ウクライナ

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

BCA Research is proud to announce a new feature to help clients get the most out of our research: an Executive Summary cover page on each of the BCA Research Reports. We created these summaries to help you quickly capture the main points of each report through an at-a-glance read of key insights, chart of the day, investment recommendations and a bottom line. For a deeper analysis, you may refer to the full BCA Research Report. Executive Summary Risk Premium In EU Gas Prices​​ Regardless of whether Russia invades all, part of or none of Ukraine again, its current standoff with the West will force the EU to reconfigure its gas markets to assure reliability of supplies, and remove geopolitical supply disruptions. We expect the EU's renewable energy taxonomy scheduled for release Wednesday will include natgas as a sustainable fuel, which will help build more diversified sources of supply and deeper spot and term markets.  Success here will increase market share of natgas in EU power generation. In the short run (1-2 years), neither the EU nor Russia can afford Gazprom's pipeline supplies to be significantly curtailed. Over the medium term (3-5 years), alternative supplies from US and Qatari LNG exports will be required to deepen EU gas-market liquidity and supply. Longer term (i.e., beyond 2025), EU energy markets will remain volatile as the renewable-energy transition progresses. High and volatile natgas prices will translate into persistent EU inflation – particularly food prices, because of higher fertilizer costs, and base metals' prices.  Shortages in these markets will slow the energy transition, and raise its price tag. Bottom Line: The Russian standoff with the West over Ukraine puts a higher risk premium in EU gas prices.  We remain long commodity-index exposure (S&P GSCI, and COMT ETF), and the XME ETF.  We are getting long the SPDR S&P Oil & Gas Exploration & Production ETF (XOP) at tonight's close. Feature We expect the EU's financial taxonomy for renewable energy scheduled for release Wednesday will include natgas as a sustainable fuel. This will help in building out more diversified sources of supply and deeper spot and term markets. Success here will increase the market share of natgas in the EU's power generation (Chart of the Week). This coincides with natural gas supply uncertainty, arising from geopolitical tensions. On the back of already-low inventory levels, European natural gas markets are forced to handicap the odds of a major curtailment of Russian pipeline gas supplies resulting from another invasion of Ukraine (Chart 2).  This is keeping a significantly increased risk premium embedded in natgas prices: Russian exports to the EU account for 40% of total gas supplies.  Germany is particularly exposed, as  ~65% of its gas comes from Russia (Chart 3). Chart of the WeekEU Natgas Generation Will Rise In Energy Transition BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy desk upgraded the odds of Russia invading Ukraine to 75% from 50% in its latest research report.1  Our colleagues, however, keep the probability of Russia invading all of Ukraine low.  Their analysis concludes Russia will only invade a part of Ukraine, so as to argue for lighter sanctions being imposed on it by the West, as opposed to having to incur the full wrath of US and EU sanctions.  The other 25% of the probability space includes a diplomatic settlement between the West and Russia. Chart 2Risk Premium In EU Gas Prices While Russia has been trying to diversify its customer base – by increasing natgas exports to China, e.g. – data from the BP Statistical Review of World Energy shows ~ 78% of total natural gas exports (pipeline + LNG) from Russia went to the EU in 2020.2  Chart 3EU Highly Dependent On Russian Gas In light of the fact that Russia likely will face watered-down sanctions, and the EU’s gargantuan share of total Russian exports, we do not believe Europe’s largest natural gas exporter will stop all supply to the EU now or in the near future. In case Russia does go through with its invasion, it likely will cut off natural gas supply to Ukraine, implying Europe will loose slightly more than 6% of total natgas imports as opposed to 40% in the event of a halt to all natgas exports to Europe (Chart 4).  Gas consumption of the EU-27 in 2021 was ~ 500 Bcm, according to the Oxford Institute For Energy Studies (OIES).  Some 85% of EU gas consumption was met by imports. Chart 4Imports Cover Most EU Gas Consumption Can The EU Mitigate The Loss Of Russian Gas? The EU and the US have entered discussions with other countries to plug the potential 6% reduction in imports from Russia.  While in theory, there is enough spare pipeline capacity to import natural gas from existing and new sources (Chart 5), practical limitations may prevent this from occurring.3 The US is working with the EU to ensure energy supply security in case Russia cuts off natural gas supply. However, as can be seen in Chart 6, Panel 1, the US currently is and likely will continue to export nearly at capacity until end-2023. Panel 2 shows global liquefaction also is nearly at capacity. Chart 5EU Gas Import Capacity Exists, But Filling It Will Be Problematic Chart 6US LNG Export Capacity Maxed Out While an increase in gas production at the earthquake-prone Groningen field in the Netherlands is theoretically viable, it will induce a public backlash, as was evidenced when the Dutch government announced plans to double output from the field earlier this year. In the short run, facing few sources of alternate gas supply, the EU will need to focus on curtailing demand. Fossil fuels will need to be considered as an alternative for electricity and heating, since nuclear is not used in all EU countries.  The depth of this crisis and the Dutch TTF price rise will be capped by the fact that we expect the EU to lose a relatively small fraction of total imports.  Further, while we expect Dutch TTF prices to be volatile and face upward pressure, any price increases also will be capped by the fact that the colder-than-expected Northern Hemisphere winter has not yet materialized, and the warmer Spring and Summer months will be approaching soon. Medium-, Long-Term EU Gas Supply On the supply side, over the medium- and long-term, the EU will need to deepen and stabilize its gas supply, so that firms and households can rationally forecast and allocate spending and investment.  This would include finding back-up or alternative supplies to Russian imports, which carry with them uncertain geopolitical risk.  If Brussels includes natural gas as a sustainable fuel in its energy taxonomy, over the medium term (3-5 years), alternative supplies from US and Qatari LNG exports will be required to deepen EU gas-market liquidity and supply.  Longer term (i.e., beyond 2025), EU energy markets will remain volatile as the renewable-energy transition progresses.  Natgas will be a critical component of this transition, until utility-scale battery storage is able to support renewable generation and grid stability.  We believe over the remainder of this decade, high and volatile natgas prices will translate into persistent EU inflation, as pricing pressures spill into oil and coal markets at the margin, as happened over the course of last year.  This will work in the other direction as well – e.g., higher coal prices will spill over into gas and oil markets as price pressures incentivize fuel switching at the margin. Food prices will be right in the inflationary cross-hairs, given the fertilizer required to produce the grains and beans consumed globally consists mostly of natgas in urea and ammonia fertilizers (Chart 7).  This will feed into higher food prices (Chart 8). Chart 7High Natgas Prices Will Show Up In High Fertilizer Prices Chart 8… And Higher Food Prices Base metals' prices also will be upwardly biased as natgas price volatility remains elevated.  Supply shortages in natgas markets will, at the margin, slow the energy transition by reducing reliable energy supplies in the EU, forcing states to compete for back-up and replacement supply in the global LNG markets.  Fuel-switching into oil, gas and coal will transmit EU gas volatility to markets globally. Tight energy and base metals markets also will feed directly into higher inflation and inflation expectations (Chart 9). Chart 9Higher Commodity Prices Will Pressure Inflation Higher   Investment Implications The standoff between the West and Russia over the latter's amassing of troops on the Ukraine border, plus the marked increase in the tempo of Russian naval operations, will keep the risk premium in EU natgas prices high.  This is not a sustainable equilibrium over the medium- to long-term.  We expect little if any curtailment of Russian natgas exports over the short term; however, prudence suggests EU member states will be forced to find back-up and alternative gas supplies over the medium- to longer-term, as the global renewable-energy transition gains traction. The knock-on effects from the current European geopolitical standoff are keeping EU natgas prices elevated via a higher risk premium to cover possible supply losses.  This will feed into other markets – particularly metals and ags – which will feed directly into inflation and inflation expectations. We remain long commodity index exposure – the S&P GSCI and the COMT ETF – and metals producers via the XME ETF.  At tonight's close, we will be getting long the SPDR S&P Oil & Gas Exploration & Production ETF (XOP).   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish OPEC 2.0's decision to stay with its policy of returning 400k b/d every month appeared to be a foregone conclusion in the markets.  In our January 2022 balances and price forecasts, we anticipated a larger increase, given the producer coalition led by Saudi Arabia and Russia has fallen significantly behind its goal of returning 400k b/d to the market monthly due to declining production among OPEC 2.0 member states ex-Gulf GCC member states, chiefly KSA, UAE and Kuwait (Iraq's exports fell in December and January; production data have not been released).  In the past, KSA has said it will not make up for production shortfalls of OPEC 2.0 member states, and would abide by its production allocation. The upside risk to prices remains, in our estimation, and we continue to expect KSA and its GCC allies to increase output if production from the price-taking cohort led by the US shale-oil producers fails to materialize in over the coming months.  Failure to cover production shortfalls among OPEC 2.0 member states would lift Brent prices by $6/bbl above our baseline forecast, which assumed higher production from the GCC states would be forthcoming at Wednesday's OPEC 2.0 meeting (Chart 10, brown curve). Base Metals: Bullish An environmental committee in Chile's Senate voted out a proposed bill that would, among other things, reportedly make it easier for the government to seize mines developed and operated by private companies.  The proposed legislation still has a long road ahead of it, but copper prices rallied earlier in the week as this news broke.  Even if the odds of the bill's passage are slim, a watered down version of the proposed legislation would markedly change the economic proposition of developing and maintaining copper mines in Chile (Chart 11).  We continue to follow this closely.   Chart 10 Chart 11     Footnotes 1     Please see All Bets Are Off ... Well, Some (A GeoRisk Update), published by BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy service 27 January 2022.  It is available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2     Please see bp's Statistical Review of World Energy 2021 | 70th edition. 3    Norway, the EU’s second largest gas exporter after Russia stated that its natural gas production is at the limit. Apart from the issue of production, current LNG flows will need to be redirected from Asia and the Americas. Defaulting on long-term contracts to redirect fuel to Europe could mire exporters’ relationships with importing countries. Finally,  infrastructure in the Eastern and Central section of the EU may not be equipped to receive supplies from the West, thus increasing costs and time associated with putting these systems in place.    Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Trades Closed in 2021

BCA Research is proud to announce a new feature to help clients get the most out of our research: an Executive Summary cover page on each of the BCA Research Reports. We created these summaries to help you quickly capture the main points of each report through an at-a-glance read of key insights, chart of the day, investment recommendations and a bottom line. For a deeper analysis, you may refer to the full BCA Research Report. Executive Summary The tensions between Russia and the West over Ukraine are boiling over, as the risk of a conflict escalates. Following Washington’s written response to Moscow’s demands, BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy team now assigns a 75% probability to a Russian invasion of its neighbor. Matt Gertken, the team’s Chief Strategist, sees only a 10% chance that Russia will aim to conquer the whole of Ukraine. European markets are vulnerable to a Russian retaliation, and so we recommend hedging exposure to Europe and cyclical assets until the situation clears up. The euro remains at risk as long as tensions fester. Who Is Most Vulnerable To A Russian Energy Embargo? Bottom Line: Buy hedges such as short EUR/JPY and short EUR/CHF to protect portfolios against the risk of a conflict in Ukraine. The euro has more downside from here. Feature Handicapping The Risk Of War On Wednesday, after weeks of tense discussions, the US sent back its formal written response to Russia’s demands. Upon analysis of the situation, our geopolitical team concluded that the Biden administration offered no significant concessions. The US will not stop providing weapons to Ukraine, which, from Russia’s perspective, implies that its largest occidental neighbor could become “Russia’s Taiwan, i.e. a foreign-backed military enemy on its door step.”  Matt Gertken, BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy team’s Chief Strategist, believes that the probability of a diplomatic solution has fallen to 25%, despite the joint statement made by Russia, Ukraine, France, and Germany on January 26, which reaffirms the ceasefire in the Donbass region of Ukraine. Any minor violation of the ceasefire’s terms by Ukraine will create an excuse for a Russian invasion. The nature of the eventual conflict will be crucial to the economic and market outlook for Europe. Matt argues that Europeans are hamstrung by their large dependence on Russian energy. Even switching to US LNG in case of a crisis this winter will not fill the full gap and cause major economic distress in Europe. As a result, European governments will try to avoid a war in order to limit sanctions so that Russia does not cut energy supply further. However, Europeans are also allied with the US, which will push for sanctions and which is not as afraid of the consequences of a conflict. Faced with this dichotomy, Matt argues that the most likely outcome is that Russia will ultimately concentrate on the Eastern Ukraine. He observes that “Russia, if waging war, will prefer to receive revenues from Europe, as long as Europe is still buying. Thus, Russia will keep its military aims limited so that Germany and other countries have a basis for watering down sanctions to keep the energy flowing and avoid a recession.” In terms of the breakdown of probabilities, he sees a 65% probability of a short conflict whereby the battle is to control Eastern Ukraine, a 10% probability of a Russian effort to conquer the entire country, and a 25% probability of a diplomatic solution. According to Matt, it is too soon to buy the dip. Even if the situation on the ground matches our base case scenario of a limited conflict, Russia will employ a shock-and-awe strategy, creating the first major conflict on European soil since World War II. This will surprise investors and cause a knee-jerk spike in European energy prices. It will produce downside in the euro and in the relative performance of European equities, especially as it could take a few weeks before it becomes clear whether Russian troops will permanently cross the Dnieper. Bottom Line: European markets should brace for some volatility caused by Ukrainian events in the coming weeks. BCA’s geopolitical strategy team assigns only a 25% probability to a diplomatic resolution to the current tensions, a 65% probability to a limited Russian incursion in Ukraine, and a 10% chance of a war for the entire Ukrainian nation. Economic Risks Chart 1A Large Energy Shock For A Recession The economic implications of our base case scenario – a limited conflict – are restricted. As we showed three months ago, energy consumption only represents roughly 2% of European GDP. It would require a durable shock associated with a drawn-out conflict – the 10% probability scenario – to push up this ratio to the levels reached before the GFC, when energy prices were squeezing Europe (Chart 1). Nonetheless, markets will price in this probability as the conflict starts. Thus, understanding which economy is more vulnerable will help assess the risks to the market. The first metric to gauge vulnerability is the role of fossil fuels in the energy mix of European countries. In the event that a conflict causes an increase in energy prices, countries that rely more heavily on fossil fuel will experience a greater shock. On this front, pre-pandemic data from Eurostat shows that the Netherlands, Ireland, Poland, Greece, and Germany are the most exposed nations (Chart 2). By contrast, Sweden, Finland, France, and Denmark are the least exposed as a result of the role of nuclear or wind power generation in these countries. Chart 2Who depends Most On Fossil Fuel? Another metric is the share of a nation’s energy needs fulfilled by imports (Chart 3). On this score, Belgium, Italy, Spain, Greece, and Portugal are the most vulnerable nations, whereas Sweden, the UK, Denmark, and Czechia are the least at risk. Chart 3Who Depends Most On Imported Energy? We can also concentrate on the impact of the risk of a Russian embargo on energy shipments to Western Europe. Chart 4 shows that, when it comes to crude oil, Finland, Poland, Hungary, and, to a lesser extent, Czechia are most vulnerable, whereas Austria, Spain, and Ireland are the least at risk. With respect to natural gas, which is crucial to electricity generation, Czechia, Finland, and Hungary are the three most vulnerable countries, whereas Sweden, Austria, Ireland, and Denmark are not (Chart 5). Chart 4Who Depends Most On Russian Oil? Chart 5Who Depends Most On Russian Natural Gas? We may also combine all these measures and approximate the share of the total energy needs of European countries fulfilled by Russia. Our Vulnerability Index shows that the most exposed nation is by far Hungary, followed by Poland, Germany, Czechia, and Italy (Chart 6). This ranking helps explain why the German government’s support for Ukraine remains somewhat tepid, and why Italian businessmen still held a video call with Russian president Vladimir Putin as recently as last Wednesday. Chart 6Who Is Most Vulnerable To A Russian Energy Embargo? Bottom Line: Hungary, Poland, Germany, Czechia, and Italy are the European nations most exposed to an energy crisis in the event of a drawn-out, all-out war in Ukraine, whereas Austria, Sweden, Denmark, Ireland, and the UK are the least exposed. This scenario carries only a 10% probability, but understanding its impact is important, since investors will have to adjust their expectations once a conflict begins in the Ukraine. The ECB Response The ECB response to a Ukrainian conflict will depend on the nature of the war. In our base case scenario involving a limited assault focused on Eastern Ukraine, the ECB will look at any energy shock and its impact on inflation as temporary. European wage gains remain limited (Chart 7), and the Governing Council will assume that any spike in energy prices will not last long enough to dislodge European inflation expectations. This picture will be very different if Russia tries to conquer Western Ukraine as well. While the potential energy embargo will most likely cause a European recession, it will also risk pushing up inflation expectations permanently. Because expectations are already close to the ECB’s objective (Chart 8), the ECB will respond by tightening policy, which many members of the GC will want. This action is likely to accentuate any recessionary pressures in Europe. Again, we cannot stress enough that this constitutes a tail risk and is not our base case scenario. Chart 7European Wage Growth Remains Tame Chart 8Inflation Expectations Could Become Unmoored Market Implications The Euro Three weeks ago, we wrote that the euro was not ready to bottom because the risks associated with a slowing Chinese economy, the continued economic impact of Omicron, and the volatility of the natural gas market were still too considerable. Chart 9Another Wave Of Euro Selling This is even more true after last week’s Fed press conference, when FOMC Chair Jerome Powell did not contest the aggressive market pricing in the OIS curve. As a result, the window remains open in the near-term for interest rate differentials to move in a euro-bearish fashion (Chart 9). Ukraine adds another near-term threat to the euro. First, the run-up to an invasion, whether total or partial, will create a risk-off wave in global markets. Geopolitically driven sell-offs are most often associated with a rise in the counter-cyclical dollar, which is euro-bearish. The Swiss franc too would benefit against the euro. Moreover, Europe is much more exposed than the US to the economic consequences of a Ukrainian crisis. Obviously, our base case scenario implies a shorter and shallower sell-off than what would happen if Russia tried to conquer the whole of Ukraine. Nonetheless, a move below EUR/USD 1.10 now carries a greater than 40% probability. Bunds In our base case scenario of a limited Russian incursion in Ukraine, we should see a temporary dip in German yields driven by risk aversion. However, larger economic forces continue to point toward higher yields around the world, including in Germany. In our tail risk scenario, the German yield curve is likely to invert. ECB rate hikes will not be enough to push up 10-year yields, as markets will reflect that these increases will be temporary because of the associated recession. Instead, German 10-year yields will regress toward their 2021 lows of -0.55%. Equities Chart 10European Stocks Are Now Cheap Since mid-December, European equities have been outperforming US equities on the back of rising yields. We expect European shares to continue to outperform US stocks over the remainder of the year. As we wrote two weeks ago, European stocks possess a more generous valuation cushion against higher yields than their US counterparts, especially now that forward multiples have fallen back to 15.4, their lowest levels since May 2020 (Chart 10). Moreover, the greater cyclicality of European stocks means that they will benefit from an eventual stabilization of the Chinese economy by the latter half of 2022. They also stand to gain from a gradual normalization of the terminal rate proxy over the coming years, which often coincides with an outperformance of value stocks over growth names. Despite this positive outlook, the Ukrainian crisis poses a considerable near-term risk, even in the base case scenario of a limited Russian military aim. The wave of risk aversion will hurt the euro, which arithmetically will weigh on the relative performance of European stocks in common currency terms. Moreover, the more pro-cyclical profile of European stocks will accentuate their vulnerability in a geopolitical crisis. However, the temporary nature of the risk-off wave means that the woes suffered by Europe will also be transitory. Under the tail risk scenario, European equities will not be capable of outperforming those of the US for many months because of the high recession risk that will engulf the region. High energy prices will destroy the profit margins of European companies, which will already suffer from a hit to their top line-growth. US equities will suffer too, but significantly less so. Chart 11European Cyclicals Are Exposed To A Crisis In Ukraine Sector wise, a Ukrainian crisis will also short circuit the outperformance of European cyclicals over defensive equities. For now, European cyclicals have managed to generate alpha, despite the market correction (Chart 11), but the risk of a recession will affect this trend. Under our base case scenario, the underperformance will be short-lived, even if it proves severe; however, under the tail risk scenario, the cyclicals-to-defensives ratio will plunge toward the bottom of its historical range. Within defensive sectors, utilities will likely underperform, especially if the tail risk scenario comes to fruition. European governments will not allow utilities to pass on the full increase in natural gas prices to consumers, which will create a major compression in utilities’ profit margins. For cyclical names, consumer discretionary will bear the brunt of any sell-off. They are relatively pricey and the combination of the potential shock to household disposable income and rising risk aversion will prove to be lethal. The sales and profit margins of industrials will be under stress. However, this shock will be transitory if the Ukrainian crisis remains contained in our base-case scenario. Chart 12The Russian Exposure Of European Banks Financials carry their own risk in the context of a drawn-out Ukrainian crisis. European banks have exposure to Russia equal to $106 billion, concentrated in France and Switzerland (Chart 12). In and of itself, this is small. However, if European nations impose large enough sanctions on Russia, not only will that country cut its energy shipments to Western Europe, but Russian firms will also likely default on their foreign obligations, emboldened by Russia’s robust FX reserves and balance of payments. In the context of a recession wherein the ECB also hikes rates, these defaults will add considerable stress to the European banking sector. Thus, under our tail risk scenario, financials could perform particularly poorly. In terms of the implications for countries, Germany is the most exposed of all the major European markets to a Ukrainian crisis because of its high energy dependence on Russia and fossil fuels. The recent underperformance of German equities when we correct for sectoral bias probably already reflects the recent rise in electricity costs in the country, which hurt German firms versus their European competitors (Chart 13). While we like the fundamentals of European small-cap stocks, we have remained on the sidelines because of the strong correlation between their relative performance and the trade-weighted euro (Chart 14). The risks surrounding Ukraine and their implications for both the euro and the European economy suggest it is still too dangerous to pull the trigger and overweight small-cap in Europe. However, if our base case scenario of a limited conflict comes true, then this will create the perfect opportunity to move into the European small-cap space. Chart 13German Suffers A Nat Gas Discount Chart 14Small-Caps Need A Euro Bottom Investment Implications Considering the probability distribution laid out by BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy team, whose base case scenario is a limited Russian incursion into Ukraine, we do not expect NATO countries to impose sanctions severe enough to force Russia to cut Western Europe’s energy supply. Nonetheless, the prospect of the most significant military conflict on European soil since World War II will have a significant impact on European asset prices, even if this effect is transitory. As a result, we still maintain our preference for cyclical equities in Europe and still expect European equities to outperform US stocks over the course of 2022. We also continue to anticipate that European stocks will outperform Bunds in 2022. Nonetheless, ahead of the conflict, we recommend investors buy some hedges, such as short EUR/CHF and EUR/JPY to protect against downside risk. Rapidly after the conflict begins, an opportunity to close those hedges will emerge. With respect to the euro, the combined stress from a hawkish Fed and Ukrainian risks means we will stay on the sidelines after having been stopped out of our long EUR/USD trade. If our base case of a limited conflict does come to fruition and Russia instead initiates a full invasion of Ukraine, we will shift our portfolio to a fully defensive stance. The euro could re-test parity or even drop below it.   Mathieu Savary, Chief European Strategist Mathieu@bcaresearch.com Tactical Recommendations Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Trades Currency Performance Fixed Income Performance Equity Performance

HighlightsUpgrade odds of Russia invading Ukraine from 50% to 75%. The US and allies are transferring arms to Ukraine while seeking alternate energy supply for Europe.Of the 75% war risk, we give 10% odds to Russia conquering all of Ukraine, as discussed in our “Five Black Swans For 2022.” Russia’s limited war aims worked in 2014 and President Putin tends to take calculated military risks. Full-scale invasion would force the West to unify.The remaining 25% goes to diplomatic resolution. It appears that the US is not offering Russia sufficient security guarantees. Ukrainian leaders do not have a domestic mandate to surrender and have not done so for eight years. Russia cannot accept the  status quo now that it has made armed demands for big change.Our third key view for 2022 – that oil producing states have geopolitical leverage – is vividly on display.Tactically stay defensive. But cyclically stay invested. Book 10% gain on long DM Europe / short EM Europe. Book a 8.6% gain on long CAD-RUB.FeatureUkraine’s economy is small but investors rightly worry that an expansion of the still simmering 2014 war there will cause Europe’s energy supply to tighten, pushing up prices and dragging on European demand. Russia would cut off natural gas to Ukraine, which would cut off 6.6% of Europe’s natural gas imports, 18% of Germany’s, 77% of Hungary’s, and 38% of Italy’s (Chart 1). Chart 1Ukraine Hinges On Germany If Europe retaliates against Russia with crippling sanctions, Russia and Belarus could conceivably cut off another 20% of Europe’s imports and 60% of Germany’s imports. The Czech Republic, Finland, and Hungary get almost 100% of their natural gas from Ukraine and Russia, while Finland, Poland, and Hungary get more than half of their oil from Russia. In other words, Europe will try to avoid war and try to limit sanctions so that Russia does not further reduce supply.Yet Russia, if waging war, will prefer to receive revenues from Europe, as long as Europe is still buying. Thus Russia will keep its military aims limited so that Germany and other countries have a basis for watering down sanctions to keep the energy flowing and avoid a recession. The US has already committed to sweeping sanctions against Russia and is much more likely to follow through (though President Biden also wants to avoid an energy shock ahead of midterm elections).Energy consumption amounts to only 2% of European GDP, though it could rise to 5% in the event of a shock, as our European Investment Strategist Mathieu Savary has shown. This number would not be far from the 7% reached in 2008, which coincided with financial crisis and recession. All of Europe will suffer from high prices, not only those that import via Ukraine, and Europe’s supply squeeze would push up global prices as well. So the risk of a recession in Europe will rise if the energy squeeze worsens, even if a recession is ultimately avoided.Whatever Russia ends up doing with its military, it may start off with shock and awe. Europe might see its first major war since World War II. Global investors will react very negatively, at least until they can be assured that the conflict will remain contained in Ukraine. According to our market-based quantitative indicators of Russian geopolitical risk, there is still complacency – the ruble has not fallen as far as one would expect based on key macro variables (Chart 2). Chart 2Russia Geopolitical Risk: Two Quantitative Indicators  Chart 3Russian Market Reaction Amid Ukraine Crisis Investors will sell European – especially eastern European – equities and currencies even more rapidly if a war breaks out (Chart 3). It is too soon to buy the dip. What is needed is a Russian decision and then clarity on the scope of the western reaction. Even then, developed Europe and non-European emerging markets will be more attractive.Looking at global equities: How did the market respond to previous Russian invasions?Few conclusions can be drawn from Russia’s invasion of Georgia in 2008, given Georgia’s lack of systemic importance and the simultaneous global financial crisis (Chart 4). Stocks underperformed bonds and cyclicals underperformed defensives, but value caught a bid relative to growth.Russia’s initial invasion of Ukraine in 2014 occurred in a different macroeconomic context but saw stocks flat relative to bonds, cyclicals fall relative to defensives (except energy stocks), and small caps roll over relative to large caps (Chart 5). Value stocks, however, outperformed growth stocks. Chart 4Market Reaction To Russian Invasion Of Georgia​​​​​  Chart 5Market Reaction To Russian Invasion Of Crimea​​​​​  Chart 6Ukraine Crisis And Energy: 2022 Versus 2014 However, in today’s context, these cyclical trends are looking stretched, so a temporary pullback from these trends should be expected. Value stocks, especially energy stocks, have skyrocketed relative to growth and defensives and are likely to pull back in a global risk-off move (Chart 6). Tactically we recommend American over European assets, defensives over cyclicals, large caps over small caps, and safe-haven assets like gold and the Japanese yen.Washington Offers “No Change” To MoscowWhy is a diplomatic solution less likely than before?The US offered no concessions to Russia in its formal written response to Russia’s demands on January 26. “No change, and there will be no change” in longstanding policies, according to Secretary of State Antony Blinken.1 The relevant policies are not about NATO membership – Ukraine is never going to join NATO – but rather about the US and NATO making Ukraine a de facto member by providing arms and defense cooperation. Russia obviously sees a US-armed Ukraine as a threat to its national security.One of the few realistic demands of Russia’s – that the US and NATO stop providing arms – has been flung back in Russia’s face. Blinken pointed out in his press conference that the US has given more defense aid to Ukraine in the past year than in any previous year. He said the US will continue to provide arms while pursuing diplomacy, including five MI-17 helicopters on the way. He also noted that the US has authorized allies to transfer American-origin arms to Ukraine.2The importance of the defense cooperation is not the quality of the arms being transferred (so far) but the long-term potential for the US to turn Ukraine into Russia’s Taiwan, i.e. a foreign-backed military enemy on its doorstep. The costs of inaction today could be checkmate from Russia’s long-term strategic point of view. Russia has warned for 14 years that it saw Ukraine as a red line and yet the US and NATO have increased defense cooperation. It is a moot point whether the US provides arms because it does not empathize with Russia’s security interests or because it believes Russia will attack Ukraine regardless.A diplomatic solution could still come from the US, if more information comes to light, or from Ukraine itself, under French and German pressure. Ukraine could make promises to respect Russia’s national security interests and implement the Minsk Protocols it was forced into after Russia seized Crimea in 2014.3If Ukraine surrenders, Russia can claim victory and reduce the threat of war, at least temporarily. But it would not eliminate the long-term risk of war since Ukraine’s government may not be willing or able to implement any such agreement. Ukraine views the Minsk agreement as a Russian imposition and it has rejected key parts of it (such as federalization and granting rights and privileges to Russian separatists in Donbass) for eight years already.4The joint statement from Russia, Ukraine, France, and Germany on January 26 reaffirms the ceasefire in the Donbass.5 It is unlikely that Russia can walk away with this ceasefire alone, having made fundamental demands regarding Russia’s long-term security and the European order. It is more likely that any Ukrainian violation of the ceasefire will now offer a pretext for Russia to respond with military force.Russia’s military advantage is immediate whereas diplomatic attempts by Ukraine to buy time could help it stage a more formidable defense against Russia in future, given ongoing US and NATO defense cooperation. This is why the continuation of arms transfers is the signal. Russia is incentivized to take action sooner rather than later now that the western willingness and urgency to provide arms has increased.Putin has succeeded with his “small war” and “hybrid war” strategy thus far. Russian forex and gold reserves at $630 billion (38% of GDP), gradual diversification away from the dollar (16% of forex reserves), low short-term external debt (5% of GDP), an alternative bank communication system, a special economic relationship with China, a Eurasian Economic Union that can help circumvent sanctions, all provide Russia with some buffer against US sanctions.GeoRisk Indicators: Europe Chart 7European GeoRisk Indicator Amid Ukraine Crisis In our Q3 2021 outlook, we argued that European political risk had bottomed due to Russia. Our geopolitical risk indicators show that financial markets tend to price European political risks in line with the USD-EUR exchange rate. The dollar rallied in 2021 and has since fallen back but a war and energy squeeze in Europe should help the dollar stay resilient, as should Federal Reserve rate hikes (Chart 7).If Russia attacks, the Ukrainians will fall back and then mount an insurgency. This will make the war more difficult than its planners initially believe. It will also raise the risk that war will spill over. Neighbors that provide economic aid – not to mention military aid – will eventually make themselves vulnerable to Russian attack, either to destroy commerce or cut insurgency supply lines.NATO will fortify its borders with troops but then tensions will grow on those borders, reducing security and raising uncertainty in the Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic. Ukraine could become a war zone like Libya or Syria except that this time the US and Russia would truly be fighting a proxy war against each other.Other European Risks Pale In ComparisonWe will monitor the French election in case the Ukraine conflict causes dynamics to shift against President Emmanuel Macron. Most likely Macron’s diplomatic flourishes, combined with France’s insulation from Russia and Ukraine, will benefit him at the ballot box.In the UK, Prime Minister Boris Johnson faces a leadership challenge. He will probably survive but the Conservative Party faces a serious challenge over the coming years. Labour’s comeback will build ahead of the next election, given that the pandemic has dealt a powerful blow against the Tories, who have been in power since 2010 and are therefore becoming stale. Labour has gotten over the Jeremy Corbyn problem.What matters is whether the UK rejoins the EU, whether Scotland leaves the UK, and whether the next government has a strong majority with which to lead. So far there have not been major changes on these issues:The Tories still have a 75-seat majority through 2024.Support for Scottish independence is stuck at 45% where it has been since 2014.Polling is still evenly divided on Brexit. Labour taking power is a prerequisite to any reunion with the EU, Labour does not want to campaign on re-opening the Brexit issue. While Labour will want to run against inflation, and win back the middle class, rather than for the EU.Thus political risk will be flat, not returning to Brexit highs anytime soon, which is marginally good news for pound sterling over a cyclical horizon (Chart 8). Chart 8UK GeoRisk Indicator And Boris Johnson's Troubles India Enters Populist Phase Of Election Cycle2022 will mark the beginning of India’s election season in full earnest, even though general elections are not due until 2024. This is because within the five-year election cycle spanning from 2019-2024, this year will see elections in some of India’s largest states (Chart 9).More importantly 2022 will see elections take place in most of India’s northern region (Chart 10), which is a key constituency for the ruling Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP). Chart 9India: Major State Elections This Year​​​​​  Chart 10North India In Focus With State Elections​​​​​ Of all the state elections due this year, the most critical will be those in Uttar Pradesh, where voting will begin on February 10, 2022. Final results will be declared a month later on March 10, 2022.Uttar Pradesh Will Disappoint BJPAt the last state elections held in Uttar Pradesh in 2017, BJP stormed into power with one of the strongest mandates ever seen in this sprawling and heterogenous state. The BJP boosted its seat share to an extraordinary 77%, leaving competitors far behind (Chart 11). Chart 11Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) Stormed Into Power In Uttar Pradesh (UP) In 2017 Cut to 2022, the BJP appears likely to cross the 50% majority threshold but will cede seat share to a regional party called the Samajwadi Party (SP).What will drive this reduction in seats? The reduction will be driven by a degree of anti-incumbency sentiment and some adverse socio-political arithmetic. In a state where voting is still driven to a large extent by identity politics, it is worth recalling that the BJP was able to win the 2017 elections by pulling votes from three distinct communities:BJP’s core constituency of upper caste Hindus.A subset of Other Backward Classes (OBCs).A subset of a community belonging historically to one of the lowest social levels in India called Dalits.This winning formula of 2017 may not work in 2022 as the BJP faces resentment from parts of each of these three communities as well as from farmers (who were against farm law reforms that the BJP tried to pass).There is a chance that these groups may flock to the regional Samajwadi Party in 2022. The latter is in a position of strength as it is expected to retain support from its core constituency of Muslims and upper-caste OBCs too.Yet the risk is to the downside for the ruling party. Modi and the BJP have suffered a hit to their popular support from the global pandemic and recession, like other world leaders.Reading The Tea Leaves For 2024The pro-Modi wave that began in 2014, and gained steam in Uttar Pradesh in 2017, became a tsunami by 2019, causing the BJP to win a decisive 56% of seats in the national assembly. So, if the BJP loses seats in Uttar Pradesh this year, what will be the implications for the general elections of 2024?In a base case scenario, the Modi-led BJP appears set to emerge as the single largest party in the 2024 elections (albeit with a lower seat share than the 62 of 80 seats that the BJP managed in 2019). As the BJP administration ages, it is expected to lose a degree of seat share in its core constituency of north India. But these losses should be partially offset by gains in regions like east India where the BJP continues to make inroads. Also, national parties tend to attract higher vote share at general elections as compared to state elections, and this is true for the BJP. Most likely the pandemic will have fallen away by 2024 and the economy will be expanding.However, a lot can change in two years, and a major disappointment at Uttar Pradesh would sound alarm bells. By 2024, the BJP will have been in power for ten years. So it is not a foregone conclusion that the BJP will win a single-party majority for a third time, even if it does remain the biggest party.Regional parties like the Samajwadi Party (from Uttar Pradesh), Trinamool Congress (from West Bengal), Shiv Sena (from Maharashtra) and Aam Aadmi Party (from New Delhi) are small but rising and may incrementally eat into the BJP’s national seat share.Policy Implications For 2022 Chart 12India’s Fiscal Report Card May Worsen With Populism India’s central government will unveil its budget for FY23 on Feb 1, 2022 in the Indian parliament. We expect the government to announce a fiscal deficit of 6.6% of GDP which will be marginally lower than the FY22 target of 6.8% of GDP. However, with key elections around the corner, we allocate a high probability to the government announcing a big-bang pro-farmer or pro-poor scheme from this pulpit. This high focus on populism and inadequate focus on capital expenditure could lead markets to question India’s fiscal well-being at a time when its debt levels are high (Chart 12).Distinct from policy risks in the short run, geopolitical risks confronting India are elevated too. India’s relationship with China continues to fester. Sino-Indian frictions could easily take a turn for the worst in 2022 as India enters the business end of its five-year election cycle on one hand and China’s all-important 20th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party (NCCCP) is due in the fall of 2022. China could take advantage of US distraction in Ukraine to flex its muscles in Asia. A geopolitical showdown with China would likely only cause a temporary drop in Indian equities, but taken with other factors, now is not the time to buy.Bottom Line: We remain positive on India on a strategic horizon. However, in view of India approaching the business-end of its five-year election cycle, when policy risks tend to become elevated, we reiterate our tactical sell on India.GeoRisk Indicators: Rest Of WorldNeutral China: China’s performance relative to emerging markets may be starting to bottom but we do not recommend buying it. Domestic political risk is still rising according to our indicator and we expect it to keep rising (Chart 13). Negative political surprises will occur in the lead up to the twentieth national party congress and the March 2023 implementation of the “Common Prosperity” plan. Any Russian conflict will distract the US and enable General Secretary Xi Jinping to cement his second ten-year term in office – and China’s reversion to autocracy – with minimal foreign opposition. The US’s conflict with China is one reason Russia believes it has a window of opportunity. Chart 13CHINA GEORISK INDICATOR Short Taiwan: Taiwan’s geopolitical risk has paused far short of previous peaks as the country’s currency and stock market benefit from the ongoing semiconductor shortage. But a peak may be starting to form in relative equity performance (Chart 14). We doubt that China will see any Russian attack on Ukraine in 2022 as an opportunity to invade Taiwan, although economic sanctions and cyber-attacks are an option that we fully anticipate. Invading Taiwan is far more difficult militarily than invading Ukraine and China is less ready than Russia for such an operation. However, China might be able to exploit a Russian attack as soon as 2024. Chart 14TAIWAN TERRITORY GEORISK INDICATOR Long South Korea: South Korea’s presidential election is approaching on March 9 and this event combined with North Korea’s new cycle of missile provocations will keep political risk elevated (Chart 15). The conservative People Power party has pulled ahead in opinion polling and the incumbent Democratic Party has been weakened by the pandemic. But the race is still fairly tight and a viable third party candidate could make a comeback. China’s policy easing should eventually benefit South Korea. Chart 15SOUTH KOREA GEORISK INDICATOR Long Australia: Australia’s federal election must be held by May 21 and anti-incumbency feeling has taken hold, with the Liberal-National coalition collapsing in opinion polls relative to the Australian Labor Party. Australia still faces shockwaves from the pandemic and China’s secular slowdown, reversion to autocracy, and conflict with the US, especially if the US gets distracted in Europe. Political risk is high and rising (Chart 16). However, Australia benefits from rising commodity prices and we favor developed markets outside the United States. Chart 16AUSTRALIA GEORISK INDICATOR Long Canada: Canada’s recapitalized its political system with last year’s general election and political risk is subsiding (Chart 17). Canada benefits from rising oil and commodity prices and close proximity to the hyper-stimulated US economy. Chart 17CANADA GEORISK INDICATOR Neutral Turkey: Turkey is one of our perennial candidates for a “black swan” event as the country’s political stability continues to suffer under strongman rule, unorthodox monetary and fiscal policy, military adventures in North Africa and Syria, and now a Russian bid to dominate the Black Sea. Elections looming in 2023 will provoke turmoil as the Erdogan administration is extremely vulnerable and yet has many ways to try to cling to power (Chart 18). Chart 18TURKEY GEORISK INDICATOR Neutral Brazil: Brazilian political risk is subsiding as the market expects former President Lula da Silva to return to power in this October’s presidential election and replace current populist President Jair Bolsonaro. Relative equity performance always appears as if it has bottomed only to inch lower in the next selloff. China’s policy easing is a boon for Brazil but China is not providing massive stimulus, the election will be tumultuous, and even a Lula victory will need to see a market riot to ensure that structural reforms are pursued (Chart 19). Chart 19BRAZIL GEORISK INDICATOR Long South Africa: South Africa still faces elevated political risk despite the conclusion of the 2021 municipal elections. However, the ruling African National Congress, which is pursuing an anti-corruption drive, is likely to stay in power, lending policy continuity. Equities have bottomed and are rebounding relative to emerging markets (Chart 20). The danger is that structural reforms will slip ahead of the spring 2024 election. Chart 20SOUTH AFRICA GEORISK INDICATOR Investment TakeawaysTactically stay long gold, defensives over cyclicals, large caps over small caps, Japanese industrials versus German, GBP-CZK, and JPY-KRW.Book a 10% gain on long DM Europe / short EM Europe. Book a 8.6% gain on long CAD-RUB.   Matt Gertken Vice PresidentGeopolitical Strategymattg@bcaresearch.com Ritika Mankar, CFAEditor/Strategistritika.mankar@bcaresearch.comFootnotes1      For Blinken’s press conference on the US formal response to Russia, see US Department of State, "Secretary Antony J. Blinken at a Press Availability," January 26, 2022, state.gov.2     For Ukraine’s criticism that Germany should offer pillows in addition to helmets, see Humeyra Pamuk and Dmitry Antonov, "U.S. responds to Russia security demands as Ukraine tensions mount," Reuters, January 26, 2022, reuters.com. For the US’s $2.5 billion in defense aid to Ukraine since 2014, see Elias Yousif, "U.S. Military Assistance to Ukraine," January 26, 2022, stimson.org. For purpose and significance, see Samuel Charap and Scott Boston, "U.S. Military Aid to Ukraine: A Silver Bullet?" Rand Blog, rand.org.3     Michael Kofman, "Putin’s Wager in Russia’s Standoff with the West," War on the Rocks, January 24, 2022, warontherocks.com.4     In 2021 the US apparently moved to embrace the Minsk Protocols for the first time, but since then it has not joined the talks. See National Security Adviser Jack Sullivan, "White House Daily Briefing," December 7, 2021, c-span.org. 5             Élysée, "Declaration of the advisors to the N4 Heads of States and Governments," January 26, 2022, elysee.fr. See also "Russia, Ukraine agree to uphold cease-fire in Normandy talks," DW, January 26, 2022, dw.com.Geopolitical CalendarStrategic ThemesOpen Tactical Positions (0-6 Months)Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months)

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 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)

Highlights The US Climate Prediction Center gives ~ 70% odds another La Niña will form in the August – October interval and will continue through winter 2021-22. This will be a second-year La Niña if it forms, and will raise the odds of a repeat of last winter's cold weather in the Northern Hemisphere.1 Europe's natural-gas inventory build ahead of the coming winter remains erratic, particularly as Russian flows via Ukraine to the EU have been reduced this year. Russia's Nord Stream 2 could be online by November, but inventories will still be low. China, Japan, South Korea and India  – the four top LNG consumers in Asia  – took in 155 Bcf of the fuel in June. A colder-than-normal winter would boost demand. Higher prices are likely in Europe and Asia (Chart of the Week). US storage levels will be lower going into winter, as power generation demand remains stout, and the lingering effects from Hurricane Ida reduce supplies available for inventory injections. Despite spot prices trading ~ $1.30/MMBtu above last winter's highs – currently ~ $4.60/MMBtu – we are going long 1Q22 NYMEX $5.00/MMBtu natgas calls vs short NYMEX $5.50/MMBtu natgas calls expecting even higher prices. Feature Last winter's La Niña was a doozy. It brought extreme cold to Asia, North America and Europe, which pulled natural gas storage levels sharply lower and drove prices sharply higher as the Chart of the Week shows. Natgas storage in the US and Europe will be tight going into this winter (Chart 2). Europe's La Niña lingered a while into Spring, keeping temps low and space-heating demand high, which delayed the start of re-building inventory for the coming winter.  In the US, cold temps in the Midwest hampered production, boosted demand and caused inventory to draw hard. Chart of the WeekA Return Of La Niña Could Boost Global Natgas Prices Chart 2Europe, US Gas Stocks Will Be Tight This Winter Summer in the US also produced strong natgas demand, particularly out West, as power generators eschewed coal in favor of gas to meet stronger air-conditioning demand. This is partly due to the closing of coal-fired units, leaving more of the load to be picked up by gas-fired generation (Chart 3). The EIA estimates natgas consumption in July was up ~ 4 Bcf/d to just under 76 Bcf/d. Hurricane Ida took ~ 1 bcf/d of demand out of the market, which was less than the ~ 2 Bcf/d hit to US Gulf supply resulting from the storm.  As a result, prices were pushed higher at the margin. Chart 3Generators Prefer Gas To Coal US natgas exports (pipeline and LNG) also were strong, at 18.2 Bcf/d in July (Chart 4). We expect US LNG exports, in particular, to resume growth as the world recovers from the COVID-19 pandemic (Chart 5). This strong demand and exports, coupled with slightly lower supply from the Lower 48 states – estimated at ~ 98 Bcf/d by the EIA for July (Chart 6) – pushed prices up by 18% from June to July, "the largest month-on-month percentage change for June to July since 2012, when the price increased 20.3%" according to the EIA. Chart 4US Natgas Exports Remain Strong Chart 5US LNG Exports Will Resume Growth Chart 6US Lower 48 Natgas Production Recovering Elsewhere in the Americas, Brazil has been a strong bid for US LNG – accounting for 32.3 Bcf of demand in  June – as hydroelectric generation flags due to the prolonged drought in the country. In Asia, demand for LNG remains strong, with the four top consumers – China, Japan, South Korea, and India – taking in 155 Bcf in June, according to the EIA. Gas Infrastructure Ex-US Remains Challenged A combination of extreme cold weather in Northeast Asia, and a lack of gas storage infrastructure in Asia generally, along with shipping constraints and supply issues at LNG export facilities, led to the Asian natural gas price spike in mid-January.2 Very cold weather in Northeast Asia, drove up LNG demand during the winter months. In China, LNG imports for the month of January rose by ~ 53% y-o-y (Chart 7).3 The increase in imports from Asia coincided with issues at major export plants in Australia, Norway and Qatar during that period. Chart 7China's US LNG Exports Surged Last Winter, And Remain Stout Over The Summer Substantially higher JKM (Japan-Korea Marker) prices incentivized US exporters to divert LNG cargoes from Europe to Asia last winter. The longer roundtrip times to deliver LNG from the US to Asia – instead of Europe – resulted in a reduction of shipping capacity, which ended up compounding market tightness in Europe. Europe dealt with the switch by drawing ~ 18 bcm more from their storage vs. the previous year, across the November to January period. Countries in Asia - most notably Japan – however, do not have robust natural gas storage facilities, further contributing to price volatility, especially in extreme weather events. These storage constraints remain in place going into the coming winter. In addition, there is a high probability the global weather pattern responsible for the cold spells around the globe that triggered price spikes in key markets globally – i.e., a second La Niña event – will return. A Second-Year La Niña  Event The price spikes and logistical challenges of last winter were the result of atmospheric circulation anomalies that were bolstered by a La Niña event that began in mid-2020.4 The La Niña is characterized by colder sea-surface temperatures that develops over the Pacific equator, which displaces atmospheric and wind circulation and leads to colder temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere (Map 1). Map 1La Niña Raises The Odds Of Colder Temps The IEA notes last winter started off without any exceptional deviations from an average early winter, but as the new year opened "natural gas markets experienced severe supply-demand tensions in the opening weeks of 2021, with extremely cold temperature episodes sending spot prices to record levels."5 In its most recent ENSO update, the US Climate Prediction Center raised the odds of another La Niña event for this winter to 70% this month. If similar conditions to those of the 2020-21 winter emerge, US and European inventories could be stretched even thinner than last year, as space-heating demand competes with industrial and commercial demand resulting from the economic recovery. Global Natgas Supplies Will Stay Tight JKM prices and TTF (Dutch Title Transfer Facility) prices are likely to remain elevated going into winter, as seen in the Chart of the Week. Fundamentals have kept markets tight so far. Uncertain Russian supply to Europe will raise the price of the European gas index (TTF). This, along with strong Asian demand, particularly from China, will keep JKM prices high (Chart 8). The global economic recovery is the main short-term driver of higher natgas demand, with China leading the way. For the longer-term, natural gas is considered as the ideal transition fuel to green energy, as it emits less carbon than other fossil fuels. For this reason, demand is expected to grow by 3.4% per annum until 2035, and reach peak consumption later than other fossil fuels, according to McKinsey.6 Chart 8BCAs Brent Forecast Points To Higher JKM Prices Spillovers from the European natural gas market impact Asian markets, as was demonstrated last winter. Russian supply to Europe – where inventories are at their lowest level in a decade – has dropped over the last few months. This could either be the result of Russia's attempts to support its case for finishing Nord Stream 2 and getting it running as soon as possible, or because it is physically unable to supply natural gas.7 A fire at a condensate plant in Siberia at the beginning of August supports the latter conjecture. The reduced supply from Russia, comes at a time when EU carbon permit prices have been consistently breaking records, making the cost of natural gas competitive compared to more heavy carbon emitting fossil fuels – e.g., coal and oil – despite record breaking prices. With Europe beginning the winter season with significantly lower stock levels vs. previous years, TTF prices will remain volatile. This, and strong demand from China, will support JKM prices. Investment Implications Natural gas prices are elevated, with spot NYMEX futures trading ~ $1.30/MMBtu above last winter's highs – currently ~ $4.60/MMBtu. Our analysis indicates prices are justifiably high, and could – with the slightest unexpected news – move sharply higher. Because natgas is, at the end of the day, a weather market, we favor low-cost/low-risk exposures. In the current market, we recommend going long 1Q22 NYMEX $5.00/MMBtu natgas calls vs short NYMEX $5.50/MMBtu natgas calls expecting even higher prices. This is the trade we recommended on 8 April 2021, at a lower level, which was stopped out on 12 August 2021 with a gain of 188%.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com   Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish Earlier this week, Saudi Aramco lowered its official selling price (OSP) by more than was expected – lowering its premium to the regional benchmark to $1.30/bbl from $1.70/bbl – in what media reports based on interviews with oil traders suggest is an attempt to win back customers electing not to take volumes under long-term contracts. This is a marginal adjustment by Aramco, but still significant, as it shows the company will continue to defend its market share. Pricing to Northwest Europe and the US markets is unchanged. Aramco's majority shareholder, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), is the putative leader of OPEC 2.0 (aka, OPEC+) along with Russia. The producer coalition is in the process of returning 400k b/d to the market every month until it has restored the 5.8mm b/d of production it took off the market to support prices during the COVID-19 pandemic. We expect Brent crude oil prices to average $70/bbl in 2H21, $73/bbl in 2022 and $80/bbl in 2023. Base Metals: Bullish Political uncertainty in Guinea caused aluminum prices to rise to more than a 10-year high this week (Chart 9). A coup in the world’s second largest exporter of bauxite – the main ore source for aluminum – began on Sunday, rattling aluminum markets. While iron ore prices rebounded primarily on the record value of Chinese imports in August, the coup in Guinea – which has the highest level of iron ore reserves – could have also raised questions about supply certainty. This will contribute to iron-ore price volatility. However, we do not believe the coup will impact the supply of commodities as much as markets are factoring, as coup leaders in commodity-exporting countries typically want to keep their source of income intact and functioning. Precious Metals: Bullish Gold settled at a one-month high last Friday, when the US Bureau of Labor Statistics released the August jobs report. The rise in payrolls data was well below analysts’ estimates, and was the lowest gain in seven months. The yellow metal rose on this news as the weak employment data eased fears about Fed tapering, and refocused markets on COVID-19 and the delta variant. Since then, however, the yellow metal has not been able to consolidate gains. After falling to a more than one-month low on Friday, the US dollar rose on Tuesday, weighing on gold prices (Chart 10). Chart 9 Chart 10       Footnotes 1      Please see the US Climate Prediction Center's ENSO: Recent Evolution, Current Status and Predictions report published on September 6, 2021. 2     Please see Asia LNG Price Spike: Perfect Storm or Structural Failure? Published by Oxford Institute for Energy Studies. 3     Since China LNG import data were reported as a combined January and February value in 2020, we halved the combined value to get the January 2020 amount. 4     Please see The 2020/21 Extremely Cold Winter in China Influenced by the Synergistic Effect of La Niña and Warm Arctic by Zheng, F., and Coauthors (2021), published in Advances in Atmospheric Sciences. 5     Please see the IEA's Gas Market Report, Q2-2021 published in April 2021. 6     Please see Global gas outlook to 2050 | McKinsey on February 26, 2021. 7     Please see ICIS Analyst View: Gazprom’s inability to supply or unwillingness to deliver? published on August 13, 2021.   Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2021 Summary of Closed Trades

ハイライト パンデミックとその反発局面でリスクが大幅に低下した後、地政学的リスクは再び高まっている。 バイデン政権は中国／台湾、ロシア／ウクライナ、イスラエル／イランの３つの重大な外交試練に直面している。 ロシアはウクライナへの軍事侵攻を行いリスクオフを引き起こす可能性がある。ただしウクライナ全土への全面侵攻は起きにくいため、世界市場は比較的速やかに持ち直すだろう。 イランはウラン濃縮の「ブレイクアウト」閾値に接近しており、核兵器化に対するイスラエルのレッドラインを示すさらなる示威行動を招くだろう。イランは報復する見込みだ。これまでの見方では、緊張は8月までに米国とイランの合意が成立する前にエスカレートする見通しで順調に進んでいる。 台湾はすべての地政学的リスクの中で市場に最も関連性が高い—しかし南シナ海も米中の威嚇行為の別の舞台である。ここでの危機は台湾と結びつく場合に最も重要になる。 CAD-RUB と CHF-GBP をロングする。 特集 チャート 1 世界で最も深刻な海峡における通行量 話し合いか戦争か？ 話し合いか戦争か？ 英国首相ハロルド・マクミランはウィンストン・チャーチル卿の言葉を引用してかつて「Jaw‑jaw は war‑war より良い」と述べた。1 ジョー・バイデン大統領は、台湾に対する中国の軍事的威圧、ウクライナ国境でのロシアの軍事的集結、イランの核開発の加速という戦争リスクの増加を伴う三つの差し迫った外交試練に直面しており、間違いなく対話を望んでいるだろう。 こうした紛争の深刻さを示す一つの方法は、関連する地理的な交通のボトルネック、つまり台湾海峡、マラッカ海峡、ホルムズ海峡、ボスポラス海峡を通過する世界貿易の量を見ることだ（チャート 1）。石油と石油製品は全体の交通量の代替指標として用いている。最近の一時的なスエズ運河の閉塞は、これらのグローバルなボトルネックのいずれかで紛争が発生した場合に起こり得る混乱の大きさを示唆している。 本レポートではバイデンの外交試練における最近の展開を概観する。 我々の見解は概ね順調である。投資家はグローバル金融市場に地政学リスクがより多く織り込まれることを戦術的に想定し、安全資産へのフローや場合によっては一般的な株式の調整に備えるべきだ。景気循環的には最悪ケースがない限り強気相場は続く。 バイデンの３つの外交試練 バイデンの３つの外交試練はいずれも本稿執筆時点で強まっている： 中国／台湾：中国は台湾島周辺で高強度の「戦闘訓練」や実弾演習を継続している。2 米国は北京の反対にもかかわらず台湾へ外交代表団を派遣し、比較的大規模な武器提供を行う予定だ。一方でワシントンは、バイデン大統領と習近平国家主席の首脳会談をアースデイに設定するために、同大統領の「気候担当特使」ジョン・ケリーを北京へ送っている。バイデンによる米中政策の総括的レビューは5月に予定されている。 ロシア／ウクライナ：ロシアはウクライナ国境とクリミアに8万5千人を超える部隊を集結させており、2014〜15年の侵攻以来の最大の兵力集中だ。ロシアはワシントンに対する大使を召還し、米国が新たな制裁を課すなら報復すると警告した。米国は実際にロシアのサイバー攻撃や選挙干渉に応じて新たな制裁を課しており、6月からのルーブル建てロシア国債の販売禁止などを含む。従ってロシアの報復は差し迫っている。 イスラエル／イラン：3月23日の選挙直後、イスラエルはナタンズ核燃料濃縮施設の地下施設を破壊工作し、イランはイスラエル領内で報復すると宣言した。イランはウランを60%レベルまで濃縮すると主張しており、これは核兵器製造に必要な90%以上に近づく数値だ。米国とイスラエルの当局者は以前、イランが4月から8月の間に「ブレイクアウト」レベルの兵器級ウランに到達すると示唆していた。交渉は続いているが、このプロセスは攻撃に見舞われやすいだろう。 我々は今年、台湾に関するダイナミクスについて広範に執筆してきた。本レポートではまずロシアとイランの状況を更新し、その後中国に進む。 結論：パンデミック中の一時的な和らぎの後、地政学リスクが再燃している。新しい米政権は同時に三つの深刻な外交試練に直面している。金融市場は緊張の高まりを大部分で無視してきたが、当面は安全資産が買われると予想する。しかし我々はまだ強気の景気循環見通しを変更していない。以下で説明するように、現時点では「Jaw‑jaw（対話）」の域にあると考えている。 ロシアと新興欧州はショートを継続 民主党の復権によりワシントンとモスクワの緊張は直ちに高まった。バイデン政権は外交的なリセットを避け、むしろ大国間競争を追求している。米国はウクライナへの武器提供やNATOの軍事演習を増やしている。ロシアのサイバー攻撃や選挙干渉に対する制裁を課し、長年待望されていたルーブル債購入への措置を取った。ワシントンはドイツに対してノルドストリームIIパイプラインの取消しを迫る可能性もある。 しかし緩和的な兆候もある。バイデン大統領はプーチン大統領と第三国での二国間首脳会談を提案しており、両者はアースデイのサミットで会う可能性がある。米海軍はまた、モスクワが黒海に入る米軍艦船は危険に晒されると警告した後に、USSドナルド・クックとUSSルーズベルトの駆逐艦を黒海に入らせるのを取りやめた。ワシントンの新たな制裁はロシアによる米国選挙への大規模介入と同等というほどではなく、ノルドストリームIIに関する新たな措置は含まれていない。 米国が建設完了前にドイツにノルドストリームの取消しを強いる動きを取れば、ロシアは報復するだろう。ノルドストリームの目的はウクライナを迂回してロシアとドイツの直接的経済関係を固めることにある。ドイツ政府はウクライナ国境でのロシアの集結や政治的反対者の弾圧にもかかわらずこのプロジェクトを支持している。米国がパイプラインを否認すれば、ロシアは正当な貿易ルートへのアクセスを奪われ、ウクライナ経由以外の輸出オプションが制限されることになる。もし同時に米国がウクライナとの軍事協力を強化すれば、それは暗にロシアの欧州向けエネルギーアクセスを制御しようとする試みとなる。ロシアはウクライナを罰することで報復する可能性が高い。 ロシアはノルドストリームやウクライナ向けの米国のアプローチにかかわらず、ウクライナや他の場所で攻勢の行動を取る可能性がある。ロシアは弱い国内経済と社会的不満に悩んでおり、人気が低下すると国外での冒険主義に走る前例がある。さらに立法選挙が9月に迫っている。したがってロシアは少なくとも今後半年間、ウクライナで紛争を引き起こす独自の理由を持ち得る。 能力から判断すると、ロシアは分離地域ドンバスに軍事侵攻を仕掛けるのに十分な部隊を配備している。国境でのロシア軍の増強は2014年以来最大であり、ロシア語圏のウクライナの大部分を危険にさらし得る規模だ。 ウクライナ全土への全面的なロシア侵攻は起きにくいが不可能ではない。それは占領のための血と財を極めて大きく消費するだけでなく、西側をロシアに対して結束させ、モスクワが望むものの逆結果を招く（チャート 2）。米国がノルドストリームを停止するかウクライナをNATOに加盟させようとしない限り、モスクワはこの結果を避けたいと考えるだろう。 チャート 2 ウクライナに対するロシアの制約 話し合いか戦争か？ 話し合いか戦争か？ 市場の観点からすれば、政府とロシア支援の反乱勢力とのウクライナ内での戦闘激化は現状維持である。これは避けられず、世界株式に大きな影響はないだろう。2014年のクリミア侵攻はS&P500で最大2%のドローダウンにとどまった。金融市場を揺さぶったのはロシアのウクライナ侵攻ではなく、マレーシア航空17便の撃墜だった。世界株は2.7%下落、ユーロストックス500は6.2%、ロシア株は10.7%下落した。 2014〜15年の戦闘には最終的にロシア軍が参加しており、単なるロシア支援の分離主義勢力だけではなかったことに留意すべきだ。したがって、紛争がウクライナ、特に争われている地域に限定され、米国とNATOが関与しなければ、世界の金融市場はその種の紛争に比較的耐えうる。 ロシアがウクライナ全土の完全征服を追求すれば、より大きな安全資産への逃避が生じるだろう。これは確率は低いが影響は大きい。欧州でのより大規模な戦争のリスクを初めて高めるため、世界的なリスクオフを引き起こす。 ロシアは大戦略と国家安全保障の観点からウクライナに執着しており、必要と判断すれば少なくとも何らかの軍事行動を取るだろう。投資家はエスカレーションに備えるべきだが、ワシントンもモスクワもまだ致命的な一手を打ってはいない。 ウクライナ側のいかなる攻撃的行動にも注意を払うことが重要だが、ウクライナが主導的要因というわけではない。現在の状況は2008年のグルジア（ジョージア）の事例に似ている。ロシアは当時ミハイル・サアカシュヴィリ大統領を扇動して分離主義者に対する行動を取らせ、その後介入してアブハジアと南オセチアを分離させた。ウクライナのヴォロディミル・ゼレンスキー大統領が挑発に乗せられる可能性はあるが、挑発を恐れて躊躇することがロシアに主導権を与えることもあり得る（2014年の出来事のように）。ウクライナにとっては「やれば地獄、やらなければ地獄」だ。ロシアの行動は大部分その利益次第で決まる。 これまでロシア株は他の新興市場株式やコモディティラリーに遅れを取ってきたが、これは部分的に政治・地政学リスクの上昇を反映している可能性がある（チャート 3）。ロシア株のトレンドはここからさらに悪化する可能性がある。 9月の選挙を控えたロシアの対西側紛争への関心を考えると、ロシア―ウクライナの緊張は今年の大半続く可能性がある。気候が改善する5月中旬以降に大規模軍事作戦の確率が高まるだろう。ロシア通貨と資産は引き続き圧力を受けるだろう。 我々はカナダドルをロシアルーブルに対してロングすることを推奨する。ルーブルは、クリミア紛争の2014年を踏まえると、コモディティ通貨を含む他のコモディティ通貨に対してアンダーパフォームするだろう（チャート 4）。一方でカナダやメキシコの通貨は、米国経済が過度に刺激されていることと迅速なワクチン接種の恩恵を受けるはずだ。 チャート 3 ロシアはコモディティ・ラリーに遅れ ロシアはコモディティ・ラリーに出遅れた ロシアはコモディティ・ラリーに出遅れた チャート 4 ルーブルよりルーニーとペソを優先 ルーニーとペソをルーブルより優先する ルーニーとペソをルーブルより優先する チャート 5 先進欧州ロング / 新興欧州ショート DMヨーロッパのロング / EMヨーロッパのショート DMヨーロッパのロング / EMヨーロッパのショート 我々は先進欧州をオーバーウェイトし、新興欧州をアンダーウェイトし続ける（チャート 5）。ポーランド、ハンガリー、チェコ、ルーマニア、バルト三国は現在の緊張によりリスクプレミアムを被るだろう。チェコは10月の立法選挙を巡る政治的不確実性に直面しており、ロシアの介入や反体制（とはいえ対EU）政党の台頭の機会となり得る。 バイデンとプーチンがどうすれば緊張を緩和できるかを問うと、米国とNATOはウクライナ関係を縮小し、民主主義促進や心理的な反戦作戦を格下げし、ノルドストリームの完成を容認することができる。ロシアは国境での兵力を削減し、イラン核合意やアフガニスタン撤退で協力の手を差し伸べることができる。これは我々の見方に対するリスクである。 結論：ロシアと新興欧州市場は、新興市場株式の中でも数少ない本当に割安な市場の一部である（表 1）。しかし現状の地政学的文脈はそれらを割安なままに保ちそうだ。現時点では西側とロシアの対立が大きくエスカレートすることに備えるべきである。少なくとも米国がノルドストリームIIの建設を停止するか否かが判明するまで、新興欧州に対してより強気な見方を取るのは控えるべきだ。 表 1 地政学的リスクがロシアと新興欧州を割安に保つ 話し合いか戦争か？ 話し合いか戦争か？ ウクライナに対するロシアの全面的な征服という最悪シナリオは確率は小さいが排除できない。 イラン交渉：先に爆発、次に核合意 イスラエルは3月23日の選挙後も政府を組織できておらず、ベンヤミン・ネタニヤフ首相が再び政権を率いる可能性があるため国家政策にはいまだ変化がない。さらにイスラエルの世論と政治体制はイランの地域的・核に関する野望に対して一致して反対している。 イランがナタンズ核施設で新しい遠心分離機を稼働させた直後の4月11日、イスラエルは同施設の地下施設に対する破壊工作を行ったとされる。この攻撃はサイバー手段に限定されないもので、複数の遠心分離機を無効化したとされる。イランの科学者がクレーターに落ちて負傷した。 イランはイスラエル領内で報復すると誓っている。より根本的には、政治が強硬化の方向へ動いており、6月の強硬派大統領の選出で相互敵対は一層激化するだろう。この権力移行は、我々が8月の就任を米国が2015年の核合意（包括的共同行動計画）に復帰するための重要な期限と特定した大きな理由である。バイデン政権がその時までに合意をまとめられなければ、より危険な数年にわたる交渉が始まるだろう。 ただしイスラエルの攻撃は短期的には交渉を止めていない。第二ラウンドの協議は本稿執筆時にウィーンで始まっている。米国はまた9月11日にアフガニスタンから撤退することを確認しており、これはイランに対してバイデンが地域における米国の戦略的足跡を縮小する決意があることを示し、米国の合意追求の動機を補強している。 今後数か月、イスラエルはイランの核・ミサイル計画に対するレッドラインを秘密裏の攻撃を通じて強調し続けるだろう。しかし彼らは2015年に米国の核合意を阻止できなかったし、今日も米国の動きを止める可能性は低い。イスラエルは米国との同盟を維持する必要があり、これがイランや中東全体の不安定性に対する長期的な安全保障を確保している（チャート 6）。 イランはイスラエルに報復し、今夏は報復の応酬が起きる可能性が高い。これには重要インフラへの攻撃も含まれる恐れがある。イランはイラクやサウジアラビアの敵に対する作戦も続ける可能性があり、これが予期せぬ石油供給停止を引き起こし原油価格を押し上げることがある。イスラエル、サウジ、UAEの株式市場を一目見れば、世界の投資家はこれまで地政学リスクを大部分無視してきたが、米国とイランの合意前に紛争がエスカレートする可能性に対して反応し始めているかもしれない（チャート 7）。 チャート 6 イランに対するイスラエルの制約 話し合いか、それとも戦争か？ 話し合いか、それとも戦争か？ 米国、ドイツ、フランス、ロシア、中国はイランを合意遵守に戻すことに公式に賛同している。遵守への復帰は米国の制裁緩和と段階的にリンクされる必要がある。イラン側は米国が2018年に一方的に協定から離脱し制裁を再課したため、まず米国が制裁を緩和することを要求している。 チャート 7 サウジ、UAE、イスラエルの株式が危険信号を示す サウジ、UAE、イスラエルの株式に危険信号 サウジ、UAE、イスラエルの株式に危険信号 最終的にバイデンは最初の一手を打つことが可能だ。米国民はイランに対して非常に関心が薄く、バイデン自身も地域を安定させ、米国がアジア太平洋により戦略的注意を向けられるようにするためにイラン合意が必要だというワシントンの強いコンセンサスに基づいて行動している。 ロシアと中国は、対米関係が同時に緊張している中でイラン合意を支持するだろうか？ 米国とイランが既存合意への復帰で満足する限り（合意は2025年に有効期限を迎える）、ロシアや中国が何かする必要はほとんどない。しかしワシントンがより良い合意を望むなら、モスクワと北京に対して大幅な譲歩を行わねばならず、新たでより良い合意は交渉に何年もかかるだろう。 チャート 8 露中協力の拡大 話し合いか戦争か？ 話し合いか戦争か？ ロシアと中国は核拡散を制限する機会として当初の核合意を支持した。中東での核軍拡は両国の力を希薄化させるからだ。イランはロシアと中国にとって中東における有用な戦略的パートナーであり、彼らはイランの経済が強くなることを政権の永続化にとって好ましいと考えている。彼らはイラン経済の自由化が政治の自由化につながらないと踏んでいる（ロシアや中国の例が示す通り）ため、経済的に強く影響力を持つ同盟国を維持できると見ている。 露中の戦略的パートナーシップは過去10年で劇的に成長した。両国は米国の世界的指導力を弱め、米国内の分断を煽る利害を共有している。両国は自国の国境近傍、特に安全保障と政治的正当性に不可欠と考える戦略的領域や海域での米軍の存在を減らすことに利害を同じくする。ロシアはますます中国の需要と中国の投資に依存して資源を開発している。双方とも貿易において相手の通貨を完全には信頼していないが、米ドルからの多様化という共通の利害を持っている（チャート 8）。 チャート 9 中国はイラン支援の手を差し伸べるか？ 中国はイランに支援の手を差し伸べるか？ 中国はイランに支援の手を差し伸べるか？ イラン問題で米国と協力する場合、ロシアと中国は自国の核心的利益に近い戦略分野での要求を米国に尊重することを期待するだろう。バイデン政権がウクライナや台湾との貿易・防衛関係を強化し続ければ、モスクワと北京は強硬に反発し、その時点でイラン合意を阻止または弱体化させる可能性がある。 中国は少なくとも公的にはイランへの制裁を執行している（チャート 9）。中国とイランの戦略的パートナーシップは米国が制裁体制を明確にするまで交渉の継続状態にある。明らかに中国は核の脅威に関する協力の見返りとして米国から譲歩を引き出したいと考えている。これは北朝鮮に関しても同様であり、ミサイル危機は中国にとって仲裁の必要性を生み出す好都合な出来事となる。中国はバイデンにトランプ大統領が課した制限を解除させる機会を見ている。今後数か月でバイデン政権の対中強硬姿勢が確認されれば、中国の協力意欲は変化するだろう。 結論：イスラエルはイランの核兵器化に対するレッドラインを強調しており、今春から夏にかけての紛争は増加するだろう。しかしそれでも米国とイランの2015年の核合意再交渉を妨げてはいない。我々は今もバイデンが8月までに合意に達するだろうと予想している。 台湾と南シナ海 グローバル金融市場にとってバイデンが直面する最重要の試練は米中関係と台湾海峡を巡る緊張だ。我々はこの問題に関して最近の調査と議論を繰り返すつもりはない。要するに、今後12〜24ヶ月の間に何らかの危機が発生する確率を60%と見ており、全面戦争の確率を5%と見積もっている。全面戦争の確率は国内の中国の不安定化、画期的な米国の軍事売却、あるいは台湾の独立宣言などが起きれば急速に上昇する可能性がある。 全面的な中国の台湾攻撃に対する最大の抑止要因—我々が現在5%の確率と見積もる理由—は、それが中国経済に壊滅的な打撃を与えるという点だ。中国の先進国との貿易は台湾を含め輸出の63%、GDPの11%を占める（チャート 10）。北京は最終的には「統一」のためにこの代償を支払う覚悟があるかもしれないが、それを軽々しく行うことはない。年を追うごとに中国はグローバルな経済的影響力と台湾に対する軍事能力を高めている。 チャート 10 台湾に対する中国の制約 話し合いか、それとも戦争か？ 話し合いか、それとも戦争か？ 中国は貿易戦争期に減少していた米国債の購入を増やしている（チャート 11）。中国は金利が上昇した際に購入を増やすことが多く、ワクチン発見以降国債利回りが急上昇していることを考えれば、これは中国が米国との全面戦争を準備していることを示す明確な兆候ではないが、限定的な指標で誤解を招く恐れはある。   戦争以外の危機とは何か？我々が台湾で「何らかの危機」と言うとき、何を意味するのか？ 大きなグレーゾーンとしては経済制裁や経済封鎖がある。2016年に名目上独立志向の政党が勝利した際、中国は観光を切り詰めたが、COVID‑19で観光は完全に停止した。それでも現時点でより広範な禁輸措置の証拠はない（チャート 12）。これは一夜にして変わり得る。米国法は台湾への禁輸を禁止しているが、ここは北京が米国のコミットメントを試すかもしれない領域である。 チャート 11 中国の米国債購入が増加 中国、米国トレジャリーズをさらに買い増し 中国、米国トレジャリーズをさらに買い増し 現在の台湾に対する高圧的状況は大部分が新たな米国の輸出管理と世界的な半導体不足が重なっていることに起因する。中国はまだ自国の半導体需要を満たせず、米国とその同盟国なしには先端チップを十分に開発できない（チャート 13）。 チャート 12 台湾に対する禁輸は（まだ）ない 台湾への禁輸はまだない 台湾への禁輸はまだない If the Biden administration pursues a full technological blockade then China may be forced to take tougher action on Taiwan. But if Biden pursues a more defensive strategy then a new equilibrium will develop that spares China the risks of war. チャート 13 中国の半導体需要 中国の半導体需要 中国の半導体需要 米国と中国は同時に南シナ海での海軍対立をエスカレートさせており、特にフィリピン周辺で緊張が高まっている。米中の空母群や艦艇が互いににらみ合っており、北京はフィリピンを威嚇して同国の米国との防衛条約への信頼を揺さぶろうとしている。中国は南シナ海を自国領と主張しており、米国の航行の自由を否定しようとする試みに対して米国は航行の自由を主張するため、艦船の沈没に至る可能性もある。 南シナ海の戦略的重要性は台湾海峡と似ている。中国がこれらの海域を掌握すれば、台湾、日本、韓国の供給保障が脅かされ、米国の地域における戦略的地位が弱まる。ベトナムやフィリピンでの代理戦争のリスクが高いことは以前から指摘しているが、これらは北東アジアの安全保障と比べると世界的関心事としては重要度が低い。台湾は半導体問題のために世界の投資家にとってはるかに重要だが、南シナ海でも危機が発生する機会は多い。この海での危機は周縁的だと片付けられない。直接的な米中衝突に発展するか、最悪の場合、台湾への行動の前触れとなる可能性があるためだ。中国は台湾への接近路を制御しようとするだろう。 この地域の最後のリスクは北朝鮮が弾道ミサイル試験を再開したことである。前述の通り、危機は中国にとって都合が良いタイミングで発生する可能性がある。しかし投資家にとって北朝鮮は重要な台湾海峡からの注意をそらすものに過ぎず、リスクオフ感情を助長する程度だ。 結論：米中関係は依然として不安定であり、南シナ海や朝鮮半島を巡って衝突が発生する可能性は台湾海峡での衝突と同様に存在する。台湾海峡は最も重要な地理的地点である。南シナ海での直接的な米中衝突は世界的な売りを引き起こす可能性があるが、台湾と結びつかない限り市場は比較的速やかに回復するだろう。 投資のポイント 地政学的リスクはCOVID‑19パンデミック期間の和らぎの後に再燃している。とはいえ、摩擦が直ちに戦争に直結するとは限らない。外交の余地は残されている。米中、ロシア、イランが「Jaw‑jaw（対話）」を選べば、世界株のラリーはさらに続く可能性がある。 しかし戦術的観点からは、上で示した議論はバイデンの早期の外交試練の少なくとも一つが地政学的事件へとエスカレートし、地域的または世界的な株式市場に悪影響を与える可能性があることを示している。 市場はこれらのリスクの顕在化に備えていない。主要国の標準的なグローバル政策不確実性指標は多くの国で急低下している点は注目に値する。政策不確実性が上昇している世界の数少ない国の二つに中国とロシアが含まれるのは注目に値する。後者は国内の不安定さによる可能性が高く、これは攻撃的な外交政策の大きな動機となる（チャート 14）。 チャート 14A 世界の政策不確実性は復活する グローバルな政策不確実性は再燃する グローバルな政策不確実性は再燃する チャート 14B 世界の政策不確実性は復活する グローバルな政策不確実性は再燃するだろう グローバルな政策不確実性は再燃するだろう 世界的な財政刺激は依然として非常に強力であり、今年がピークになる可能性が高い。チャート 15は主要国の最新の財政刺激の更新を示しており、COVID‑19危機と2008年の金融危機を比較している。このチャートの以前の版からは注目すべき変更がいくつかあり、主に昨年のショック後のGDPの改定、急速な経済の反発による税収の改定、刺激策の時期と規模の改定によるものだ。バイデン政権の2.3兆ドルのインフラ計画は当然含まれていない。チャート 15の第2パネルは2020年10月から2021年4月にかけてのIMFの推定値の変化を示している。本質的に2020年の財政刺激は過大評価されていた。多くの施策が発動せず、経済のスナップバックが予想より良かったためだ。一方で2021年の刺激は予想より大きい。ロシアと中国は他国より早く金融緩和を引き締めたことで、両年のIMF推定の財政刺激が減少した点が目立つ。 チャート 15 世界の財政刺激チャートの改訂 対話か戦争か？ 対話か戦争か？ コモディティは世界的な回復の大きな受益者であった（チャート 16）。中国の成長は今年減速する可能性が高く、これは地政学的危機とは別に下押しを引き起こすだろう。しかし景気循環的な観点からは、特に工業用金属は供給が限られる中で需要が急増しており恩恵を受けるはずだ。地政学的危機や戦争は当初はネガティブだが、その後金属にとってはポジティブとなるだろう。 チャート 16 地政学的紛争から恩恵を受けるコモディティ 地政学的対立で恩恵を受けるコモディティ 地政学的対立で恩恵を受けるコモディティ 注目すべきは、米国が中国やEUと並んで産業政策を受け入れている点だ。特にバイデンの2.3兆ドルのアメリカン・ジョブズ・プランには約3,700億ドルのグリーン関連イニシアチブが含まれており、今年後半に議会を通過する可能性が高い。象徴的には、バイデンはアースデイの4月22〜23日に世界サミットを主催することで中国や欧州のグリーン施策に追いつこうとする米国の試みを強調するだろう。 英ポンドについて一言。我々は2月にポンドに対する景気循環的な強気見通しを戦術的に一時停止した。これは5月6日のスコットランド議会選挙を見越しての判断だ。スコットランド国民党が強い成果を示せば、第二回独立住民投票につながる可能性がある。この党は世論で勢いを失っているが、独立志向は再び高まっており、ナショナリストの驚きが投票箱で起き得るという我々の指摘を補強している（チャート 17）。第二回住民投票の見通しが明確になれば、中期的なポンドの見通しも明らかになるだろう。 チャート 17 スコットランド選挙で短期的リスクに直面するポンド 英ポンド、スコットランドの選挙で短期的なリスクに直面 英ポンド、スコットランドの選挙で短期的なリスクに直面 チャート 18 戦術的取引としての CHF‑GBP ロング 戦術的トレードのためのCHF-GBPロング 戦術的トレードのためのCHF-GBPロング 短期的には我々は戦術的な安全資産のトレードとヘッジを継続する。スイスフランの戦術的ロングは3月25日に5%でストップとなった。しかし当社の為替ストラテジスト、チェスター・ントニフォアはその後フランが過度に割安であることを指摘している（チャート 18）。今回は政治リスクと上述の英国の政治リスクを踏まえ、戦術的にCHF‑GBPのロングを推奨する。   Matt Gertken バイスプレジデント 地政学ストラテジー mattg@bcaresearch.com   脚注 1 “Jaw‑Jaw Is Best, Macmillan Finds,” New York Times, 1958年1月30日, nytimes.com. 2 Taiwan – Province of China.

ハイライト 継続中かつ予想される財政・金融刺激策とCOVID-19対策の進展を受けた世界成長の強まりは、主要データ提供者による今年の石油需要前提を押し上げています。 当社は本月の需給バランスで2021年の世界需要見積りを64万b/d引き上げて98.25mm b/dとし、OPEC 2.0が脆弱な回復を乱さないようにブレント価格を$60/bbl付近に保つための必要な調整を行うと想定しています。 当社の2022年および2023年のブレント予測はそれぞれ$65/bbl、$75/bblで維持します。 コモディティ市場は、米国、ロシア、中国およびそれらの関係国・同盟国を巻き込む武力衝突の高まる確率を無視しています。ロシアはウクライナ国境に軍を集結させ、米国に干渉するなと警告しました。中国はフィリピン沖に戦艦を集結させ、台湾の防空識別圏への侵入を続けており、米軍を緊張させています。意図的あるいは偶発的な交戦が発生すれば石油価格は急騰します。 価格は上下双方にリスクがあふれています。武力衝突のリスクに加え、ワクチン配布の加速は回復を前倒しし、当社予測を超える価格上昇をもたらす可能性があります。一方で、ブラジル、インド、欧州での死亡者数および入院者数の上昇が示すように、COVID-19によるロックダウン再発の下振れリスクは依然として存在します（今週のチャート）。 特集 石油需要推計—当社の推計も含め—は、主要経済におけるCOVID-19の抑制に向けた測定可能な進展と、特に米国発の潤沢な財政・金融刺激策を受けて回復しています。1 IMFのGDP上方修正を受け、本月の需給バランスで当社は2021年の世界需要見積りを64万b/d引き上げて98.25mm b/dとしました。当社のモデリングでは、脆弱な回復を損なわないようにブレント価格を$60/bbl付近に保つために、サウジアラビア王国（KSA）とロシアが主導する生産者連合であるOPEC 2.0が必要な調整を行うと想定しています。 通常とは異なり、石油需要回復の初期段階は先進国市場（DM）がけん引すると見ています。先進国の代理としてOECDの石油消費を用いています（チャート2）。その後、来年以降は新興市場（EM）経済が再び成長を主導し、2023年にかけて続きます。 今週のチャート COVID-19の死者数・入院者数が世界的回復を脅かす 原油価格の上振れリスクが高まっている 原油価格の上振れリスクが高まっている チャート2 先進国（DM）の需要が今年急増 DMの需要が今年急増 DMの需要が今年急増 OPEC 2.0の余剰生産能力の吸収 当社はサウジアラビア王国（KSA）とロシアが主導する生産者連合であるOPEC 2.0を市場で支配的な生産者としてモデリングし続けています。今年予想する成長はOPEC 2.0の余剰生産能力のかなりの部分を吸収する見込みであり、その大半—約8mm b/dのうち約6mm b/d—がKSAにあります（チャート3）。 主要生産国の余剰生産能力は、米国のシェール生産者がリグと人員を動員して新規生産を集積ラインや主要パイプラインに導入するよりも速く、回復する需要に対応することを可能にします。 当社は米国のシェール生産者を市場価格を受け入れるコホート（価格受容群）としてモデル化しており、市場が許す限り生産すると想定しています。2020年に9.22mm b/dまで落ち込んだ米国生産は、今年9.56mm b/d、2022年に10.65mm b/d、2023年に11.18mm b/dまで回復すると見ています（チャート4）。米国内コンチネンタル産（Lower 48）の生産成長はシェールが主導し、各年とも米国総生産の約80%を占める見込みです。 チャート3 コアOPEC 2.0の余剰生産能力がまず需要増に反応する OPEC 2.0のコア予備生産能力は需要の増加に最初に反応する OPEC 2.0のコア予備生産能力は需要の増加に最初に反応する チャート4 シェールは価格受容群における限界供給源 シェールは価格受容群における限界バレルである シェールは価格受容群における限界バレルである 供給面でのOPEC 2.0の支配的地位は、余剰生産能力が枯渇するまでは非連合生産者に経済的地代を奪われることを許さず、非連合生産者にとっては抑制要因となります。その後、価格受容群は資本を呼び込む能力が限られているため、内部留保から多くの探査・生産（E+P）活動を賄う可能性が高いと考えられます。株主は配当の維持・成長、あるいは株式買戻しによる資本還元を要求し続けるでしょう。これが収益性のある企業に生産成長を限定する要因になります。 当社はOPEC 2.0連合の生産規律が供給を需要のわずか下にとどめ、在庫が減少し続けるようにするだろうと見ています。これはCOVID-19パンデミックで需要が破壊されたにもかかわらず実際に起きたことです（チャート5）。これらのモデリング前提から、当社は供給と需要が2023年にかけて均衡へ向かって動き続けると予想しています（表1）。 チャート5 2021年の需給バランス 2021年の需給バランス 2021年の需給バランス 表1 BCA 世界原油 需給バランス（MMb/d、ベースケース） 原油価格の上方リスクが高まっている 原油価格の上方リスクが高まっている 当社はこの需給均衡化が恒常的な物理的不足を誘発し、在庫は2023年にかけて減少し続けると予想しています（チャート6）。在庫が取り崩されるにつれて、OPEC 2.0の支配的な生産者地位はブレントおよびWTIのフォワードカーブをバックワーデーションに保つことを可能にします（チャート7）。2 当社は2022年および2023年のブレント予測をそれぞれ$65/bbl、$75/bblで維持しています（チャート8）。 チャート6 OPEC 2.0の政策は供給を需要の下に置き続ける... OPEC 2.0政策は供給を需要より下回る水準に保ち続けている… OPEC 2.0政策は供給を需要より下回る水準に保ち続けている… チャート7 OECD在庫は2023年までに減少 OECD Inventories Fall to 2023 OECD Inventories Fall to 2023 チャート8 世界経済回復に伴いブレント予測は上昇 世界経済の回復に伴い、ブレントは上昇が予想される 世界経済の回復に伴い、ブレントは上昇が予想される 価格の両方向リスクが充満 当社見解には上振れおよび下振れのリスクが数多くあります。 上振れの例として、英国と米国のワクチン配布の立ち上げ方が示唆に富みます。 両国とも当初はつまづきました。特に米国は1月時点でも戦略が整っていないように見えました。米国が調達と配布を本格化させると接種率は急上昇し、現在では米国内で「通常の」独立記念日（Fourth of July）を迎える見通しにあるようです。英国は今週再開を開始しました。両国は2021年第3四半期に集団免疫を達成すると予想されています。3 調達と配布を誤ったEUは、英国と米国の教訓から利益を得て2021年第4四半期に集団免疫を達成するとマッキンゼーの調査は示しています。このスケジュールの前倒しは、より強い成長と当社予測を上回る石油価格につながるでしょう。 次の大きな課題は、パンデミックが加速し変異株の発生・拡散に理想的な環境を提供している新興経済地域（特にそのような地域）にワクチンを供給することです。ブラジル、インド、欧州での死亡者数・入院者数の上昇が示すように、大規模なCOVID-19によるロックダウンの再発リスクは依然として残ります。 戦の狼煙（Cry Havoc） 当社が見るもう一つの大きな上振れリスクは、米国、ロシア、中国およびそれらの関係国・同盟国を巻き込む武力衝突です。 現時点でコモディティ市場はこれらのリスクを無視しています。戦争のレベルには達していないにせよ、機動的な交戦―航空機が撃墜されたり南シナ海で艦船が交戦するような事態―の確率は日々高まっています。 これは驚くべきことではなく、当社の同僚であるBCAリサーチの地政学ストラテジー（Geopolitical Strategy）が最近指摘した通りです。4 実際、マット・ガートケン（Matt Gertken）が率いる当該サービスは、バイデン政権が就任直後からロシアと中国によってこの種の試練にさらされるだろうと警告していました。 ロシアはウクライナ国境に軍を集結させ、米国に干渉するなと警告しています。中国はフィリピン沿岸に軍艦を集結させ、台湾の防空識別圏への侵入を続けており、米軍を緊張させています。米露、米中間の政治対話はますます激しくなっており、近い将来に和らぐ兆しは見えません。意図的であれ偶発的であれ交戦が発生すれば戦争の遁走を許し、石油価格は一時的に急騰する可能性があります。 最後に、当社が想定するようにイランが核合意（すなわち共同包括的行動計画：JCPOA）を西側諸国と再締結できれば、イランは「正式な」石油輸出国としての復帰を余儀なくされ、OPEC 2.0はこれを受け入れざるを得なくなります。JCPOAは2018年に当時のトランプ大統領によって破棄されました。 これは困難を伴う可能性があります。当社は2014–16年の石油価格崩壊が、サウジが市場シェア戦争を仕掛けて価格を暴落させ、2010年末から2014年半ばにかけて続いた1バレル当たり$100超の価格をイランに許さないための行動だったと考えています。OPEC 2.0、特にKSAは米国–イラン交渉に公には関与していません。しかし2014年に開始された壊滅的な市場シェア戦争の後、KSAおよびOPEC 2.0はJCPOA後にイランの市場復帰を受け入れたことを想起する価値があります。   ロバート・P・ライアン チーフ コモディティ＆エネルギー・ストラテジスト rryan@bcaresearch.com アシュウィン・シャイアム リサーチアソシエイト コモディティ＆エネルギー戦略 ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com   コモディティ概況 エネルギー： 強気 ブレントとWTI価格は、EIAの週間石油在庫報告が2021年4月9週終わりで米国の原油・製品在庫が910万バレル減少したことを示した後に急騰しました。これは商業用原油と蒸留油在庫の大幅な取り崩し（それぞれ590万バレル、210万バレル）が主導しました。これらの取り崩しは過去一週間に主要データ機関（EIA、IEA、OPEC）による世界需要の概ね強気な上方修正を背景としています。これらの評価は、精製製品需要、すなわち「product supplied」が4月9週終わりで日量110万b/d跳ね上がったというEIAデータに裏付けられています。ジョンソン＆ジョンソンの接種問題という挫折があったにもかかわらずワクチン配布が勢いを増しており、在庫の取り崩しと需要改善が上昇の触媒となったようです。米ドルの弱含みや米国の実質金利低下も追い風になりました。 ベースメタル： 強気 今週初めニッケル価格は下落しました。中国の国営新華社通信が中国の李克強首相が上昇するコモディティ価格の中で原材料市場の規制強化の必要性を強調したと報じ、企業の業績に圧力がかかっているとのことでした（チャート9）。この発言は中国のトップ経済顧問である劉鶴が先週コモディティ価格の追跡を当局に求めた後に出たものです。ニッケル価格はこの報を受けて今週初めにトン当たり約$500下落し、ロンドン金属取引所の取引で火曜日終値時点で$16,114.5/MTで取引されていました。他のベースメタルはこのニュースの影響を受けませんでした。 貴金属： 強気 今週初めに発表された3月の米国インフレデータを受けて米ドルと10年物米国債利回りは低下しました。米国の消費者物価は約9年ぶりの大幅上昇を記録しました。インフレヘッジ需要と米ドル・債利回りの低下が金の購入における機会費用を下げたことが金価格を押し上げました（チャート10）。この不確実性と米国の財政刺激策によるインフレ圧力の高まりが金需要を増加させます。スポットのCOMEX金は火曜日終値で$1,746.20/ozで取引されていました。 穀物・ソフトコモディティ： 中立 USDAの報告によると、米国のトウモロコシ期末在庫は13.5億ブッシェルで、市場予想の13.9億ブッシェルや先月の省の1.50億ブッシェル推定を下回っています（agriculture.comの集計）。世界のトウモロコシ在庫は2.839億トンで、市場予想の2.845億トンおよび省の推定2.876億トンを下回りました。 チャート9 ベースメタルは強気に動く ベースメタルは強気になっている ベースメタルは強気になっている チャート10 金価格の上昇 金価格が上昇へ 金価格が上昇へ   脚注 1     当社が2021年4月8日に発表したUS-Russia Pipeline Standoff Could Push LNG Prices Higherをご覧ください。簡単に言えば、IMFは今年および来年の成長率見通しをそれぞれ6%と4.4%に引き上げ、2021年1月の更新時点と比べてほぼ1ポイントの上方修正を行いました。 2     バックワーデーションのフォワードカーブ—先物の期近価格が期先価格を上回る状態—は需給タイトさを示す市場のシグナルです。精製業者が将来よりも今の原油の入手を高く評価していることを意味します。これはちょうど投資家が明日引き渡される1ドル札に対して1ドルを支払うことを好み、1年後に引き渡される同じ1ドル札には今日98セントしか払わないかもしれないのと同じダイナミクスです。 3    マッキンゼー・アンド・カンパニーが2021年3月26日に発表したWhen will the COVID-19 pandemic end?をご参照ください。 4    BCAの地政学ストラテジーが2021年4月2日に発表した先見的な分析The Arsenal Of Democracyをご覧ください。同レポートは、バイデン政権は中国/台湾、ロシア、イラン、さらには北朝鮮に関する初期のストレス・テストに直面していると指摘しています。ゲーム理論は金融市場が台湾海峡での危機の60%の確率を無視できない理由を説明するのに役立ちます。全面戦争の確率は依然低いものの、台湾は世界で最も重要な地政学的リスクであり続けます。   投資見解とテーマ 推奨事項 戦略的推奨 タクティカルトレード コモディティ価格とプレイ参考表 2021年にクローズしたトレード クローズしたトレードの概要 より高いインフレが到来 より高いインフレが到来