administration is vacillating on sanctions targeting Russia’s energy sector that would contribute to global shortages and ultimately raise prices at the pump for voters in a midterm election year.5 Germany’s new government also hesitates to declare unambiguously that it will discontinue the Nord Stream II pipeline if Russia invades Ukraine. True, Germany signaled that the pipeline would be halted. Its energy regulator declared that the pipeline’s ownership must be unbundled, which pushes back the certification date to sometime after May 2022 – this was a geopolitical not a legalistic decision. But construction is completed, the pipeline physically exists, which will vitiate Germany’s commitment to sanctions whenever natural gas shortages occur, as is the case this winter (Chart 4). Shortages will continue to occur and Russia controls a large share of supply. It would take a catastrophe to drive Germany to restart coal and nuclear plants, so natural gas will continue to be in demand. Germany does not have liquefied natural gas import capability yet. If Europe imposes crippling sanctions on Russia, Russia could reduce energy supplies and harm Europe’s economy (Chart 5). The Russian economy and society would suffer which is one reason any military action in Ukraine would be limited in scope. Still, Moscow may believe that Germany would restrain the EU, and the EU would restrain the US, thereby preventing sanctions from being fully, uniformly, and durably implemented. Prior to Russia’s aggression, public opinion polls showed that the German public strongly supported Nord Stream. Even a majority of Green Party members supported it despite the fact that the Greens were the most critical of increasing Germany’s dependency on fossil fuels and an authoritarian petro-state. While public approval of the pipeline has surely suffered in the face of Russian aggression, a majority probably still favors the pipeline. Germany has a national consensus in support of engagement with Russia and avoiding a new cold war, given that the original Cold War cut Germany in half. For that reason invasion may only temporarily unite the western powers – it could ultimately drive a wedge between Germany and other EU members, namely in the former Soviet bloc. It would also divide the more risk-averse EU from the US in terms of how to deal with Russia. And it would weaken the Biden administration at a time when it is extremely vulnerable, exacerbating America’s internal divisions. Russian domestic patriotism would rally, at least initially. Note that Russia could miscalculate on this issue and that is one reason for high level of risk. Perhaps the West would prove far more unified and aggressive in its sanctions enforcement than it was after 2014. A falling ruble and rising inflation could cause Russian social unrest. But Russia could misread the situation. Unless the US and Europe escalate the sanctions threat massively to better deter Russia, their lack of concert is another reason for investors not to be complacent about renewed conflict. Bottom Line: The threat of sanctions may prove insufficient to deter renewed Russian aggression against Ukraine. Germany favors engagement with Russia and Europe’s energy dependency on Russia makes it vulnerable to supply disruptions. Russia has leverage given tight global energy markets, Europe’s low natural gas inventories, and US domestic political considerations ahead of the 2022 midterms. Investment Takeaways The point of this report argues that a partial re-invasion of Ukraine cannot be ruled out. Russia has the capability to reinforce de facto control of Donbas, or expand its footprint in southern Ukraine, though not to invade the whole country. The threat of economic sanctions is not yet so overwhelming as to warrant overconfident predictions of de-escalation. In this case it is better to be alarmist than complacent. Russia would want to maintain an element of surprise so the timing of any belligerence is hard to predict. For de-escalation, investors should watch for Russia to withdraw troops from the Ukrainian border, US-Russia consultations to begin promptly and proceed regularly, and for the US and allies to delay or halt defense cooperation and arms transfers to Ukraine. While global investors would quickly become de-sensitized to conflict that is entirely contained in Ukraine, the trans-Atlantic threat of major sanctions now raises the stakes and suggests that global energy shocks could negatively affect the European or global economy in the event of conflict. Any conflict could also spill outside of Ukraine’s borders, as with Malaysian Airlines flight MH17, which was shot down by Russian-backed Ukrainian separatists in July 2014. The Black Sea has seen a dangerous uptick in naval saber-rattling and that strategic situation would become permanently more dangerous if Russia seized more of coastal Ukraine. Russian military integration with Belarus is also a source of insecurity for EU and NATO members. Global financial markets have only started to price the geopolitical risk emanating from Russia. Our Russian GeoRisk Indicator has ticked up (Chart 6). But Russian equity performance relative to broad emerging markets is only arguably underperforming what is implied by Brent crude oil prices. Chart 6Market Slow To React To Ukraine Crisis - Risk To Downside For Russian Assets This relatively muted reaction suggests more downside lies ahead if we are right that strategic tensions will be flat-to-up over the coming months. Sell the RUB-USD on any strength. Stay long GBP-CZK. Tactically short Russian equities versus EM-ex-Asia (Chart 7). They are exposed to further correction as a result of escalating geopolitical risk. Chart 7Russia Falling Off Peaks Of Performance Versus EM-Ex-Asia Chart 8Developed Europe A Safer Bet Than Emerging Europe Amid Tensions Stick to long DM Europe versus EM Europe – our main trade this year to capture rising geopolitical risk between Russia and the West (Chart 8). Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 President of Russia, "Meeting with US President Joseph Biden," December 7, 2021, kremlin.ru. 2 White House, "Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jen Psaki and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, December 7, 2021," whitehouse.gov. 3 Dan Peleschuk, "Ukraine’s military poses a tougher challenge for Russia than in 2014," Politico, April 14, 2021, politico.eu.; see also Gav Don, "LONG READ: Russia looks poised to invade Ukraine, but what would an invasion actually look like?" Intellinews, November 24, 2021, intellinews.com. 4 US Department of State, "Joint Statement of the United States and Germany on Support for Ukraine, European Energy Security, and our Climate Goals," July 21, 2021, state.gov. 5 Kylie Atwood and Natasha Bertrand, "US likely to hold off for now on energy sanctions for Russia, fearing impact on global prices," CNN, December 9, 2021, cnn.com. Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months)
Tensions are once again soaring along the Russia-Ukraine border. Moscow has deployed nearly 100,000 Russian troops as well as weaponry, raising alarm bells that they are planning an incursion. US policymakers are warning of an invasion as soon as early 2022.…
Highlights Remain neutral on the US dollar. A breakout of the dollar would cause a shift in strategy. Russia’s conflict with the West is heating up now that Germany has delayed the certification of the Nord Stream II pipeline. As long as the focus remains on the pipeline, the crisis will dissipate sometime in the middle of next year. But there is an equal chance of a massive escalation of strategic tensions. Our GeoRisk Indicators will keep rising in Europe, negatively affecting investor risk appetite. Stick with DM Europe over EM Europe stocks. If the dollar does not break out, South Korea and Australia offer cyclical opportunities. Turkish and Brazilian equities will not be able to bounce back sustainably in the midst of chaotic election cycles and deep structural problems. Rallies are to be faded. Feature We were struck this week by JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon’s claim that his business will “not swayed by geopolitical winds.”1 If he had said “political winds” we might have agreed. It is often the case that business executives need to turn up their collars against the ever-changing, noisy, and acrimonious political environment. However, we take issue with his specific formulation. Geopolitical winds cannot shrugged off so easily – or they are not truly geopolitical. Geopolitics is not primarily about individual world leaders or topical issues. It is primarily about things that are very hard and slow to change: geography, demography, economic structure, military and technological capabilities, and national interests. This is the importance of having a geopolitically informed approach to macroeconomics and financial markets: investment is about preserving and growing wealth over the long run despite the whirlwind of changes affecting politicians, parties, and local political tactics. In this month’s GeoRisk Update we update our market-based, quantitative geopolitical risk indicators with a special focus on how financial markets are responding to the interplay of near-term and cyclical political risks with structural and tectonic pressures underlying a select group of economies and political systems. Is King Dollar Breaking Out? Chart 1King Dollar Breaking Out? Our first observation is that the US dollar is on the verge of breaking out and rallying (Chart 1). This potential rally is observable in trade-weighted terms and especially relative to the euro, which has slumped sharply since November 5th. Our view on the dollar remains neutral but we are watching this rally closely. This year was supposed to be a year in which global growth recovered from the pandemic on the back of vaccination campaigns, leading the counter-cyclical dollar to drop off. The DXY bounce early in the year peaked on April 2nd but then began anew after hitting a major resistance level at 90. The United States is still the preponderant power within the international system. The USD remains the world’s leading currency by transactions and reserves. The pandemic, social unrest, and contested election of 2020 served as a “stress test” that the American system survived, whether judging by the innovation of vaccines, the restoration of order, or the preservation of the constitutional transfer of power. Meanwhile Europe faces several new hurdles that have weighed on the euro. These include the negative ramifications of the slowdown in Asia, energy supply shortages, a new wave of COVID-19 cases, and the partial reimposition of social restrictions. Moreover the Federal Reserve is likely to hike interest rates faster and higher than the European Central Bank over the coming years. Potential growth is higher in the US than Europe and the US growth is supercharged by fiscal stimulus whereas Europe’s stimulus is more limited. Of course, the US’s orgy of monetary and fiscal stimulus and ballooning trade deficits raise risks for the dollar. Global growth is expected to rotate to other parts of the world over the coming 12 months as vaccination spreads. There is still a chance that the dollar’s bounce is a counter-trend bounce and that the dollar will relapse next year. Hence our neutral view. Yet from a geopolitical perspective, the US population and economy are larger, more dynamic, more innovative, safer, and more secure than those of the European Union. The US still exhibits an ability to avoid the reckoning that is overdue from a macroeconomic perspective. Russia-West Conflict Resumes In our third quarter outlook we argued that European geopolitical risk had hit a bottom, after coming off the sovereign debt crisis of 2010-15, and that geopolitical risk would begin to rise over the long term for this region. Our reasoning was that the markets had fully priced the Europeans’ decision to band together in the face of risks to the EU’s and EMU’s integrity. What markets would need to price going forward would be greater risks to Europe’s stability from a chaotic external environment that Europe lacked the willingness or ability to control: conflict with Russia, immigration, terrorism, and the slowdown in Asia. In particular we argued that Russia’s secular conflict with the West would resume. US-Russia relations would not improve despite presidential summits. The Nord Stream II pipeline would become a lightning rod for conflict, as its operation was more likely to be halted than the consensus held. (German regulators paused the approval process this week, raising the potential for certification to be delayed past the expected March-May months of 2022.) Most importantly we argued that the Russian strategy of political and military aggression in its near-abroad would continue since Russia would continue to feel threatened by domestic instability at home and Western attempts to improve economic integration and security coordination with former Soviet Union countries. Chart 2Putin Showdown With West To Escalate Further For this reason we recommended that investors eschew Russian equities despite a major rally in commodity prices. Any rally would be undercut by the slowing economy in Asia or geopolitical conflicts that frightened investors away from Russian companies, or both. Today the market is in the process of pricing the impact on Russian equities from commodity prices coming off the boil. But politics may also have something to do with the selloff in Russian equities (Chart 2). The selloff can continue given still-negative hard economic data from Asia and the escalation of tensions around Russia’s strategically sensitive borders: Ukraine, Belarus, Poland, Lithuania, Moldova, and the Black Sea. The equity risk premium will remain elevated for eastern European markets as a result of the latest materialization of country risk and geopolitical risk – the long running trend of outperformance by developed Europe has been confirmed on a technical resistance level (Chart 3). Our mistake was closing our recommendation to buy European natural gas prices too early this year. Chart 3Favor DM Europe Amid Russia Showdown In early 2021, our market-based geopolitical risk indicator for Russia slumped, implying that global investors expected a positive diplomatic “reset” between the US and Russia. We advised clients to ignore this signal and argued that Russian geopolitical risk would take back off again. We said the same thing when the indicator slumped again in the second half of the year and now it is clear the indicator will move sharply higher (Chart 4). The point is that geopolitics keeps interfering with investors’ desire to resuscitate Russian equities based on macro and fundamental factors: cheap valuations, commodity price rises, some local improvements in competitiveness, and the search for yield. Chart 4Russian GeoRisk Indicator - Risks Not Yet Priced Russia may or may not stage a new military incursion into Ukraine – the odds are 50/50, given that Russia has invaded already and has the raw capability in place on Ukraine’s borders. The intention of an incursion would be to push Russian control across the entire southern border of Ukraine to Odessa, bringing a larger swathe of the Black Sea coast under Moscow’s control in pursuit of Russia’s historic quest for warm water ports. The limitations on Russia are obvious. It would undertake new military and fiscal burdens of occupation, push the US and EU closer together, provoke a stronger NATO defense alliance, and invite further economic sanctions. Yet similar tradeoffs did not prevent Russia from taking surprise military action in Georgia in 2008 or Ukraine in 2014. After the past 13 years the US and EU are still uncoordinated and indecisive. The US is still internally divided. With energy prices high, domestic political support low, and Russia’s long-term strategic situation bleak, Moscow may believe that the time is right to expand its buffer territory further into Ukraine. We cannot rule out such an outcome, now or over the next few years. If Russia attacks, global risk assets will suffer a meaningful pullback. It will not be a bear market unless the conflict spills out beyond Ukraine to affect major economies. We have not taken a second Ukraine invasion as our base case because Russia is focused primarily on getting the Nord Stream pipeline certified. A broader war would prevent that from happening. Military threats after Nord Stream is certified will be more worrisome. A less belligerent but still aggressive move would be for Russia to militarize the Belarussian border amid the conflict with the EU over Belarus’s funneling of Middle Eastern migrants into the EU via Poland and Lithuania. A closer integration of Russia’s and Belarus’s economies and militaries would fit with Russia’s grand strategy, improve Russia’s military posture in eastern Europe, and escalate fears of eventual war in Poland and the Baltic states. The West would wring its hands and announce more sanctions but may not have a higher caliber response as such a move would not involve hostilities or the violation of mutual defense treaties. This outcome would be negative but also digested fairly quickly by financial markets. Our European GeoRisk Indicators (see Appendix) are likely to respond to the new Russia crisis, in keeping with our view that European geopolitical risk will rise in the 2020s: German risk has dropped off since the election but will now revive at least until Nord Stream II is certified. If Russia re-invades Ukraine it will rise, as it did in 2014. French risk was already heating up due to the presidential election beginning April 10 (first round) but now may heat up more. Not that Russia poses a direct threat to France but more that broader regional insecurities would hurt sentiment. The election itself is not a major risk to investors, though terrorist attacks could tick up. President Macron has an incentive to be hawkish on a range of issues over the next half year. The UK is in the midst of the Russia conflict. Its defense cooperation with Ukraine and naval activity in the Black Sea, such as port calls in Georgia, have prompted Russia’s military threats – including a threat to bomb a Royal Navy vessel earlier this year. Not to mention ongoing complications around Brexit. The Russian situation is by far the most significant factor. Spain is at a further remove from Russia but its risks are rising due to domestic political polarization and the rising likelihood of a breakdown in the ruling government. Bottom Line: We still favor these countries’ equities to those of eastern Europe but our risk indicators will rise, suggesting that geopolitical incidents could cause a setback for some or all of these markets in absolute terms. A pickup in Asian growth would be beneficial for developed European assets so we are cyclically constructive. We remain neutral on the USD-EUR though a buying opportunity may present itself if and when the Nord Stream II pipeline is certified. Korea: Nobody’s Heard From Kim In A While Chart 5Korea GeoRisk Indicator Still Elevated Geopolitical risk has risen in South Korea due to COVID-19 and its aftershocks, including supply kinks, shortages, and policy tightening by the giant to the West (Chart 5). South Korea’s geopolitical risk indicator is still very high but not because of North Korea. Our Dear Leader Kim Jong Un has not been overly provocative, although he has restarted the cycle of provocations during the Biden administration. Yet South Korean geopolitical risk has skyrocketed. The problem is that investors have lost a lot of appetite for South Korea in a global environment in which demographics are languishing, globalization is retreating, a regional cold war is developing, and debt levels are high. Domestic politics have become more redistributive without accompanying reforms to improve competitiveness or reform corporate conglomerates. The revival of the South Korean conservatives ahead of elections in 2022 suggests political risk will remain elevated. Of course, North Korea could still move the dial. A massive provocation, say something on the scale of the surprise naval attack on the Chonan in the wake of the global financial crisis in spring of 2010, could push up the risk indicator higher and increase volatility for the Korean won and equities. Kim could take such an action to insist that President Biden pay heed to him, like President Trump did, or at least not ignore him, in a context in which Biden is doing just that due to far more pressing concerns. Biden would be forced to reestablish a credible threat. Still, North Korea is not the major factor today. Not compared to the economic and financial instability in the region. At the same time, if global growth surprises pick up and the dollar does not break out, Korea will be a beneficiary. We have taken a constructive cyclical view, although our specific long Korea trade has not worked out this year. Korean equities depreciated by 11.2% in USD terms year-to-date, compared to 0.3% for the rest of EM. Structurally, Korea cannot overcome the negative demographic and economic factors mentioned above. Geopolitically it remains a “shrimp between two whales” and will fail to reconcile its economic interests with its defense alliance with the United States. Australia: Wait On The Dollar Chart 6Australian GeoRisk Indicator Still Elevated Australian geopolitical risk has not fallen back much from this year’s highs, according to our quant indicator (Chart 6). Global shortages and a miniature trade war were the culprits of this year’s spike. The advantage for Australia is that commodity prices and metals look to remain in high demand as the world economy fully mends. Various nations are implementing large public investment programs, especially re-gearing their energy sectors to focus more on renewables. The reassertion of the US security alliance is positive for Australia but geopolitical risk is rising on a secular basis regardless. Cyclically we would look positively toward Australian stocks. Yet they have risen by 4.3% in common currency terms this year so far, compared to the developed market-ex-US average of 11.0%. Moreover the Aussie’s latest moves confirm that the US dollar is on the verge of breaking out which would be negative for this bourse. Structurally Australia will go through a painful economic transition but it will be motivated to do so by the new regional cold war and threats to national security. The US alliance is a geopolitical positive. Turkey And Brazil The greenback’s rally could be sustainable not only because of the divergence of US from Asian and global growth but also because of the humiliating domestic political environment of most prominent emerging markets. Chart 7Emerging Market Bull Trap We booked gains our “short” trade of the currencies of EM “strongmen,” such as Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro and Turkey’s Recep Erdogan, earlier this year. But we noted that we still hold a negative view on these economies and currencies. This is especially true today as contentious elections approach in both countries in 2022 and 2023 respectively (Chart 7). Turkey is trapped into an inflation spiral of its own design, which enervates the economy, as our Emerging Markets Strategy has shown. It is also trapped in a geopolitical stance in which it has repeatedly raised the stakes in simultaneous clashes with Russia, the US, Europe, Israel, the Arab states, Libya, and Iran. Russia’s maneuvers in the Black Sea are fundamentally threatening to Turkey, so while Erdogan has maintained a balance with Russia for several years, Russian aggression could upset that balance. Turkey has backed off from some recent confrontations with the West lately but there is not yet a trend of improvement. The COVID-19 crisis gave Erdogan a badly needed bump in polls, unlike other EM peers. But this simply reinforces the market’s overrating of his odds of being re-elected. In reality the odds of a contested election or an election upset are fairly high. New lows in the lira show that the market is reacting to the whole negative complex of issues around Turkey. But the full weight of the government’s mismanaging of economic policy to stay in power and stay geopolitically relevant has not yet been felt. The election is still 19 months away. A narrow outcome, for or against Erdogan and his party, would make things worse, not better. Brazil’s domestic political and geopolitical risks are more manageable than Turkey’s. But it faces a tumultuous election in which institutional flaws and failures will be on full display. Investors will try to front-run the election believing that former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva will restore the good old days. But we discourage that approach. We see at least two massive hurdles for the market: first, Brazil has to pass its constitutional stress test; second, the next administration needs to be forced into difficult decisions to preserve growth and debt management. These will come at the expense of either growth or the currency, according to our Emerging Markets Strategy. We still prefer Mexican stocks. Geopolitically, Turkey will struggle with Russia’s insecurity and aggression, Europe’s use of economic coercion, and Middle Eastern instability. Brazil does not have these external problems, although social stability will always be fragile. Investment Takeaways The dollar is acting as if it may break out in a major rally. Our view has been neutral but our generally reflationary perspective on the global economy is being challenged. Russia’s conflict with the West will escalate, not de-escalate, in the wake of Germany’s decision to delay the certification of the Nord Stream II pipeline. Russia has greater leverage now than usual because of energy shortages. A re-invasion of Ukraine cannot be ruled out. But the pipeline is Russia’s immediate focus. Investors have seen conflict in Ukraine so they will be desensitized quickly unless the conflict spreads into new geographies or spills out to affect major economies. The same goes for trouble on Belarus’s borders. Stick with long DM Europe / short EM Europe. Opportunities may emerge to become more bullish on the euro and European equities if and when the Nord Stream II situation looks to be resolved and Asian risks to global growth are allayed. If the dollar does not break out, South Korea and Australia are cyclical beneficiaries. Whereas “strongman” regimes will remain volatile and the source of bull traps, especially Turkey. Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 “JP Morgan chief becomes first Wall Street boss to visit during pandemic,” Financial Times, November 15, 2021, ft.com. Strategic View Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Open Trades & Positions Section II: Appendix: GeoRisk Indicator Russia United Kingdom Germany France Italy Canada Spain Korea Turkey Brazil Australia South Africa Section III: Geopolitical Calendar
Highlights Geopolitical conflicts point to energy price spikes and could add to inflation surprises in the near term. However, US fiscal drag and China’s economic slowdown are both disinflationary risks to be aware of. Specifically, energy-producers like Russia and Iran gain greater leverage amid energy shortages. Europe’s natural gas prices could spike again. Conflict in the Middle East could disrupt oil flows. President Biden’s $1.75 trillion social spending bill is a litmus test for fiscal fatigue in developed markets. It could fail, and even assuming it passes it will not prevent overall fiscal drag in 2022-23. However, it is inflationary over the long run. China’s slowdown poses the chief disinflationary risk. But we still think policy will ease to avoid an economic crash ahead of the fall 2022 national party congress. We are closing this year’s long value / short growth trade for a loss of 3.75%. Cyclical sectors ended up being a better way to play the reopening trade. Feature Equity markets rallied in recent weeks despite sharp upward moves in core inflation across the world (Chart 1). Inflation is fast becoming a popular concern and we see geopolitical risks that could drive headline inflation still higher in the short run. We also see underrated disinflationary factors, namely China’s property sector distress and economic slowdown. Several major developments have occurred in recent weeks that we will cover in this report. Our conclusions: Biden’s domestic agenda will pass but risks are high and macro impact is limited. Congress passed Biden’s infrastructure deal and will probably still pass his signature social spending bill, although inflation is creating pushback. Together these bills have little impact on the budget deficit outlook but they will add to inflationary pressures. Energy shortages embolden Russia and Iran. Winter weather is unpredictable, the energy crisis may not be over. But investors are underrating Russia’s aggressive posture toward the West. Any conflict with Iran could also cause oil disruptions in the near future. US-China relations may improve but not for long. A bilateral summit between Presidents Joe Biden and Xi Jinping will not reduce tensions for very long, if at all. Climate change cooperation is an insufficient basis to reverse the cold war-style confrontation over the long run. Chart 1Inflation Rattles Policymakers The investment takeaway is that geopolitical tensions could push energy prices still higher in the short term. Iran and Russia need to be monitored. However, China’s economic slowdown will weigh on growth. China poses an underrated disinflationary risk to our views. US Congress: Bellwether For Fiscal Fatigue While inflation is starting to trouble households and voters, investors should bear in mind that the current set of politicians have long aimed to generate an inflation overshoot. They spent the previous decade in fear of deflation, since it generated anti-establishment or populist parties that threatened to disrupt the political system. They quietly built up an institutional consensus around more robust fiscal policy and monetary-fiscal coordination. Now they are seeing that agenda succeed but are facing the first major hurdle in the form of higher prices. They will not simply cut and run. Inflation is accompanied by rising wages, which today’s leaders want to see – almost all of them have promised households a greater share of the fruits of their labor, in keeping with the new, pro-worker, populist zeitgeist. Real wages are growing at 1.1% in the US and 0.9% across the G7 (Chart 2). Even more than central bankers, political leaders are focused on jobs and employment, i.e. voters. Yet the labor market still has considerable slack (Chart 3). Almost all of the major western governments have been politically recapitalized since the pandemic, either through elections or new coalitions. Almost all of them were elected on promises of robust public investment programs to “build back better,” i.e. create jobs, build infrastructure, revitalize industry, and decarbonize the energy economy. Thus while they are concerned about inflation, they will leave that to central banks, as they will be loathe to abandon their grand investment plans. Chart 2Higher Wages: Real Or Nominal? Still, there will be a breaking point at which inflation forces governments to put their spending plans on hold. The US Congress is the immediate test of whether today’s inflation will trigger fiscal fatigue and force a course correction. Chart 3Policymakers Fear Populism, Focus On Employment President Biden’s $550 billion infrastructure bill passed Congress last week and will be signed into law around November 15. Now he is worried that his signature $1.75 trillion social spending bill will falter due to inflation fears. He cannot spare a single vote in the Senate (and only three votes in the House of Representatives). Odds that the bill fails are about 35%. Democratic Party leaders will not abandon the cause due to recent inflation prints. They see a once-in-a-generation opportunity to expand the role of government, the social safety net, and the interests of their constituents. If they miss this chance due to inflation that ends up being transitory then they will lose the enthusiastic left wing of the party and suffer a devastating loss in next year’s midterm elections, in which they are already at a disadvantage. Biden’s social bill is also likely to pass because the budget reconciliation process necessary to pass the bill is the same process needed to raise the national debt limit by December 3. A linkage of the two by party leaders would ensure that both pass … and otherwise Democrats risk self-inflicting a national debt default. The reconciliation bill is more about long-term than short-term inflation risk. The bill does not look to have a substantial impact on the budget outlook: the new spending is partially offset by new taxes and spread out over ten years. The various legislative scenarios look virtually the same in our back-of-the-envelope budget projections (Chart 4). However, given that the output gap is virtually closed, this bill combined with the infrastructure bill will add to inflationary pressures. The fiscal drag will diminish by 2024, not coincidentally the presidential election year 2024, not coincidentally the presidential election year. The deficit is not expected to increase or decrease substantially between 2023 and 2024. From then onward the budget deficit will expand. The increased government demand for goods and services and the increased disposable income for low-earning families will add to inflationary pressures. Other developed markets face a similar situation: inflation is picking up, but big spending has been promised and normalizing budgets will marginally weigh on growth in the next few years (Chart 5). True, growth should hold up since the private economy is rebounding in the wake of the pandemic. But politicians will not be inclined to renege on campaign promises of liberal spending in the face of fiscal drag. The current crop of leaders is primed to make major public investments. This is true of Germany, Japan, Canada, and Italy as well as the United States. It is partly true in France, where fiscal retrenchment has been put on hold given the presidential election in the spring. The effect will be inflationary, especially for the US where populist spending is more extravagant than elsewhere. The long run will depend on structural factors and how much the new investments improve productivity. Bottom Line: A single vote in the US Senate could derail the president’s social spending bill, so the US is now the bellwether for fiscal fatigue in the developed world. Biden is likely to pass the bill, as global fiscal drag is disinflationary over the next 12 months. Yet inflation could stay elevated for other reasons. And this fiscal drag will dissipate later in the business cycle. Russia And Iran Gain Leverage Amid Energy Crunch The global energy price spike arose from a combination of structural factors – namely the pandemic and stimulus. It has abated in recent weeks but will remain a latent problem through the winter season, especially if La Niña makes temperatures unusually cold as expected. Rising energy prices feed into general producer prices, which are being passed onto consumers (Chart 6). They look to be moderating but the weather is unpredictable. There is another reason that near-term energy prices could spike or stay elevated: geopolitics. Tight global energy supply-demand balances mean that there is little margin of safety if unexpected supply disruptions occur. This gives greater leverage to energy producers, two of which are especially relevant at the moment: Russia and Iran. Russia’s long-running conflict with the West is heating up on several fronts, as expected. Russia may not have caused the European energy crisis but it is exacerbating shortages by restricting flows of natural gas for political reasons, as it is wont to do (Chart 7). Moscow always maintains plausible deniability but it is currently flexing its energy muscles in several areas: Chart 6Energy Price Depends On Winter ... And Russia/Iran! Ukraine: Russia has avoided filling up and fully utilizing pipelines and storage facilities in Ukraine, where the US is now warning that Russia could stage a large military action in retaliation for Ukrainian drone strikes in the still-simmering Russia-Ukraine war. Belarus: Russia says it will not increase the gas flow through the major Yamal-Europe natural gas pipeline in 2022 even as Belarus threatens to halt the pipeline’s operation entirely. Belarus, backed by Russia, is locked in a conflict with Poland and the EU over Belarus’s funneling of migrants into their territory (Chart 8). The conflict could lead not only to energy supply disruptions but also to a broader closure of trade and a military standoff.1 Russia has flown two Tu-160 nuclear-armed bombers over Belarus and the border area in a sign of support. Moldova: Russia is withholding natural gas to pressure the new, pro-EU Moldovan government. Russia’s main motive is obvious: it wants Germany and the EU to approve and certify the new Nord Stream II pipeline. Nord Stream II enables Germany and Russia to bypass Ukraine, where pipeline politics raise the risk of shortages and wars. Lame duck German Chancellor Angela Merkel worked with Russia to complete this pipeline before the end of her term, convincing the Biden administration to issue a waiver on congressional sanctions that could have halted its construction. However, two of the parties in the incoming German government, the Greens and the Free Democrats, oppose the pipeline. While these parties may not have been able to stop the pipeline from operating, Russia does not want to take any chances and is trying to force Germany’s and the EU’s hand. The energy crisis makes it more likely that the pipeline will be approved, since the European Commission will have to make its decision during a period when cold weather and shortages will make it politically acceptable to certify the pipeline.2 The decision will further drive a wedge between Germany and eastern EU members, which is what Russia wants. EU natural gas prices will likely subside sometime next year and will probably not derail the economic recovery, according to both our commodity and Europe strategists. A bigger and longer-lasting Russian energy squeeze would emerge if the Nord Stream II pipeline is not certified. This is a low risk at this point but the next six months could bring surprises. More broadly, the West’s conflict with Russia can easily escalate from here. First, President Vladimir Putin faces economic challenges and weak political support. He frequently diverts popular attention by staging aggressive moves abroad. There is no reason to believe his post-2004 strategy of restoring Russia’s sphere of influence in the former Soviet space has changed. High energy prices give him greater leverage even aside from pipeline coercion – so it is not surprising that Russia is moving troops to the Ukraine border again. Growing military support for Belarus, or an expanded conflict in Ukraine, are likely to create a crisis now or later. Second, the US-Germany agreement to allow Nord Stream II explicitly states that Russia must not weaponize natural gas supply. This statement has had zero effect so far. But when the energy shortage subsides, the EU could pursue retaliatory measures along with the United States. Of course, Russia has been able to weather sanctions. But tensions are already escalating significantly. After Russia, Iran also gains leverage during times of tight energy supplies. With global oil inventories drawing down, Iran is in the position to inflict “maximum pressure” on the US and its allies, a role reversal from the 2017-20 period in which large inventories enabled the US to impose crippling sanctions on Iran after pulling out of the 2015 nuclear deal (Chart 9). Iran is rapidly advancing on its nuclear program and a new round of diplomatic negotiations may only serve to buy time before it crosses the “breakout” threshold of uranium enrichment capability as early as this month or next. In a recent special report we argued that there is a 40% chance of a crisis over Iran in the Middle East. Such a crisis could ultimately lead to an oil shock in the Persian Gulf or Strait of Hormuz. Chart 9Now Iran Can Use 'Maximum Pressure' Bottom Line: Russia’s natural gas coercion of Europe could keep European energy prices high through March or May. More broadly Russia’s renewed tensions with the West confirm our view that oil producers gain geopolitical leverage amid the current supply shortages. Iran also gains leverage and its conflict with the US could lead to global oil supply disruptions anytime over the next 12 months. Until Nord Stream II is certified and a new Iranian nuclear agreement is signed, there are two clear sources of potential energy shocks. Moreover in today’s inflationary context there is limited margin of safety for unexpected supply disruptions regardless of source. Xi’s Historical Rewrite China continues to be a major source of risk for the global economy and financial markets in the lead-up to the twentieth national party congress in fall 2022. While Chinese assets have sold off this year, global risk assets are still vulnerable to negative surprises from China. The five-year political reshuffle in 2022 is more important than usual since President Xi Jinping was originally supposed to step down but will instead stick around as leader for life, like China’s previous strongmen Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping.3 Xi’s rejection of term limits became clear in 2017 and is not really news. But Xi will fortify himself and his faction in 2022 against any opposition whatsoever. He is extremely vigilant about any threats that could disrupt this process, whether at home or abroad. The Communist Party’s sixth plenary session this week highlights both Xi’s success within the Communist Party and the sensitivity of the period. Xi produced a new “historical resolution,” or interpretation of the party’s history, which is only the third such resolution. A few remarks on this historical resolution are pertinent: Mao’s resolution: Chairman Mao wrote the first such resolution in 1945 to lay down his version of the party’s history and solidify his personal control. It is naturally a revolutionary leftist document. Deng’s revision of Mao: General Deng Xiaoping then produced a major revision in 1981, shortly after initiating China’s economic opening and reform. Deng’s interpretation aimed to hold Mao accountable for “gross mistakes” during the Cultural Revolution and yet to recognize the Communist Party’s positive achievements in founding the People’s Republic. His version gave credit to the party and collective leadership rather than Mao’s personal rule. Two 30-year periods: The implication was that the party’s history should be divided into two thirty-year periods: the period of foundations and conflict with Mao as the party’s core and the period of improvement and prosperity with Deng as the core. Jiang’s support of Deng: Deng’s telling came under scrutiny from new leftists in the wake of Tiananmen Square incident in 1989. But General Secretary Jiang Zemin largely held to Deng’s version of the story that the days of reform and opening were a far better example of the party’s leadership because they were so much more stable and prosperous.4 Xi’s reaction to Jiang and Deng: Since coming to power in 2012, Xi Jinping has shown an interest in revising the party’s official interpretation of its own history. The central claim of the revisionists is that China could never have achieved its economic success if not for Mao’s strongman rule. Mao’s rule and the Communist Party’s central control thus regain their centrality to modern China’s story. China’s prosperity owes its existence to these primary political conditions. The two periods cannot be separated. Xi’s synthesis of Deng and Mao: Now Xi has written himself into that history above all other figures – indeed the communique from the Sixth Plenum mentions Xi more often than Marx, Mao, or Deng (Chart 10). The implication is that Xi is the synthesis of Mao and Deng, as we argued back in 2017 at the end of the nineteenth national party congress. The synthesis consists of a strongman who nevertheless maintains a vibrant economy for strategic ends. What are the practical policy implications of this history lesson? Higher Country Risk: China’s revival of personal rule, as opposed to consensus rule, marks a permanent increase in “country risk” and political risk for investors. Autocratic governments lack institutional guardrails (checks and balances) that prevent drastic policy mistakes. When Xi tries to step down there will probably be a succession crisis. Higher Macroeconomic Risk: China is more likely to get stuck in the “middle-income trap.” Liberal or pro-market economic reform is de-emphasized both in the new historical resolution and in the Xi administration’s broader program. Centralization is already suppressing animal spirits, entrepreneurship, and the private sector. Higher Geopolitical Risk: The return to autocracy and the withdrawal from economic liberalism also entail a conflict with the United States, which is still the world’s largest economy and most powerful military. The US is not what it once was but it will put pressure on China’s economy and build alliances aimed at strategic containment. Bottom Line: China is trying to escape the middle-income trap, like Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea, but it is trying to do so by means of autocracy, import substitution, and conflict with the United States. These other Asian economies improved productivity by democratizing, embracing globalization, and maintaining a special relationship with the United States. China’s odds of succeeding are low. China will focus on power consolidation through fall 2022 and this will lead to negative surprises for financial markets. China Slowdown: The Disinflationary Risk While it is very unlikely that Xi will face serious challenges to his rule, strange things can happen at critical junctures. Therefore the regime will be extremely alert for any threats, foreign or domestic, and will ultimately prioritize politics above all other things, which means investors will suffer negative surprises. The lingering pandemic still poses an inflationary risk for the rest of the world while the other main risk is disinflationary: Inflationary Risk – Zero COVID: The “Covid Zero” policy of attempting to stamp out any trace of the virus will still be relevant at least over the next 12 months (Chart 11). Clampdowns serve a dual purpose since the Xi administration wants to minimize foreign interference and domestic dissent before the party congress. Hence the global economy can suffer more negative supply shocks if ports or factories are closed. Inflationary Risk – Energy Closures: The government is rationing electricity amid energy shortages to prioritize household heating and essential services. This could hurt factory output over the winter if the weather is bad. Disinflationary Risk – Property Bust: The country is still flirting with overtightening monetary, fiscal, and regulatory policies. Throughout the year we have argued that authorities would avoid overtightening. But China is still very much in a danger zone in which policy mistakes could be made. Recent rumors suggest the government is trying to “correct the overcorrection” of regulatory policy. The government is reportedly mulling measures to relax the curbs on the property sector. We are inclined to agree but there is no sign yet that markets are responding, judging by corporate defaults and the crunch in financial conditions (Chart 12). Chart 12China Has Not Contained Property Turmoil Evergrande, the world’s most indebted property developer, is still hobbling along, but its troubles are not over. There are signs of contagion among other developers, including state-owned enterprises, that cannot meet the government’s “three red lines.” 5 Credit growth has now broken beneath the government’s target range of 12%, though money growth has bounced off the lower 8% limit set for this year (Chart 13). China is dangerously close to overtightening. China’s economic slowdown has not yet been fully felt in the global economy based on China’s import volumes, which are tightly linked to the combined credit-and-fiscal-spending impulse (Chart 14). The implication is that recent pullbacks in industrial metal prices and commodity indexes will continue. Chart 13China Tries To Avoid Over-Tightening Chart 14China Slowdown Not Yet Fully Felt Until China eases policy more substantially, it poses a disinflationary risk and a strong point in favor of the transitory view of global inflation. It is difficult for China to ease policy – let alone stimulate – when producer prices are so high (see Chart 6 above). The result is a dangerous quandary in which the government’s regulatory crackdowns are triggering a property bust yet the government is prevented from providing the usual policy support as the going gets tough. Asset prices and broader risk sentiment could go into free fall. However, the party has a powerful incentive to prevent a generalized crisis ahead of the party congress. So we are inclined to accept signs that property curbs and other policies will be eased. Bottom Line: The full disinflationary impact of China’s financial turmoil and economic slowdown has yet to be felt globally. Biden-Xi Summit Not A Game Changer As long as inflation prevents robust monetary and fiscal easing, Beijing is incentivized to improve sentiment in other ways. One way is to back away from the regulatory crackdown in other sectors, such as Big Tech. The other is to improve relations with the United States. A stabilization of US ties would be useful before the party congress since President Xi would prefer not to have the US interfering in China’s internal affairs during such a critical hour. No surprise that China is showing signs of trying to stabilize the relationship. The US is apparently reciprocating. Presidents Biden and Xi also agreed to hold a virtual bilateral summit next week, which could lead to a new series of talks. The US Trade Representative also plans to restart trade negotiations. The plan is to enforce the Phase One trade deal, issue waivers for tariffs that hurt US companies, and pursue new talks over outstanding structural disputes. The Phase One trade deal has fallen far short of its goals in general but on the energy front it is doing well. China will continue importing US commodities amid global shortages (Chart 15). The summit alone will have a limited impact. Biden had a summit with Putin earlier this year but relations could deteriorate tomorrow over cyber-attacks, Ukraine, or Belarus. However, there is some basis for the US and China to cooperate next year: Iran. Xi is consolidating power at home in 2022 and probably wants to use negotiations to keep the Americans at bay. Biden is pivoting to foreign policy in 2022, since Congress will not get anything done, and will primarily focus on halting Iran’s nuclear program. If China assists the US with Iran, then there is a basis for a reduction in tensions. The problem is not only Iran itself but also that China will not jump to enforce sanctions on Iran amid energy shortages. And China is not about to make sweeping structural economic concessions to the US as the Xi administration doubles down on state-guided industrial policy. Meanwhile the US is pursuing a long-term policy of strategic containment and Biden will not want to be seen as appeasing China ahead of midterm elections, especially given Xi’s reversion to autocracy. What about cooperation on climate change? The US and China also delivered a surprise joint statement at the United Nations climate change conference in Scotland (COP26), confirming the widely held expectation that climate policy is an area of engagement. These powers and Europe have a strategic interest in reducing dependency on Middle Eastern oil (Chart 16). Climate talks will begin in the first half of next year. However, climate cooperation is not significant enough alone to outweigh the deeper conflicts between the US and China. Moreover climate policy itself is somewhat antagonistic, as the EU and US are looking at applying “carbon adjustment fees” to carbon-intensive imports, e.g. iron and steel exports from China and other high-polluting producers (Chart 17). While the EU and US are not on the same page yet, and these carbon tariffs are far from implementation, the emergence of green protectionism does not bode well for US-China relations even aside from their fundamental political and military disputes. Bottom Line: Some short-term stabilization of US-China relations is possible but not guaranteed. Markets will cheer if it happens but the effect will be fleeting. Chinese assets are still extremely vulnerable to political and geopolitical risks. Investment Takeaways Gold can still go higher. Financial markets are pricing higher inflation and weak real rates. Gold has been our chief trade to prepare both for higher inflation and geopolitical risk. We are closing our long value / growth equity trade for a loss of 3.75%. We are maintaining our long DM Europe / short EM Europe trade. This trade has performed poorly due to the rally in energy prices and hence Russian equities. But while energy prices may overshoot in the near term, investors will flee Russian equities as geopolitical risks materialize. We are maintaining our long Korea / short Taiwan trade despite its being deeply in the red. This trade is valid over a strategic or long-term time horizon, in which a major geopolitical crisis and/or war is likely. Our expectation that China will ease policy to stabilize the economy ahead of fall 2022 should support Korean equities. Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Over the past year President Alexander Lukashenko’s repression of domestic unrest prompted the EU to impose sanctions. Lukashenko responded by organizing an immigration scheme in which Middle Eastern migrants are flown into Belarus and funneled into the EU via Poland. The EU is threatening to expand sanctions while Belarus is threatening to cut off the Yamal-Europe pipeline amid Europe’s energy crisis. See Pavel Felgenhauer, “Belarus as Latest Front in Acute East-West Standoff,” Jamestown Foundation, November 11, 2021, Jamestown.org. 2 Both Germany and the EU must approve of Nord Stream II for it to enter into operation. The German Federal Network Agency has until January 8, 2022 to certify the project. The Economy Ministry has already given the green light. Then the European Commission has two-to-four months to respond. The EU is supposed to consider whether the pipeline meets the EU’s requirement that gas transport be “unbundled” or separated from gas production and sales. This is a higher hurdle but Germany’s clout will be felt. Hence final approval could come by March 8 or May 8, 2022. The energy crisis will put pressure for an early certification but the EU Commission may take the full time to pretend that it is not being blackmailed. See Joseph Nasr and Christoph Steitz, “Certifying Nord Stream 2 poses no threat to gas supply to EU – Germany,” Reuters, October 26, 2021, reuters.com. 3 Xi is not serving for an “unprecedented third term,” as the mainstream media keeps reporting. China’s top office is not constant nor were term limits ever firmly established. Each leader’s reign should be measured by their effective control rather than technical terms in office. Mao reigned for 27 years (1949-76), Deng for 14 years or more (1978-92), Jiang Zemin for 10 years (1992-2002), and Hu Jintao for 10 years (2002-2012). 4 See Joseph Fewsmith, “Mao’s Shadow” Hoover Institution, China Leadership Monitor 43 (2014), and “The 19th Party Congress: Ringing In Xi Jinping’s New Age,” Hoover Institution, China Leadership Monitor 55 (2018), hoover.org. 5 Liability-to-asset ratios less than 70%, debt-to-equity less than 100%, and cash-to-short-term-debt ratios of more than 1.0x. Strategic View Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Open Trades & Positions
Highlights Short-term inflation risk will escalate further if politics causes new supply disruptions. Long-term inflation risk is significant as well. There is a distinct risk of a geopolitical crisis in the Middle East that would push up energy prices: the US’s unfinished business with Iran. The primary disinflationary risk is China’s property sector distress. However, Beijing will strive to maintain stability prior to the twentieth national party congress in fall 2022. South Asian geopolitical risks are rising. The Indo-Pakistani ceasefire is likely to break down, while Afghani terrorism will rebound. Book gains on our emerging market currency short targeting “strongman” regimes. Feature Investors are underrating the risk of a global oil shock. This was our geopolitical takeaway from the BCA Conference this year. Investors are focused on the risk of inflation and stagflation, always with reference to the 1970s. The sharp increase in energy prices due to the Arab Oil Embargo of 1973 and the Iranian Revolution of 1979 are universally cited as aggravating factors of stagflation at that time. But these events are also given as critical differences between the situation in the 1970s and today. Unfortunately, there could be similarities. From a strictly geopolitical perspective, the risk of a conflict in the Middle East is significant both in the near term and over the coming year or so. The risk stems from the US’s unfinished business with Iran. More broadly, any supply disruption would have an outsized impact as global energy inventories decline. OPEC’s spare capacity at present can cover a 5 million barrel shock (Chart 1). In this week’s report we also provide tactical updates on China, Russia, and India. Geopolitics And The 1970s Inflation Chart 2Wage-Price Spiral, Stagflation In 1970s Fundamentally the stagflation of the 1970s occurred because global policymakers engendered a spiral of higher wages and higher prices. The wage-price spiral was exacerbated by a falling dollar, after President Nixon abandoned the gold standard, and a commodity price surge (Chart 2). Monetary policy clearly played a role. It was too easy for too long, with broad money supply consistently rising relative to nominal GDP (Chart 3). Central banks including the Federal Reserve were focused exclusively on employment. Policymakers saw the primary risk to the institution’s credibility as recession and unemployment, not inflation. Fear of the Great Depression lurked under the surface. Fiscal policy also played a role. The size of the US budget deficit at this time is often exaggerated but there is no question that they were growing and contributed to the bout of inflation and spike in bond yields (Chart 4). The reason was not only President Johnson’s large social spending program, known as the “Great Society.” It was also Johnson’s war – the Vietnam war. Chart 3Central Banks Focused On Employment, Not Prices, In 1970s On top of this heady mix of inflationary variables came geopolitics. The Yom Kippur war in 1973 prompted Arab states to impose an embargo on Israel’s supporters in the West. The Arab embargo cut off 8% of global oil demand at the time. Oil prices skyrocketed, precipitating a deep recession (Chart 5). Chart 4Johnson's 'Great Society' And Vietnam War Spending The embargo came to a halt in spring of 1974 after Israeli forces withdrew to the east of the Suez Canal. The oil shock exacerbated the underlying inflationary wave that continued throughout the decade. The Iranian revolution triggered another oil shock in 1979, bringing the rise in general prices to their peak in the early 1980s, at which point policymakers intervened decisively. Chart 5Arab Oil Embargo And Iranian Revolution There is an analogy with today’s global policy mix. Fear of the Great Recession and deflation rules within policymaking circles, albeit less so among the general public. The Fed and the European Central Bank have adjusted their strategies to pursue an average inflation target and “maximum employment.” Chart 6Wage-Price Spiral Today? The Biden administration is reviving big government with a framework agreement of around $1.2 trillion in new deficit spending on infrastructure, green energy, and social programs likely to pass Congress before year’s end. In short, the macro and policy backdrop are changing in a way that is reminiscent of the 1970s despite various structural differences between the two periods. It is too early to declare that a wage-price spiral has developed but core inflation is rising and investors are right to be concerned about the direction and potential for inflation surprises down the road (Chart 6). These trends would not be nearly as concerning if they were not occurring in the context of a shift in public opinion in favor of government versus markets, labor versus capital, onshoring versus offshoring, and protectionism versus free trade. Investors should note that the last policy sea change (in the opposite direction) lasted roughly 30-40 years. The global savings glut – shown here as the combined current account balances of the world’s major economies – has begun to decline, implying that a major deflationary force might be subsiding. Asian exporters apparently have substantial pricing power, as witnessed by rising export prices, although they have yet to break above the secular downtrend of the post-2008 period (Chart 7). Chart 7Hypo-Globalization Is Inflationary A commodity price surge is also underway, of course, though it is so far manageable. The US and EU economies are less energy-intensive than in the 1970s and there is considerable buffer between today’s high prices and an economic recession (Chart 8). Chart 8Wage-Price Spiral Today? The problem is that there is a diminishing margin of safety. Furthermore, a crisis in the Middle East is not far-fetched, as there is a concrete and distinct reason for worrying about one: the US’s unresolved collision course with Iran. A crisis in the Persian Gulf would greatly exacerbate today’s energy shortages. Iran: The Risk Of An Oil Shock Iran now says it will rejoin diplomatic talks over its nuclear program in late November. This development was expected, and is important, but it masks the urgent and dangerous trajectory of events that could blow up any day now. It is emphatically not an “all clear” sign for geopolitical risk in the Persian Gulf. The US is hinting, merely hinting, that it is willing to use military force to prevent Iran from going nuclear. The Iranians doubt US appetite for war and have every reason to think that nuclear status will guarantee them regime survival. Thus the Iranians are incentivized to use diplomacy as a screen while pursuing nuclear weaponization – unless the US and Israel make a convincing display of military strength to force Iran back to genuine diplomacy. A convincing display is hard to do. A secret war is taking place, of sabotage and cyber-attacks. On October 26 a cyber-attack disrupted Iranian gas stations. But even attacks on nuclear scientists and facilities have not dissuaded the Iranians from making progress on their nuclear program yet. Iran does not want to be attacked but it knows that a ground invasion is virtually impossible and air strikes alone have a poor record of winning wars. The Iranians have achieved 60% highly enriched uranium and are expected to achieve nuclear breakout capacity – the ability to make a nuclear device – sometime between now and December (Table 1). The IAEA no longer has any visibility in Iran. The regime’s verified production of uranium metal can only be used for the construction of a warhead. Recent technical progress may be irreversible, according to the Institute for Science and International Security.1 If that is true then the upcoming round of diplomatic negotiations is already doomed. Table 1Iran’s Compliance With Nuclear Deal And Time Until Breakout (Oct 2021) American policymakers seem overconfident in the face of this clear nuclear proliferation risk. This is strange given that North Korea successfully manipulated them over the past three decades and now has an arsenal of 40-50 nuclear weapons. The consensus goes as follows: Regime instability: Americans emphasize that the Iranian regime is unstable, lacks genuine support, and faces a large and restive youth population. This is all true. Indeed Iran is one of the most likely candidates for major regime instability in the wake of the COVID-19 shock. Chart 9AIran's Economy Sees Inflation Spike ... Chart 9B... Yet Some Green Shoots Are Rising However, popular protest has not had any effect on the regime over the past 12 years. Today the economy is improving and illicit oil revenues are rising (Chart 9). A new nationalist government is in charge that has far greater support than the discredited reformist faction that failed on both the economic and foreign policy fronts (Chart 10). The sophisticated idea that achieving nuclear breakout will somehow weaken the regime is wishful thinking. If it provokes US and/or Israeli air strikes, it will most likely see the people rally around the flag and convince the next generation to adopt the revolutionary cause.2 If it does not provoke a war, then the regime’s strategic wisdom will be confirmed. American military and economic superiority: Americans tend to think that Iran will back down in the face of the US’s and Israel’s overwhelming military and economic superiority. It is true that a massive show of force – combined with the sale of specialized weaponry to Israel to enable a successful strike against extremely hardened nuclear facilities – could force Iran to pause its nuclear quest and go back to negotiations. Yet the US’s awesome display of military power in both Iraq and Afghanistan ended in ignominy and have not deterred Iran, just next door, after 20 years. Nor have American economic sanctions, including “maximum pressure” sanctions since 2019. The US is starkly divided, very few people view Iran as a major threat, and there is an aversion to wars in the Middle East (Chart 11). The Iranians could be forgiven for doubting that the US has the appetite to enforce its demands. In short the US is attempting to turn its strategic focus to China and Asia Pacific, which creates a power vacuum in the Middle East that Iran may attempt to fill. Meanwhile global supply and demand balances for energy are tight, with shortages popping up around the world, giving Iran greater leverage. From an investment point of view, a crisis is likely in the near term regardless of what happens afterwards. A crisis is necessary to force the US and Iran to return to a durable nuclear deal like in 2015. Otherwise Iran will reach nuclear breakout and an even bigger crisis will erupt, potentially forcing the US and Israel (or Israel alone) to take military action. Diplomatic efforts will need to have some quick and substantial victories in the coming months to convince us that the countries have moved off their collision course. A conflict with Iran will not necessarily go to the extreme of Iran shutting down the Strait of Hormuz and cutting off 21% of the world’s oil and 26% of liquefied natural gas (Chart 12). If that happens a global recession is unavoidable. It would more likely involve lesser conflicts, at least initially, such as “Tanker War 2.0” in the Persian Gulf.3 Or it could involve a flare-up of the ongoing proxy war by missile and drone strikes, such as with the Abqaiq attack in 2019 that knocked 5.7 million barrels per day offline overnight. The impact on oil markets will depend on the nature and magnitude of the event. What are the odds of a military conflict? In past reports we have demonstrated that there is a 40% chance of conflict with Iran. The country’s nuclear program is at a critical juncture. The longer the world goes without a diplomatic track to defuse tensions, the more investors should brace for negative surprises. Bottom Line: There is a clear and present danger of a geopolitical oil shock. The implication is that oil and LNG prices could spike in the coming zero-to-12 months. The implication would be a dramatic “up then down” movement in global energy prices. Inflation expectations should benefit from simmering tensions but a full-blown war would cause an extreme price spike and global recession. China: The Return Of The Authoritative Person Another reason that today’s inflation risk could last longer than expected is that China’s government is likely to backpedal from overtightening monetary, fiscal, and regulatory policy. If this is true then China will secure its economic recovery, the global recovery will continue, commodity prices will stay elevated, and the inflation expectations and bond yields will recover. If it is not true then investors will start talking about disinflation and deflation again soon. We are not bullish on Chinese assets – far from it. We see China entering a property-induced debt-deflation crisis over the long run. But over the 2021-22 period we have argued that China would pull back from the brink of overtightening. Our GeoRisk Indicator for China highlights how policy risk remains elevated (see Appendix). So far our assessment appears largely accurate. The government has quietly intervened to prevent the troubled developer Evergrande from suffering a Lehman-style collapse. The long-delayed imposition of a nationwide property tax is once again being diluted into a few regional trial balloons. Alibaba founder Jack Ma, whom the government disappeared last year, has reappeared in public view, which implies that Beijing recognizes that its crackdown on Big Tech could cause long-term damage to innovation. At this critical juncture, a mysterious “authoritative” commentator has returned to the scene after five years of silence. Widely believed to be Vice Premier Liu He, a Politburo member and Xi Jinping confidante on economic affairs, the authoritative person argues in a recent editorial that China will stick with its current economic policies.4 However, the message was not entirely hawkish. Table 2 highlights the key arguments – China is not oblivious to the risk of a policy mistake. Table 2Messages From China’s ‘Authoritative Person’ On Economic Policy (2021) Readers will recall that a similar “authoritative Person” first appeared in the People’s Daily in May 2016. At that time, the Chinese government had just relented in the face of economic instability and stimulated the economy. It saw a 3.5% of GDP increase in fiscal spending and a 10.0% of GDP increase in the credit impulse from the trough in 2015 to the peak in 2016. The authoritative person was explaining that the intention to reform would persist despite the relapse into debt-fueled growth. So one must wonder today whether the authoritative person is emerging because Beijing is sticking to its guns (consensus view) or rather because it is gradually being forced to relax policy by the manifest risk of financial instability. To be fair, a recent announcement on government special purpose bonds does not indicate major fiscal easing. If local governments accelerate their issuance of new special purpose bonds to meet their quota for the year then they are still not dramatically increasing the fiscal support for the economy. But this announcement could protect against downside growth risks. The first quarter of 2022 will be the true test of whether China will remain hawkish. Going forward there are two significant dangers as we see it. The first is that policymakers prove ideological rather than pragmatic. An autocratic government could get so wrapped up in its populist campaign to restrain high housing costs that it refuses to slacken policies enough and causes a crash. The second danger is that inflation stays higher for longer, preventing authorities from easing policy even when they know they need to do so to stabilize growth. The second danger is the bigger of the two risks. As for the first risk, ideology will take a backseat to necessity. Xi Jinping needs to secure key promotions for his faction in the top positions of the Communist Party at the twentieth national party congress in 2022. He cannot be sure to succeed if the economy is in free fall. A self-induced crash would be a very peculiar way of trying to solidify one’s stature as leader for life at the critical hour. Similarly China cannot maintain a long-term great power competition with the United States if it deliberately triggers property deflation and financial turmoil. It can and will continue modernizing and upgrading its military, e.g. developing hypersonic missiles, even if it faces financial turmoil. But it will have a much greater chance of neutralizing US regional allies and creating a regional buffer space if its economic growth is stable. Ultimately China cannot prevent financial instability, economic distress, and political risk from rising in the coming years. There will be a reckoning for its vast imbalances, as with all countries. It could be that this reckoning will upset the Xi administration’s best-laid plans for 2022. But before that happens we expect policy to ease. A policy mistake today would mean that very negative economic outcomes will arrive precisely in time to affect sociopolitical stability ahead of the party congress next fall. We will keep betting against that. Bottom Line: China’s “authoritative” media commentator shows that policymakers are not as hawkish as the consensus holds. The main takeaway is that policymakers will adjust the intensity of their reform efforts to maintain stability. This is standard Chinese policymaking and it is more important than usual ahead of the political rotation in 2022. Otherwise global inflation risk will quickly give way to deflation risk as defaults among China’s property developers spread and morph into broader financial and economic instability. Indo-Pakistani Ceasefire: A Breakdown Is Nigh India and Pakistan agreed to a ceasefire along the line of control in February 2021. While the agreement has held up so far, a breakdown is probably around the corner. It was never likely to last for long. Over the short run, the ceasefire made sense for both countries: COVID-19 Risks: The first wave of the pandemic had abated but COVID-19-related risks loomed large. India had administered less than 15 million vaccine doses back then and Pakistan only 100,000. Dangerous Transitions Were Underway: With America’s withdrawal from Afghanistan in the works, Pakistan was fully focused on its western border. India was pre-occupied with its eastern front, where skirmishes with Chinese troops forced it to redirect some of its military focus. As we now head towards the end of 2021, these constraints are no longer binding. COVID-19 Risks Under Control: The vaccination campaign in India and Pakistan has gathered pace. More than 50% of India’s population and 30% of Pakistan’s have been given at least one dose. Pakistan’s Ducks Are Lined-up In Afghanistan: America’s withdrawal from Afghanistan has been completed. Afghanistan is under Taliban’s control and Pakistan has a better hold over the affairs of its western neighbor. One constraint remains: India and China remain embroiled in border disputes. Conciliatory talks between their military commanders broke down a fortnight ago. Winter makes it nearly impossible to undertake significant operations in the Himalayas but a failure of coordination today could set up a conflict either immediately or in the spring. While India may see greater value in maintaining the ceasefire than Pakistan, India has elections due in key northern states in 2022. India’s northern states harbor even less favorable views of Pakistan than the rest of India. Hence any small event could trigger a disproportionate response from India. Bottom Line: While it is impossible to predict the timing, a breakdown in the Indo-Pakistani ceasefire may materialize in 2022 or sooner. Depending on the exact nature of any conflict, a geopolitically induced selloff in Indian equities could create a much-needed consolidation of this year’s rally and ultimately a buying opportunity. Russia, Global Terrorism, And Great Power Relations Part of Putin’s strategy of rebuilding the Russian empire involves ensuring that Russia has a seat at the table for every major negotiation in Eurasia. Now that the US has withdrawn forces from Afghanistan, Russia is pursuing a greater role there. Most recently Russia hosted delegations from China, Pakistan, India, and the Taliban. India too is planning to host a national security advisor-level conference next month to discuss the Afghanistan situation. Do these conferences matter for global investors? Not directly. But regional developments can give insight into the strategies of the great powers in a world that is witnessing a secular rise in geopolitical risk. China, Russia, and India have skin in the game when it comes to Afghanistan’s future. This is because all three powers have much to lose if Afghanistan becomes a large-scale incubator for terrorists who can infiltrate Russia through Central Asia, China through Xinjiang, or India through Pakistan. Hence all three regional powers will be constrained to stay involved in the affairs of Afghanistan. Terrorism-related risks in South Asia have been capped over the last decade due to the American war (Chart 13). The US withdrawal will lead to the activation of latent terrorist activity. This poses risks specifically for India, which has a history of being targeted by Afghani terrorist groups. And yet, while China and Russia saw the Afghan vacuum coming and have been engaging with Taliban from the get-go, India only recently began engaging with Taliban. The evolution of Afghanistan under the Taliban will also influence the risk of terrorism for the rest of the world. In the wake of the global pandemic and recession, social misery and regime failures in areas with large youth populations will continue to combine with modern communications technology to create a revival of terrorist threats (Chart 14). American officials recently warned of the potential for transnational attacks based in Afghanistan to strike the homeland within six months. That risk may be exaggerated today but it is real over the long run, especially as US intelligence turns its strategic focus toward states and away from non-state actors. India, Europe, and other targets are probably even more vulnerable than the United States. If Russia and China succeed in shaping the new Afghanistan’s leadership then the focus of militant proxies will be directed elsewhere. Beyond terrorism, if Russia and China coordinate closely over Afghanistan then India may be left in the cold. This would reinforce recent trends in which a tightening Russo-Chinese partnership hastens India’s shift away from neutrality and toward favoring the US and the West in strategic matters. If these trends continue to the point of alliance formation, then they increase the risk that any conflicts between two powers will implicate others. Bottom Line: Afghanistan is now a regional barometer of multilateral cooperation on counterterrorism, the exclusivity of Russo-Chinese cooperation, and India’s strategic isolation or alignment with the West. Investment Takeaways It is too soon to play down inflation risks. We share the BCA House View that they will subside next year as pandemic effects wane. But we also see clear near-term risks to this view. In the short run (zero to 12 months), a distinct risk of a Middle Eastern geopolitical crisis looms. A gradual escalation of tensions is inflationary whereas a sharp spike in conflict would push energy prices into punitive territory and kill global demand. Over the next 12 months, China’s economic and financial instability will also elicit policy easing or fiscal stimulus as necessary to preserve stability, as highlighted by the regime’s mouthpiece. Obviously stimulus will not be utilized if the economic recovery is stable, given elevated producer prices. In a future report we will show that Russia is willing and able to manipulate natural gas prices to increase its bargaining leverage over Europe. This dynamic, combined with the risk of cold winter weather exacerbating shortages, suggests that the worst is not yet over. Geopolitical conflict with Russia will resume over the long run. Stay long gold as a hedge against both inflation and geopolitical crises involving Iran, Taiwan/China, and Russia. Maintain “value” plays as a cheap hedge against inflation. Book a profit of 2.5% on our short trade for currencies of emerging market “strongmen,” Turkey, Brazil, and the Philippines. Our view is still negative on these economies. Stay long cyber-security stocks. Over the long run, inflation risk must be monitored. We expect significant inflation risk to persist as a result of a generational change in global policy in favor of government and labor over business and capital. But the US is maintaining easy immigration policy and boosting productivity-enhancing investments. Meanwhile China’s secular slowdown is disinflationary. The dollar may remain resilient in the face of persistently high geopolitical risk. The jury is still out. Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Ritika Mankar, CFA Editor/Strategist ritika.mankar@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 David Albright and Sarah Burkhard, "Iran’s Recent, Irreversible Nuclear Advances," Institute for Science and International Security, September 22, 2021, isis-online.org. 2 Ray Takeyh, "The Bomb Will Backfire On Iran," Foreign Affairs, October 18, 2021, foreignaffairs.com. 3 See Aaron Stein and Afshon Ostovar, "Tanker War 2.0: Iranian Strategy In The Gulf," Foreign Policy Research Institute, August 10, 2021, fpri.org. 4 "Ten Questions About China’s Economy," Xinhua, October 24, 2021, news.cn. Section II: Appendix: GeoRisk Indicator China Russia United Kingdom Germany France Italy Canada Spain Taiwan Korea Turkey Brazil Australia South Africa Section III: Geopolitical Calendar
The Central Bank of Russia (CBR) is expected to raise its policy rate by another 50 bps at its Friday meeting, bringing the cumulative rates hikes since the beginning of the year to 250 bps. Given that headline and core consumer price inflation are both well…