エネルギー

Executive Summary Ebbing Stagflation Fear Will Prompt Rerating European inflation will rise further before peaking this summer. Core CPI will reach between 2.8% and 3.2% by year-end before receding. The combination of stabilizing growth and the eventual peak in inflation will cause stagflation fears to recede. European assets have greater upside. Cyclicals, small-caps, and financials will be major beneficiaries of declining stagflation fears. The underperformance of UK small-cap stocks is nearing its end. UK large-cap equities are a tactical sell against Eurozone and Swedish shares. TACTICAL INCEPTION DATE RETURN SINCE INCEPTION (%) COMMENT EQUITIES Buy European & Swedish Equities / Sell UK Large Caps Stocks 03/21/2022     Bottom Line: Stagflation fears are near an apex as commodity inflation recedes. A peak in these fears will allow European asset prices to perform strongly over the coming quarters.     Despite a glimmer of hope that Ukraine and Russia may find a diplomatic end to the war, the reality on the ground is that the conflict has intensified. Although the hostilities are worsening and the European Central Bank (ECB) surprised the markets with its hawkish tone, European assets have begun to catch a bid. The crucial question for investors is whether this rebound constitutes a new trend or a counter-trend move? Our view about Europe is optimistic right now. The path is not a direct line upward. The recent optimism about the outcome of the Russia-Ukraine talks is premature; however, we are getting to the point when markets are becoming desensitized to the war and energy prices are losing steam. Moreover, the increasing number of statements by Chinese economic authorities pointing toward greater stimulus and support to alleviate the pain created by China’s stringent zero-COVID policy are another positive omen. Higher Inflation For Some Time European headline inflation is set to exceed 7% this summer and core CPI will increase between 2.8% and 3.2% by the end of 2022. Related Report  European Investment StrategySpring Stagflation The main force that will push inflation higher in Europe remains commodity prices. Energy inflation is extremely strong at already 32% per annum (Chart 1). It will increase further because of both the recent jump in Brent prices to EUR122/bbl on March 8 and the upsurge in natural gas prices, which were as high as EUR212/MWh on the same day before settling to EUR106/MWh last Friday. The impact of energy prices will not be limited to headline inflation and will filter through to core CPI (Chart 1, bottom panel). The average monthly percentage change in the Eurozone core CPI inflation stands at 0.25% for the past six months (compared to an average of 0.09% over the past ten years), or the period when energy-prices inflation has been the strongest. Assuming monthly inflation remains at such an elevated level, annual core CPI will hit 3.3% in the Eurozone by the end of 2022 (Chart 2). Chart 2Core CPI to Rise Further Chart 1Energy Inflation: Alive And Well The picture is not entirely bleak. Many forces suggest that these inflationary forces will recede before year-end in Europe. Energy prices are peaking, which is consistent with a diminishing inflationary impulse from that space. We showed two weeks ago that the massive backwardation of oil curves, the heavy bullish sentiment, and the high level of risk-reversals were consistent with a severe but transitory adjustment in the energy market. Oil markets will experience further volatility, as uncertainty around peace/ceasefire negotiations continues to evolve in Ukraine. Nonetheless, the peak in energy prices has most likely been reached. BCA’s energy strategists expect Brent to average $93/bbl in 2022 and in 2023. The potential for a decline in headline CPI after the summer is not limited to energy prices. Dramatic moves in the commodity market, from metals to agricultural resources, have made headlines. Yet, the rate of change of commodity prices is decelerating, hence, the commodity impulse to inflation is slowing sharply. As Chart 3 shows, this is a harbinger of a slowdown in European headline CPI. Related Report  European Investment StrategyFallout From Ukraine Looking beyond commodity markets, the recent deceleration in European economic activity also suggests weaker inflation in the latter half of 2022. Germany will likely suffer a recession because it already registered a negative GDP growth in Q4 2021. Q1 2022 growth will be even worse because of the country’s high exposure to both China and fossil fuel prices. More broadly, the recent deceleration in the rate of change of both the manufacturing and services PMIs is consistent with an imminent peak in the second derivative of goods and services CPI (Chart 4). Chart 3Commodity Impulse Is Peaking Chart 4Inflation's Maximum Momentum Is Now Underlying drivers of inflation also remain tame in Europe. European negotiated wages are only expanding at a 1.5% annual rate, which translates into unit labor costs growth of 1% (Chart 5). This contrast with the US, where wages are expanding at a 4.3% annual rate. A peak in inflation, however, does not mean that CPI readings will fall below the ECB’s 2% threshold anytime soon. The European economy continues to face supply shortages that the Ukrainian conflict exacerbates (Chart 6). Moreover, the recent wave of COVID-19 in China increases the risk of disruptions in supply chains, as highlighted by the closure of Foxconn factories in Shenzhen. Finally, inflation has yet to peak; mathematically, it will take a long time before it falls back below levels targeted by Frankfurt. Chart 5The European Labor Market Is Not Inflationary Chart 6Not Blemish-Free Bottom Line: European headline inflation will peak this summer, probably above 7%. Additionally, core CPI is likely to reach between 2.8% and 3.2% in the second half of 2022. As a result of a decline in the commodity impulse, inflation will decelerate afterward, but it will remain above the ECB’s 2% target for most of 2023. Hopes For Growth Two weeks ago, we wrote that Europe was facing a stagflation episode in the coming one to two quarters, but that, ultimately, economic activity will recover well. Recent evidence confirms that assessment. Chart 7A Coming Chinese Tailwind? The tone of Chinese policymakers is becoming more aggressive, in favor of supporting the economy. On March 16, Vice-Premier Liu He highlighted that Beijing was readying to support property and tech shares and that it will do more to stimulate the economy. True, this response was made in part to address the need to close cities affected by the sudden spike of Omicron cases around China. Nonetheless, the global experience with Omicron demonstrates that, as spectacular and violent the surge in cases may be, it is short-lived. Meanwhile, the impact of stimulus filters through the economy over many months. As a result, Europe will experience the impact of China’s Omicron-induced slowdown, while it also suffers from the growth-sapping effects of the Ukrainian conflict; however, it will also enjoy the positive effect on growth of a rising credit impulse over several subsequent quarters (Chart 7). Beyond China, the other themes we have discussed in recent weeks remain valid. First, European fiscal policy will become looser, as governments prepare to fight the slowdown caused by the war, while also increasing infrastructure spending to wean Europe off Russian energy. Moreover, European military spending is well below NATO’s 2% objective. This will not remain the case, as military expenditure may leap from less than EUR100bn per year to nearly EUR400bn per year over the coming decade. Second, European spending on consumer durable goods still lags well behind the trajectory of the US. With the energy drag at its apex today, consumer spending on durable goods will be able to catch up in the latter half of the year, especially with the household savings rate standing at 15% or 2.5 percentage points above its pre-COVID level. Bottom Line: European growth will be very low in the coming quarters. Germany is likely to face a technical recession as Q1 2022 data filters in. Nonetheless, Chinese stimulus, European fiscal support, pent-up demand, and a declining energy drag will allow growth to recover in the latter half of the year. As a result, we agree with the European Commission estimates that European growth will slow markedly this year. Market Implications In the context of a transitory shock to European economic activity and a coming peak in inflation, European stock prices have likely bottomed. Chart 8Depressed Sentiment To Help Beta Sentiment has reached levels normally linked with a durable market floor. The NAAIM Exposure Index has fallen to a point from which global markets often recover. Europe’s high beta nature increases the odds that European equities will greatly benefit in that context (Chart 8). Valuations confirm that sentiment toward European assets has reached a capitulation stage. The annual rate of change of the earnings yields in the earnings yields has hit 73%, which is consistent with a market bottom (Chart 9). More importantly, the change in European forward P/E tracks closely our European Stagflation Sentiment Proxy (ESSP), based on the difference between the Growth and Inflation Expectations’ components of the ZEW survey (Chart 10). For now, our ESSP indicates that stagflation fears in Europe have never been so widespread, but these fears will likely dissipate as energy inflation declines. This process will lift European earnings multiples. Chart 9Bad News Discounted? Chart 10Ebbing Stagflation Fear Will Prompt Rerating Earnings revisions will likely bottom soon as well. The ESSP is currently consistent with a dramatic decline in European net earnings revisions (Chart 10, bottom panel). It will take a few more weeks for lower earnings revisions to be fully reflected. However, they follow market moves and, as such, the 17% decline in the MSCI Europe Index that took place earlier this year already anticipates their fall. Consequently, as stagflation fears recede, earnings revisions will rise in tandem with equity prices. Chart 11Maximum Pressure On Corporate Spreads A decline in stagflation fears is also consistent with a decrease in European credit spreads in the coming months (Chart 11). This observation corroborates the analysis from the Special Report we published jointly with BCA’s Global Fixed-Income Strategy team last week.  In terms of sectoral implications, a decline in stagflation fears is often associated with a rebound in the performance of small-cap equities relative to large-cap ones (Chart 12, top panel). This reflects the greater sensitivity of small-cap equities to domestic economic conditions compared to large-cap stocks. Moreover, small-cap equities had been oversold relative to their large-cap counterparts but now, momentum is improving (Chart 12). As a result, it is time to buy these equities. Similarly, financials have suffered greatly from the recent events associated with the Ukrainian conflict. European financial institutions have not only been penalized for their modest exposure to Russia, they have also historically declined when stagflation fears are prevalent (Chart 13). This relationship reflects poor lending activity when the economy weakens, and the risk of a policy-induced recession caused by high inflation. Financials will continue their sharp rebound as stagflation fears dissipate. Chart 13Financials Have Suffered Enough Chart 12Small-Caps Time To Shine The dynamics in inflation alone are very important. As Table 1 highlights, in periods of elevated inflation over the past 20 years, financials underperform the broad market by 11.3% on average. It is also a period of pain for small-cap equities and cyclicals. Logically, exiting the current environment will offer opportunities in European cyclical equities and for financials in particular. Table 1Who Suffers From High Inflation? Chart 14Long Industrials & Materials / Short Energy Finally, a pair trade buying industrials and materials at the expense of energy makes sense today. Materials and industrials suffer relative to energy equities when stagflation rises, especially in periods when these fears reflect rising energy pressures (Chart 14). A reversal in relative earnings revisions in favor of materials and industrials will propel this position higher. Bottom Line: Sentiment toward European assets reached a selling climax in recent weeks. Stagflation fears in Europe have reached an apex, and their reversal will lift both multiples and earnings revisions in the subsequent quarters. Diminishing stagflation fears will also boost the appeal of European corporate credit, contributing to an easing in financial conditions. Small-cap stocks, cyclicals, and financials will reap the greatest benefits from this adjustment. Going long materials and industrials at the expense of energy stocks is an attractive pair trade. Key Risk: A Policy Mistake The view above is not without risks. The number one threat to European growth and assets is a policy mistake from the ECB. On March 10, 2022, the ECB’s policy statement and President Christine Lagarde’s press conference showed that the Governing Council (GC) will decrease asset purchases faster than anticipated. Chart 15Will The ECB Repeat It Past Mistakes? It is important to keep in mind the dynamics of 2011. Back then, the ECB opted to increase interest rates as European headline CPI was drifting toward 2.6% on the back of rising energy prices. According to our ESSP, the April 2011 interest rates hike took place at the greatest level of stagflation fears recorded until the current moment (Chart 15). Lured by rising inflation, the ECB ignored underlying weaknesses in European economic activity, which wreaked havoc on European financial markets and growth. If the ECB were to increase rates as growth remains soft, a similar outcome would take place. For now, the ECB’s communications continue to de-emphasize the need for rate hikes in the near term, which suggests that the GC is cognizant of the risk created by weak growth over the coming months. Waiting until next year, when activity will be stronger and the output gap will be closed, will offer the ECB a better avenue to lift rates durably. This risk warrants close monitoring of the ECB’s communication over the coming months. If headline inflation does not peak by the summer, the ECB is likely to repeat its past error, which will substantially hurt European assets. Our optimism is tempered by this threat. UK Outperformance Long In The Tooth? Last week, the Bank of England (BoE) increased the Bank Rate by 25bps to 0.75%, in a move that was widely expected. Yet, the pound fell 0.7% against the euro and gilt yields fell 6 bps. This market reaction reflected the BoE’s choice to temper its forward guidance. The central bank is now expected to increase interest rates to 2.2% next year, before they decline in 2024. The dovish projection of the BoE shows the MPC’s concerns over the impact of higher energy costs and rising National Insurance contributions on household spending. In the BoE’s opinion, the economy is very inflationary right now, but it will slow, which will mitigate the inflationary impact down the road. We share the BoE’s worries about the UK’s near-term economic outlook. The combination of higher taxes, higher interest rates, and rising energy costs will have an impact on growth. However, the rapid decline in small-cap stocks, which have massively underperformed their large cap-counterparts, already discounts considerable bad news (Chart 16). Additionally, small-cap equities relative to EPS have begun to stabilize, while relative P/E and price-to-book ratios have also corrected their overvaluations. In this context, UK small-cap equities are becoming attractive. Chart 17UK vs Eurozone: A Stagflation Bet Chart 16UK Small-Cap Stocks Have Purged Their Excesses In contrast to small-cap stocks, UK large-cap equities have greatly benefited from the global stagflation scare. The UK large-cap benchmark had the right sector mix for the current environment, overweighting defensive names as well as energy and resources. It is likely that when stagflation fears recede, UK equities will undo their outperformance (Chart 17). Technically, UK equities are massively overbought against Euro Area and Swedish stocks, both of which have been greatly impacted by stagflation fears and their pro-cyclical biases (Chart 18 & 19). An attractive tactical bet will be to sell UK large-cap stocks while buying Eurozone and Swedish equities, as energy inflation declines and as China’s stimulus boosts global industrial activity in the latter half of 2022 Bottom Line: Move to overweight UK small-cap stocks within UK equity portfolios. Go long Euro Area and Swedish equities relative to UK large-cap stocks as a tactical bet. Chart 18UK Overbought Relative To Euro Area... Chart 19… And Sweden   Mathieu Savary, Chief European Strategist Mathieu@bcaresearch.com Tactical Recommendations Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Trades

Executive Summary Higher Prices Expected Global oil supply will move lower for a few months, until shipping can be re-routed and re-priced in response to sanctions against Russian oil producers and refiners.  In the wake of another outbreak of COVID-19 in China, oil demand will likely move marginally lower in the near term.  Chinese fiscal stimulus to support demand and Chinese equity markets will be bullish for oil, natgas and metals. Work-arounds by China and India to circumvent Western sanctions likely will keep the hit to Russian oil production contained to March and April.  However, longer term – 2024 and beyond – sanctions will put Russia's oil output on a downward trajectory. Saudi Arabia will launch an experiment this year to be paid in yuan for oil exports to China.  As a risk-management strategy, KSA needs USD alternatives for storing wealth and retaining access to its foreign reserves, given the success of sanctions in restricting Russia's access to its foreign reserves following its invasion of Ukraine. Our Brent forecast is higher, averaging $93/bbl for this year and in 2023. Bottom Line: We recommend buying the dip in any oil-and-gas equity sell-off.  We remain long the XOP ETF.  We also remain long the S&P GSCI and COMT ETF – long commodity-index based vehicles that benefit from higher commodity prices and increasing backwardation in these markets, particularly oil. Feature Shipping delays in the wake of sanctions – official and self-imposed – against Russian oil and gas exports will stretch out global hydrocarbon supply chains in 1H22. This will have the effect of reducing actual supply, as these vessels are re-routed, and work-arounds are found to get oil to ports accepting Russian material.1 Related Report  Commodity & Energy Strategy2022 Key Views: Past As Prelude For Commodities So far, China and India appear to be moving quickly to develop sanctions work-arounds. Both have long-term trading relationships with Russia, and, in the case of India, the capacity to revive a treaty covering rupee-invoicing of trade in commodities and arms. Estimates of the total hit to Russian oil production resulting from export sanctions imposed by the West following its invasion of Ukraine last month range as high as 5mm b/d in output losses, but we do not share that view.2 There is a strong desire for discounted oil in China and India, and to find alternatives to USD-denominated trade. This has been catalyzed by the sanctions on Russia's central bank and the shutdown of access to its foreign reserves. Payment-messaging systems competitive with the Brussels-based SWIFT network have been stood up already. These will be refined in the wake of the Ukraine war by states with a long-standing desire to diversify payment systems away from the world's reserve currency (i.e., the USD). Among these states, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) is reported to be exploring alternatives for diversifying away from USD-based payment systems, and foreign-reserves custodial relationships dependent on Western central-bank oversight – particularly the US Fed.3 In addition, as ties between China and GCC states have strengthened, the Kingdom might also be looking to diversify its defense partnerships, particularly given the open hostility between the Biden administration in the US and KSA's leadership. Monitoring Chinese state media coverage of this will provide a good indication of the extent of such cooperation. Assessing Highly Uncertain Supply In our base case, Russian output likely falls by ~ 1mm b/d over the March-April period because of shipping delays that force production to be throttled back at the margin due to storage constraints. In its magnitude, this is a similar assumption to the reference case considered by the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies (OIES) but is extended for two months (Table 1).4 We expect shipping delays and payment work-arounds to be sorted out in a couple of months, which, given the incentives of all involved, does not seem unreasonable. Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) To Dec23 In our base case modeling, supply changes by core-OPEC 2.0 in 2022 are required to meet physical deficits brought about by less-than-expected volumes returned to the market by the entire coalition from August 2021 to now. This amounts to ~ 1.2mm b/d by our reckoning. For all of 2022, we assume core-OPEC 2.0 will lift supply by 1.3mm b/d, with most of this being provided to markets beginning in May 2022. In 2023, supplies from KSA, UAE and Kuwait are assumed to increase by roughly 0.2mm b/d, led by KSA (Chart 1). This is higher relative to our previous estimates, given our expectation, this core group will have to lift output to compensate not only for reduced Russian output and supply-chain delays this year and next, but falling output within the producer coalition's other non-core states. Outside OPEC 2.0, stronger WTI futures prices in spot markets and along the entire forward curve drive our estimate of US shale output (L48 ex-GoM) to 9.89mm b/d in 2022 (0.86mm b/d above 2021 levels) and 10.58mm b/d in 2023 (0.69mm above our 2022 levels). Supply-chain disruptions and cost inflation showing up in US shale producers' operations likely will dampen output increases.5 For the US, we expect 2022 average US production of 12.1mm b/d, or 900k b/d higher than 2021 output, and 12.8mm b/d in 2023, which is 700k b/d higher than 2022 levels (Chart 2). Chart 1Still Expecting Core-OPEC 2.0 Production Increases Chart 2US Oil Output Slightly Higher   Higher Brent prices will encourage short-term production increases from North Sea producers and others. However, it is not clear whether this will incentivize the years-long projects that will be needed to offset the lack of capex in the sector over the past decade or so. One of our high-conviction views resulting from the dearth of capex in oil and gas production is increasingly tighter markets by mid-decade – likely apparent by 2024 – which will require higher prices to reverse the lack of investment in new production. In line with our House view, we are not restoring the return of up to 1.3mm b/d of Iranian production to markets, given the guidance from this source proved unreliable earlier this month when it suspended talks with the US on its nuclear deal. We also are not assuming ceasefire talks between Ukraine and Russia will end to the Ukraine war, given the unreliability of the source (Russia) in these reports. Softer Demand Near Term Over the next few months, we expect the recent upsurge in COVID-19 cases in China to reduce Asian demand, but not tank it relative to our existing assumptions.6 Even though this was expected in our balances estimates, we are reducing our 2Q22 demand estimate by an additional 250k b/d, which is split evenly between DM and EM economies. This reflects the direct short-term hit to EM demand from China's lockdowns and a stronger USD, which raises the local-currency costs of oil, as well as the knock-on effects of additional supply-chain disruptions. Global consumption for 2022 is expected to be 4.4mm b/d higher on average vs 2021 levels, coming in at 101.54mm b/d, and 1.7mm b/d higher in 2023 vs. 2022 levels. We expect the Russian sanctions work-arounds being pursued by China and India – together accounting for a bit more than 20% of global oil demand – will be effective and will put overall EM demand back on trend in 2H22, assuming China's COVID-19 outbreak is brought under control (Chart 3).   Chart 3COVID-19 Hits China Demand, But Does Not Tank EM Overall While markets remain highly fluid – subject to sharp changes in perceptions of fundaments and their trajectories – these supply-demand estimates continue to point to relatively a balanced market this year and next (Chart 4). That said, the supply-demand fundamentals still leave inventories extremely tight, which means they will  provide limited buffering against sudden shifts in supply, demand or both (Chart 5). This will, in our estimation, keep forward curves backwardated, which will support our long-term positions in long commodity-index exposure (i.e., the S&P GSCI and the COMT ETF).  Chart 4Markets Remain Balanced... Chart 5...And Inventories Remain Tight Our base-case balances estimates translate into a 2022 Brent price forecast that averages $93/bbl, and a 2023 average estimate of $93/bbl, which are lower than our previous forecasts of $94/bbl and $98/bbl, respectively. For 1Q22, we now expect prices to average $98/bbl; 2Q22 to average $98.25/bbl; 3Q22 $88.45/bbl; and 4Q22 $87.30/bbl. Risks To Our View The supply side of our modeling remains exposed to exogenous political risks, chiefly: A failure on the part of core-OPEC 2.0 to increase production to offset lower-than-expected output outside the coalition's core; Lower-than-expected US oil output, given stronger-than-expected production discipline; and A return of up to 1.3mm b/d of Iranian barrels, which we no longer are assuming in our balances. We continue to believe core-OPEC 2.0 will increase production because it is in their interest not to allow inventory depletion to accelerate and for prices to move higher faster. The local-currency cost of oil in EM economies – the growth engine for oil demand – is high and going higher. In real terms – i.e., inflation-adjusted terms – it is even higher, as the real effective USD trade-weighted FX rate exceeds that of the nominal rate (Chart 6). This can be seen in the local-currency costs of oil in the world's largest consumers (Chart 7). We expect an announcement from core-OPEC 2.0 by the end of this month regarding a production increase. Chart 6High Real USD FX Rates Increase Local Oil Costs Chart 7Local-Currency Oil Costs In Large Consuming States   Of course, KSA's diversification to USD alternatives as a risk-management strategy makes it less certain it will lead an output increase in exchange for an increased US commitment to its defense. Regarding US shale output, producers remain disciplined in their capital allocation. Even though we expect higher prices across the WTI forward curve will incentivize additional production, we could be over-estimating the extent of this increase in our modeling. Lastly, as noted above, Iran and Russia are indicating their trade concerns have been addressed by the US, which presumably will presumably will be followed by the return up to 1.3mm b/d of production to export markets. However, forward guidance from these producers has not been particularly reliable, and we could be wrong here as well. This would be a bearish fundamental on the supply side, which would pressure prices lower. Investment Implications Given the breakdown in talks between the US and Iran – presumably under pressure from Russia for guarantees the US would not sanction its trade with Iran – our Brent price forecast remains above $90/bbl (Chart 8). We expect the near-term price increase will dissipate as the sanctions work-arounds – particularly by China and India – re-route oil flows. Core OPEC 2.0 producers – KSA, the UAE and Kuwait – have sufficient surplus capacity to increase production to allow refiners to re-build inventories. This big question for markets now is will they bring it to market in the near term? KSA's interest in exploring yuan-linked oil trade with China adds an element of uncertainty to whether production will be increased. Perhaps that is a goal of this exercise: The US is being shown there are alternatives available to large oil exporters re terms of trade and providers of defense services. Chart 8Higher Prices Expected There is sufficient spare capacity available at present to address the current physical deficits in global markets. Our analysis indicates markets are balanced but still tight, as can be seen in current and expected inventory levels. We remain long the XOP ETF and the S&P GSCI and COMT ETF. The latter ETFs provide long commodity-index based exposure that benefits from higher commodity prices and increasing backwardation in commodity markets generally, particularly oil.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com     Commodities Round-Up Precious Metals: Bullish Markets expected the Federal Reserve's rate hike of 25 basis points in the March and was not disappointed. Further rate hikes this year will occur against the backdrop of high geopolitical uncertainty and inflation, both of which are bullish for gold. The Russia-Ukraine crisis has added a new layer of complexity, and the Fed will need to proceed with caution to curb inflation but not over-tighten the economy.       Footnotes 1     Please see All at sea: Russian-linked oil tanker seeks a port, published by straitstimes.com on March 10, 2022 for examples of shipping delays. 2     Please see Could Russia Look to China to Export More Oil and Natural Gas? published by naturalgasintell.com on March 9, and India says it’s in talks with Russia about increasing oil imports., published on March 15, for additional reporting. See also Besides China, Putin Has Another Potential De-dollarization Partner in Asia published by cfr.org, which discusses India-Russia trade agreements between 1953-92 with the signing of the 1953 Indo-Soviet Trade Agreement. 3    Please see Saudi considering China’s yuan for oil purchases published by al-monitor.com on March 16. 4    Please see the OIES Oil Monthly published on March 14. 5    Oil producers in a ‘dire situation’ and unable to ramp up output, says Oxy CEO published on March 8 by cnbc.com. 6    A resurgence of COVID-19 in China was not unexpected. It was one of our key views going into 2022. Please see 2022 Key Views: Past As Prelude For Commodities, which we published on December 16, 2021. In that report, we noted, "… China still is operating under a zero-tolerance COVID-19 policy, and has relied on less efficacious vaccines that appear to offer no protection against the omicron variant of the coronavirus. This also is a risk for EM economies that rely on these vaccines. However, the roll-out of mRNA vaccines globally via joint ventures will be gathering steam in 2H22, which is bullish for commodity demand." We continue to expect Chinese authorities to deploy mRNA vaccines or antivirals to combat this outbreak.   Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Trades Closed in 2021

特別レポート

Executive Summary Failure Of Iran Deal Tightens Oil Supply The US and Iran suspended their attempt to negotiate a nuclear deal on March 11. Countries often get cold feet before major agreements but there are good reasons to believe this suspension will be permanent. A confirmed failure to restore the US-Iran strategic détente will lead to Middle Eastern instability. Iran will be on a trajectory to achieve nuclear weapons in a few years while Israel and the US will have to underscore their red lines against weaponization. The Strait of Hormuz will come under threat again. The immediate impact on oil prices should be positive: sanctions will continue to hinder Iran’s exports, while Iranian conflict with its neighbors will sharply increase the odds of oil disruptions caused by militant actions. Not to mention the Russia-induced energy supply shock. However, a decisive move by the Gulf Arab states to boost crude production would counteract the effect of Iranian sanctions and drive oil down. The Gulf Arabs will be more inclined to coordinate with the Biden administration as long as the Iran deal is ruled out. Thus oil volatility is the main implication beyond any short term oil spike.     Trade Recommendation Inception Date Return Long Gold (Strategic) 2019-12-06 36.8% Bottom Line: Go long US equities relative to global; long US and Canadian stocks versus Saudi and UAE stocks. Stay long XOP ETF, S&P GSCI index, and COMT ETF for exposure to oil prices and backwardation in oil forward curves. Feature The current Iran talks would have restored Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPA), which created a strategic détente between the US and Iran. Iran froze its nuclear program while the US lifted sanctions. President Barack Obama negotiated the deal in 2015, without congressional approval, while President Donald Trump nullified it in 2018, arguing that it did not restrict Iran’s ballistic missile development or support for regional militant groups. Chart 1Bull Market In Iran Tensions Will Be Super-Charged Since then there has been a bull market in Iran tensions (Chart 1), a secret war in which sporadic militant attacks, assassinations, and acts of sabotage occurred but neither side pursued open confrontation. These attacks can be significant, as with the Iran-backed attack on the Abqaiq refinery in Saudi Arabia, which took 6mm b/d of oil-processing capacity offline briefly in September 2019. The implication of this trend is energy supply disruption. Now the trend will be super-charged in the context of a global energy shortage. If no US-Iran détente is achieved, the Middle East will be set on a new trajectory of conflict, or at least a nuclear arms race and aggressive containment strategy. Since Trump turned away from the US-Iran détente and reimposed sanctions on Iran we have given a 40% chance of large-scale military conflict, according to our June 2019 decision tree (Diagram 1). The basis for such a conflict is Iran’s likelihood of obtaining nuclear arms and the need of Israel, its Arab neighbors, and the US to prevent that from happening. Diagram 1US-Iran Conflict: Critical Juncture In Our Decision Tree Between now and then, tit-for-tat military exchanges will increase, posing risks to oil supply in the short and medium run. Without a major diplomatic breakthrough that halts Iran’s nuclear weaponization, a bombing campaign against Iran will be the likeliest long-term consequence, due to the fateful logic of Israel’s strategic predicament (Diagram 2). Diagram 2Over Medium Term, Unilateral Israeli Military Action Is Possible Why Rejoining The US-Iran Deal Was Unlikely Under the Biden administration’s new plan, Iran would have frozen its nuclear program once again while Biden would have relaxed US “maximum pressure” sanctions on Iran, opening the way for foreign investment and the development of Iran’s energy sector and economy. The basis for a deal was the belief among some US policymakers that engagement with Iran would open up its economy, reducing regional war risks (especially in Iraq), expanding global energy supply, and fomenting pro-democratic sentiment in Iran. Also the Washington military-industrial complex wanted to reduce the US’s commitment to the Middle East and arrange a grand strategic “pivot to Asia” so as to counter the rise of China. Up till August 2021, we viewed a deal as likely, but that view changed when Iran’s hawkish or hardline faction came back into the presidency. Biden had a very small window of opportunity to negotiate with outgoing Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, who negotiated the original 2015 deal and whose administration fell apart after President Trump withdrew from the deal. When the hawkish Iranian faction took back power, this opportunity slipped. Iran’s hawks were vindicated for having opposed détente with the US in the first place. Since then we have argued that strategic tensions would escalate, for the following reasons: The Iranians could not trust the Americans, since they knew that any new deal could be torn up as early as January 20, 2025 if the Republican Party took back the White House. Indeed, former Vice President Mike Pence recently confirmed this view explicitly. The Iranians were not compelled to agree to the deal because high oil prices ensured that they could export oil regardless of US sanctions (Chart 2). The US no longer has the diplomatic credibility to galvanize a coalition that includes the Russians and Chinese to isolate Iran, like it did back in 2014-15. Chart 2Iranians Not Compelled To A Deal, Can Circumvent Sanctions As for Iran’s weak economy spurring social unrest and forcing Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to agree to a deal, the US has had maximum pressure sanctions in place since 2019 and it has not produced that effect. Yes, Iran is ripe for social unrest, but the regime is consolidating power under the hardliners rather than taking any risky course of opening up and reform that could foment pro-democratic and pro-western demands for change. With oil revenues flowing in, the regime will be more capable of suppressing domestic opposition. The Americans could not trust the Iranians because they knew that they would ultimately pursue nuclear weapons regardless of any short-term revival of the 2015 deal. The Iranians have a stark choice between North Korea, which achieved nuclear weaponization and now has a powerful guarantee of future regime survival, and countries like Ukraine and Libya, which gave up nuclear weapons or programs only to be invaded by foreign armies. Moreover the Iranian nuclear deal lacked popular support, even among Obama Democrats back in 2015, not to mention today in the wake of the deal’s cancellation. The deal’s provisions would have begun expiring in 2025 under any conditions. The Israelis and Gulf Arabs opposed the deal. The Russians also switched to opposing the deal and made new demands at the last minute as a result of the US sanctions imposed on Russia in the wake of its invasion of Ukraine. The Russians do not have an interest in Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon and they supported the 2015 deal and the 2021-22 renegotiation while demanding their pound of flesh in the form of Ukraine. But they also know that Israel and the US will use military force to prevent Iran from getting the bomb, so they are not compelled to join any agreement. Crippling US sanctions over Ukraine likely caused them to interfere with the deal. Our pessimistic view is now confirmed, with the suspension of talks. True, informal talks will continue, diplomacy could somehow revive, and it is still possible for a deal to come together. But given our fundamental points above, we would give any durable diplomatic solution a low probability, say 5%. That means that the US and Iran will not engage, which means Iran will re-activate its regional militant proxies and begin pursuing nuclear weaponization. Iran has a powerful incentive to increase regime security before the dangerous leadership succession that looms over the nearly 83 year-old Khamenei and the threatening possibility of a Republican’s reelection in 2024. At present, it is unknown which side of the Iran nuclear deal talks suspended them. While the Iranians were not compelled by an international coalition to join the deal as they were in 2015, we cannot ignore the possibility the suspension in talks arises from a deal being reached between the US and core OPEC 2.0 producers (Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Kuwait). Very simply, such a deal would entail that the Arab states increase output, to ease the global shortage, in return for the US walking away from the flawed Iran deal and pledging to work with Israel and the Gulf Arabs to contain Iran. Israel and the Gulf Arabs are increasingly aligned in their goal of countering Iran under the Abraham Accords, negotiated in 2020 by the Trump administration. If the US and Gulf states agreed, then the Gulf states are likely to increase production to ease the global shortage and prolong the business cycle, meaning that oil prices could fall rather than rise as their next move. Either way they will remain volatile as a result of global developments. What Next? Escalation In The Middle East The Iranians have made substantial nuclear progress since 2018, despite Israeli attempts at sabotaging critical facilities. Today Iran stands on the brink of achieving “breakout” levels of highly enriched uranium – levels at which it is possible to construct a nuclear device (Table 1). Table 1Iran Will Reach ‘Breakout’ Nuclear Capability The suspension of talks means the Iranians will soon reach breakout capacity, which will splash across global headlines. This news will rattle global financial markets as it will point to a nuclear arms race in the most volatile of regions. There is a gap of one-to-two years between breakout uranium enrichment and deliverable nuclear weapon, according to most experts.1 However, it is much easier to monitor nuclear programs than missile programs, which means western intelligence will lose visibility when it comes to knowing precisely when Iran will obtain a functional nuclear warhead that it can mount on a ballistic missile. The Iranians are skillful at ballistic missiles. The clock will start ticking once nuclear breakout is achieved and the Israelis and Americans will be forced to respond by underscoring their red line against weaponization. Starting right away, Israel and the US will need to demonstrate publicly that they have a “military option” to prevent Iran from achieving nuclear weaponization. They will refrain from immediate military action but will seek to re-establish a credible threat through shows of force. They will also redouble their efforts to use special operations and cyber attacks to set back the Iranian programs. The Iranians will seek to deter them from attacking and will want to highlight the negative consequences. The US-Iran talks were not only about the nuclear program but also about a broader strategic détente. The Iranians will no longer rein in their regional militant proxies, whether the militias in Iraq or the Houthis in Yemen or Hezbollah in Lebanon. In effect we are now looking at a major escalation of militant attacks in the Middle East at a time when oil is already soaring. In many cases the express intent of the Iran-backed groups will be to threaten oil supply to demonstrate the leverage that they have to intimidate the US and its allies and discourage them from applying too much pressure too quickly. Bottom Line: On top of the current oil shock, we are about to have a higher risk premium injected into oil from Middle Eastern proxy conflict involving Iran. If OPEC does not act quickly to boost production then financial markets face additional commodity price pressures, on top of the existing Russia-induced supply shock. Commodity And Energy Implications Our Commodity & Energy Strategist, Bob Ryan, outlines the following implications for the oil market: In BCA Research's oil supply-demand balances, while we recognized the Geopolitical Strategy view that the US-Iran deal would not materialize, nevertheless we assumed that Iran would return up to 1.3mm b/d of production by 2H22, which would have been available for export markets. This would have given a significant boost to oil supply as the market continues to tighten. Chart 3Failure Of Iran Deal Tights Oil Supply The failure of these barrels to return to the market will result in an oil-price increase of about $15/bbl in 2023, based on our modeling (Chart 3). We can expect backwardations to increase in Brent and WTI, as demand for precautionary inventories increases. The modelled prices include the oil risk premium of ~USD 9/bbl in H2 2022 and USD 5/bbl in 2023. Relative to 2021, we expect core- OPEC - KSA, UAE and Kuwait – and total US crude supply to increase by 1.7 mmb/d and 0.65 mmb/d respectively in 2022. Compared to 2022, core-OPEC supply will level off in 2023, and will increase by 0.6 mmb/d for total US. If the US has a deal with core OPEC, then, based on the reference production levels agreed by OPEC 2.0 in July 2021, core OPEC’s production capacity could cover a large bit of the volumes markets are short (Table 2). This is due to lower monthly additions of output that was supposed to be returned to markets – now above 1mm b/d – and the lost Iranian output (Table 2). Table 2OPEC 2.0 Reference Production Levels Per the OPEC 2.0 reference production schedule released following the July 2021 meeting in Vienna, Saudi Arabia’s output is free to go to 11.5mm b/d by May, the UAE's to 3.5mm b/d, and Kuwait's to just under 3mm b/d. Iraq also could raise output, but its output is variable and it will lie at the center of the new escalation in military tensions, so we do not count it as core OPEC 2.0 production. Assuming these numbers are consistent with actual capacity for core OPEC 2.0, that means Saudi Arabia could lift production by ~ 1.1mm b/d, UAE by ~ 0.5m b/d, and Kuwait by close to 0.3mm b/d. That’s almost 2mm b/d. These reference-production levels might be on the high side of what core OPEC 2.0 is able or willing to do. But they would be close to covering most of the deficit resulting from less-than-anticipated return of 400k b/d from OPEC 2.0 producers beginning last August ( ~ 1.2mm b/d). Most of Iran’s lost output also would be covered. More than likely, these barrels will find their way to market "under the radar" (i.e., smuggled out of Iran) over the next year or so. This was one reason our geopolitical strategists did not view Iran as sufficiently pressured to sign a deal. US shale-oil output will be increasing above the 0.9 mm b/d that we forecast last month for 2022, and the 0.5mm b/d we expect next year, given the sharp price rally prompted by the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Our Commodity & Energy Strategy service will be updating our estimate next week when we publish new supply-demand balances and price forecasts. Releases from the Strategic Petroleum Reserves of the US and OECD are available to tide the market over for brief periods due to Middle East shocks or sanctions on Russian oil. Releases from the Strategic Petroleum Reserves of the US and OECD are available to tide the market over for brief periods due to Middle East shocks or sanctions on Russian oil. Over time, a significant share of these displaced Russian barrels will find their way to China, and the volumes being displaced will be re-routed to other Asian and western buyers. Investment Takeaways One of our key geopolitical views for 2022 is that oil producers have enormous strategic leverage, specifically Russia and Iran. The Ukraine war and now the suspension of US-Iran détente bears out this view. It is highly destabilizing for global politics and economy. One of our five black swans for 2022 is that Israel could attack Iran – this is a black swan because it is highly unlikely on such a short time frame. However, if the US-Iran deal cannot be salvaged, then the clock is ticking to a time when Israel and/or the US will have to decide whether to prevent Iran from going nuclear or instead choose containment strategy as with North Korea. Yet the Iran dilemma is less stable than the Korean dilemma because the Israelis are committed to preventing weaponization. The Israelis will not act unilaterally until the last possible moment, when all other options to prevent weaponization are exhausted, as the operation would be extremely difficult and they need American military assistance. If diplomacy fails on Iran, the two options for the future are a major war or a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. The latter would involve an aggressive containment strategy. The global economy faces a major new risk to energy supply as a result of this material increase in Middle East tensions. A stagflationary outcome is much more likely. Europe’s energy security will be far more vulnerable now as it tries to diversify away from Russia but faces a more volatile Middle East (Chart 4). Undoubtedly Russia and Iran recognize their tremendous leverage. China, India, and other resource imports face a larger energy shock if the Gulf Arabs do not boost production promptly. They certainly face greater volatility. China’s policy support for the economy will remain lackluster in an environment in which inflation continues to threaten economic stability. China’s internal stability was already at risk and now it will have to scramble to secure energy supplies amid a global price shock and looming Middle Eastern instability. China has no choice but to accept Russia’s decision to cut ties with the West and lash itself to China as a strategic ally for the foreseeable future (Chart 5). Chart 4The EU’s Two-Pronged Energy Insecurity​​​​​ Chart 5China's Energy Insecurity​​​​​ Chart 6AGo Long US And Canada / Short Saudi And UAE ​​​​​ Chart 6BGo Long US And Canada / Short Saudi And UAE ​​​​​ Geopolitical Strategy recommends investors go long US equities relative to global equities on a strategic basis. We also recommend long US / short UAE equities and long Canadian / short Saudi equities (Charts 6A and 6B). Chart 7Worst Case Oil Risk In Historical Context Unlike Ukraine, the onset of a new Middle East crisis may not come with “shock and awe.” Weeks or months may pass before Iran reaches nuclear breakout. But make no mistake, if diplomacy fails, Iran will ignite a nuclear race and activate its militant proxies, while its enemies will increase sabotage, rattle sabers, and review military options. The Iranians will not be afraid to threaten the Strait of Hormuz, their other nuclear option (Chart 7). A total blockage of Hormuz is not by any means imminent. But war becomes more likely if Iran achieves nuclear breakout and diplomacy continues to fail.   Matt Gertken Chief Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      See Ariel Eli Levite, “Can a Credible Nuclear Breakout Time With Iran Be Restored?” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, June 24, 2021, carnegieendowment.org. See also Simon Henderson, “Iranian Nuclear Breakout: What It Is and How to Calculate It,” Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Policy Watch 3457, March 24, 2021, washingtoninstitute.org.   Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Regional Geopolitical Risk Matrix

特別レポート

Executive Summary Tight Inventories Spike Metals Russia's war against Ukraine is a watershed moment, which will realign production, distribution and consumption of commodities globally. The development of new sources of the critical metals desperately needed to build out renewable energy grids and the drive to secure access to oil, gas and coal will intensify along political lines. China, reinforced by Russia, will lead the East, while the US and its allies will lead the West, in a redux of the Cold War. Local politics will intrude on this process, as left-of-center governments in important commodity-producing states secure their electoral victories and claim greater shares of commodity revenues. The rebuilding of defense systems, particularly in Europe, will compete with the renewable-energy transition. This will stress already-tight metals markets, where low inventories will predispose markets to higher volatility a la this week's oil, natgas and nickel price spikes. This will retard economic growth. In the short term, CO2 emissions will surge. Longer term, the transition to net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 will be pushed back years, as states compete for access to commodities. East-West trade restrictions and hoarding of commodities secured via trade within these respective blocs, as is occurring presently, will increase. Bottom Line: Russia's war against Ukraine is a watershed moment.  The development of new sources of the critical metals desperately needed to build out renewable energy grids, and the drive to secure access to oil, gas and coal will intensify. China, reinforced by Russia, will lead the East, while the US and its allies will lead the West, in a redux of the Cold War. Feature Russia's war with Ukraine provoked a watershed moment for Europe: Leaders suddenly realized they had to reverse decades of energy dependence on Russia, rebuild their militaries, and sustain a massive buildout of the continent's renewable-energy generation and grid. This occurred as inventories of the basic commodities required to achieve all of these objectives were stretched so tight that the mere threat of the cutoff of pipeline natural gas was enough to send benchmark EU natgas prices to a record $113/MMBtu, up nearly 80% from the previous day's close before it settled back to still-elevated levels (Chart 1). Oil inventories also were stretched extremely thin even before Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine 24 February (Chart 2). The situation is not improving, since, in the wake of the Ukraine war, numerous refiners and trading companies now are observing self-imposed sanctions against taking any Russian oil or refined products. It is worthwhile remembering this began before the US and UK announced they would ban all imports of Russian material this week.1 This will stretch supply chains by unknow durations – the movement of crude from Russia to a refiner could take months instead of weeks, until new trade patterns are established. Chart 1Little Flex In EU Gas Inventories Chart 2Little Flex In EU Gas Inventories   Global economic and policy uncertainty is massively elevated, with percent changes in oil and gas prices swinging on a double-digit basis daily. This makes it extremely difficult to bid or offer oil cargoes in the physical market or make markets (i.e., bid or offer) in the futures markets, which has the effect of compounding uncertainty and volatility. Fundamentals – supply, demand and inventories – take a back seat to fear and uncertainty in such markets. This makes it virtually impossible to assign a probability to any price outcomes based on supply and demand – the true definition of uncertainty in the Frank Knight sense – and to make long-term capex decisions over the long term.2 We raised our 2022 and 2023 Brent forecasts on the back of the massive uncertainty in the markets to $90/bbl and $85/bbl, respectively, right after Russia's invasion of Ukraine. We assume 1Q22 Brent will average $100/bbl. We expect core OPEC 2.0 producers – Saudi Arabia, UAE and Kuwait – will increase production beginning in 2Q22; US shale-oil output will rise, and ~ 1.2mm b/d of Iranian production will return to market in 2H22. Among the risks to our forecasts are a failure by core OPEC 2.0 to lift output (we expect an announcement at the end of this month when the producer coalition meets); lower-than-expected US shale output, and a failure to resolve the Iran nuclear deal with the US. Our modeling indicated these outcomes could lift Brent to between $120/bbl and $140/bbl by 2023 (Chart 3). We will be updating our forecasts next week.3 Chart 3Brent Forwards Lift EU's Watershed Metals Moment EU leadership is setting out to reverse decades of energy dependence on Russia, rebuild their militaries, and sustain a massive buildout of the continent's renewable-energy grid, all a result of the Ukraine war. This will require massive investment in metals mining and refining, along with steel-making capacity. Already, Germany is pledging to increase LNG import capacity and measures to reduce its dependence on Russian natural gas by 75% this year.4 The EU is looking to restore its natgas inventories to 90% of capacity before next winter, and has pledged to double down on renewables, in order to remove member-state dependence on Russian energy exports.5 These ambitious goals are up against the hard reality of scarce base metals supply globally. This will be exacerbated going forward by actions taken by and against Russia. The Russia-Ukraine crisis will destabilize metal markets, given supply uncertainty from Russia and its contribution to global supply. The commodities heavyweight constitutes 6%, 5% and 4% of global primary aluminum, refined nickel and copper production. Against the backdrop of very low global inventories in these metals (Chart 4), the prices of all three hit record highs over the last few days due to uncertain supply (Chart 5). LME nickel prices more than quadrupled on Tuesday as traders rushed to cover short positions and margin calls. Chart 4Low Inventories... Chart 5...Lead To Price Volatility Uncertainty has engulfed metal markets, with a Western ban on Russian metal imports still a possibility. Putin’s announcement regarding raw material export restrictions will further fuel supply uncertainty.6 As in the case of oil, private entities’ self-sanctioning, sanctions on the Russian financial system, and war-related supply chain disruptions are causing current Russian metal export disruptions.7 So far, Western sanctions on commodities have not directly interfered with metal flows from Russia. But markets are taking it day to day. Supply disruptions and sanctions force the formation of new trade patterns, as private entities aim to maximize arbitrage opportunities. For example, high European aluminum price spreads incentivized shipments from China, the world’s largest producer and consumer of refined aluminum. Normally, Europe relies on Russia for aluminum supplies. Rising European physical premiums for delivered metal, caused by Russian export disruptions, will see trading companies take advantage of arbitrage opportunities in other commodities as well. Europe's Risk Profile Rising Since the Ukraine war began, rising European physical premiums in commodities ranging from metals to natgas indicate the continent – more so than others – is particularly vulnerable to Russian export disruptions. Europe’s reliance on Russian energy and its supply disruptions will raise operating costs for smelters and refiners on the continent, threatening smelter shutdowns similar to those we saw this past winter. Markets were expecting power price relief over the warmer months and higher smelting activity. Elevated fuel and power prices, however, will constrain metals refining in Europe, and could shut or close even more smelters, keeping refined metals supply scarce and prices high. Rebuilding Europe's Defenses EU leaders are scheduled to take up a new energy and defense funding proposal today, which media reports are describing as "massive" (no detail provided ahead of the meeting, of course). This program reportedly will be akin to the EU's $2 trillion COVID-relief fund.8 The EU's fast response to defense shortfalls comes against the backdrop discussed above regarding super-tight metals markets, which now face a further complication of unpredictable local politics in metals-producing states. Some of these states have voted left-of-center governments into office, which now appear to be intent on nationalizing mining operations.9 Chile, e.g., accounts for ~ 30% of global copper ore output, and is in the process of re-writing its constitution, which will change tax and royalty law, and could pave the way for nationalization of copper and lithium mines. This political risk compounds any long-term planning operations by consumers like the EU and producers. Investment Implications Energy markets – broadly defined to include oil, gas and coal along with the base metals required for renewables and their supporting grids and electric vehicles – are being rocked by Russia's war with Ukraine. Base metals, in particular, will have to find price levels that destroy demand among competing uses, if the EU's dual-track plan to build out its renewables generation and restore a military capability is approved. A "massive" funding effort in Europe, coupled with equally massive efforts in the US and China – both intent on building out their renewable generation and grids, as well as expanding their defensive capabilities – will be extremely difficult to pull off. Critical base metals inventories remain low, and prices are high because demand exceeds supply for the foreseeable future (Chart 6). Chart 6Tight Inventories Spike Metals The EU will join a world in which the other two great economic centers – the US and China – will engage in a geopolitical competition over access to and control of scarce base metals, oil, gas and coal resources. Russia will remain aggressive toward the West, at least until the Putin regime falls, and will play an ancillary role to China. Fossil fuels and base metals have been starved for capex for more than a decade. Governmental pronouncements will not reverse this. These markets will remain tight, and will get tighter in order to allocate increasingly scarce supply with rapidly growing demand. As such, we remain long commodity-index exposure (S&P GSCI and the COMT ETF), along with equity exposure to oil and gas producers via the XOP ETF, and the XME and PICK ETFs to retain exposure to base metals and bulks producers and traders.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1     Please see Russian tankers at sea despite ‘big unknown’ over who will buy oil, published by ft.com on March 7, 2022. 2     Please see Explained: Knightian uncertainty, published by mit.edu for discussion. 3    Please see Oil Risk Premium Abates, But Still Remains, which we published on February 25, 2022. 4    Please see Germany Revives LNG Import Plans to Cut Reliance on Russian Natural Gas in Marked Policy Shift, published by naturalgasintel.com on March 1, 2022. 5    Please see Climate change: EU unveils plan to end reliance on Russian gas, published by bbc.co.uk on March 8, 2022, and The EU plan to drastically ramp renewables to replace Russian gas, published by pv-magazine.com on March 9, 2022. 6    Please see Russia to Omit Raw Material Exports but Omits Details, published by Bloomberg on March 9, 2022. 7     Please see here for Which companies have stopped doing business with Russia? 8    Please see Ukraine: ECB governing council to meet as crisis intensifies, published on March 8, 2022 by greencentralbanking.com. 9    Please see Chile a step closer to nationalizing copper and lithium, published by mining.com on March 7, 2022, and Add Local Politics To Copper Supply Risks, which we published on November 25, 2021.   Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations

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

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

Executive Summary Will The War Stall The Expected Downturn In Inflation This Year? The Russia/Ukraine conflict is impacting financial markets across numerous channels – uncertainty, risk aversion, growth expectations & inflation expectations – but all have a common link through soaring commodity prices, most notably for oil. For global bond investors, allocations to inflation-linked bonds are a necessary hedge to the war and the associated commodity shock, particularly with breakevens in most countries re-establishing the link to oil prices. We recommend investors maintain neutral allocations to inflation-linked bonds versus nominal government bonds across the developed world until there is greater clarity on future global oil production. Markets are discounting a peak in interest rates at the low end of the Bank of Canada’s neutral range, which is reasonable given high household debt levels in Canada. This creates an opportunity for bond investors to go long Canadian government bonds versus US Treasuries. Bottom Line: The supply premium on global oil prices will persist until there are signs of more global oil production or less chaos in the Ukraine – neither of which is imminent. Maintain neutral allocations to inflation-linked bonds versus nominal government debt across the developed markets. Feature Chart 1A Broad-Based Surge In Commodity Prices The Russia/Ukraine war has sent an inflationary shock though the world through a very traditional source – rising commodity prices. Energy prices are getting most of the attention, with oil prices back to levels last seen in 2008 and US gasoline prices now above $4 per gallon. The commodity rally is not just in energy, though. Industrial metals prices have also gone up substantially, with the spot prices for copper and aluminum hitting an all-time-high and 16-year-high, respectively (Chart 1). Agricultural commodities have seen even larger increases, with the price of wheat up 22% and the price of corn up 11% since the Russian invasion began on February 24th. Europe is acutely exposed to the war-driven spike in energy prices given its reliance on Russia for natural gas supplies. Natural gas prices in Europe have spiked a staggering 117% since the invasion started, exacerbating a sharp demand/supply imbalance dating back to the reopening of Europe’s economy from COVID lockdowns one year ago (Chart 2). To date, booming energy prices have fueled a huge rise in headline inflation rates in the euro area – producer prices were up 31% on a year-over-year basis in January – but with little trickle down to core inflation which was only up 2.3% in January. High energy prices are not only a problem for global growth and inflation, but also for the future policy moves by central banks. Inflation rates boosted over the past year by commodity supply squeezes and supply chain disruptions were set to decline this year, but the Ukraine shock has thrown that into question. If the benchmark Brent oil price were to hit $150/bbl, this would end the decelerating trend for energy price inflation momentum, on a year-over-year basis, that has been in place since mid-2021 (Chart 3). That means a higher floor for the energy component of inflation indices, and thus overall headline inflation rates, throughout the major economies in the coming months. Chart 2Europe's Reliance On Russian Natural Gas Is A Big Problem​​​​​ Chart 3Will The War Stall The Expected Downturn In Inflation This Year?​​​​​ Chart 4The Oil Price Spike Makes Life More Difficult for CBs How will bond markets respond to higher-than-expected inflation? Rate hike expectations have been highly correlated to the trend of headline inflation in the US, Europe, UK, Canada and Australia over the past year (Chart 4). Currently, overnight index swap (OIS) curves are still discounting between 5-6 rate hikes from the Fed, the Bank of England, the Bank of Canada and the Reserve Bank of Australia before the end of 2022. A single rate hike is still priced into the European OIS curve, even with the Ukraine shock. Global bond yields have been volatile, but surprisingly resilient despite the worries about war and commodity inflation. The 10-year Treasury yield has been trading in a range between 1.7% and 2% since the Russian offensive began, while the 10-year German Bund yield has hovered around 0%. Bond markets are pricing in a stagflation-type outcome of slowing growth and rising inflation, as multiple rate hikes are still discounted despite the geopolitical risks from the war. That reduces the value of using increased duration exposure to position for risk-off moves in a bond portfolio. At the same time, real bond yields are falling and breakeven rates are rising for global inflation-linked bonds – a part of the fixed income universe that looks to offer good protection against the uncertainties of war. Inflation-Linked Bonds – A Good Hedge Against War Risks Since the Russian invasion began, breakeven inflation rates on 10-year inflation-linked bonds have moved higher in the US (+13bps), Canada (+19bps), Australia (+15bps) and even Japan (+15bps). The moves have been even more significant on the European continent – 10-year breakevens have shot up in the UK (+23bps), Germany (+45bps), France (+31bps) and Italy (+36bps). Chart 5Inflation Breakevens Are Rising, Especially In Europe The absolute levels of breakevens in Europe are high in the context of recent history (Chart 5). However, breakevens also look a bit stretched in other countries like the US. Our preferred metric to evaluate the upside potential for inflation-linked bonds is our Comprehensive Breakeven Indicators (CBI). The CBI for each country is comprised of three components: the deviation of 10-year breakevens from our model-implied fair value, the spread between 10-year breakevens and longer-term survey-based inflation expectations (the “inflation risk premium”) and the gap between actual inflation and the central bank inflation target. Those three components are all standardized and added together with equal weights to come up with the CBI. A higher CBI reading suggests less potential for inflation breakevens to widen, and vice versa. Currently, the CBIs for the eight countries in our Model Bond Portfolio universe are close to or above zero, suggesting more limited scope for breakevens to widen further (Chart 6). Only in Canada is the CBI below zero, and only slightly so as high realized Canadian inflation is offset by breakevens trading below both fair value and survey-based measures of inflation (Chart 7). Chart 6Global Inflation Breakeven Valuations Are Not That Cheap In the US, the CBI is above zero mostly because of high realized US inflation. In Europe, the CBIs of the UK, Germany and Italy all are well above zero, while in France the CBI is close to zero. The UK has the highest CBI in our eight-country universe, with all three components contributing roughly equally (Chart 8). The Japanese CBI is also just above the zero line. Chart 7Some Mixed Signals On Inflation Breakeven Valuations​​​​​​ Chart 8European Breakevens Have Adjusted Sharply To The Energy Shock​​​​​​ We have been recommending a relative cautious allocation to global breakeven bonds in recent months. We saw the upside potential on breakevens as capped given the dearth of “cheap” signals on breakevens from our CBIs, especially with central banks moving towards monetary tightening in response to elevated inflation – moves intended to restore inflation-fighting credibility with bond markets. Yet the Ukraine commodity shock has boosted inflation breakevens even in countries with modest underlying (non-commodity) inflation like Japan and the euro area. We now see greater value in owning inflation-linked bonds in global bond portfolios as a hedge against the inflation risks stemming from the Ukraine and the worsening geopolitical tensions between the West and Russia. This is true even without the typical positive signal for breakevens from having CBIs below zero. We recommend that fixed income investors maintain a neutral allocation to inflation-linked bonds in dedicated government bond portfolios across the entire developed market “linker” universe. In our model bond portfolio, we had been allocating to linkers based off the signal from the CBIs, but in the current stagflationary war environment, we see country allocations as secondary to having neutral exposure to linkers in all countries. The new weightings to inflation-linked bonds are shown in the model bond portfolio tables on pages 12-14.1 Bottom Line: For global fixed income investors, allocations to inflation-linked bonds are a necessary hedge to the war and the associated commodity shock, particularly with breakevens in most countries re-establishing the link to oil prices. Canada Update: BoC Liftoff At Last The Bank of Canada (BoC) raised its policy interest rate by 25bps to 0.5% last week, commencing the start of the first rate hike cycle since 2018. The move was no surprise after BoC Governor Tiff Macklem signaled at the January monetary policy meeting that the start of a rate hiking cycle was imminent. The Canadian Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curve is discounting another 171bps of hikes in 2022, with a peak rate of 1.98% reached by March 2023 - near the low-end of the BoC’s range of neutral rate estimates between 1.75% and 2.75% (Chart 9). Chart 9Markets Discounting A Shallow BoC Rate Hiking Cycle, Even With High Inflation The BoC noted that the Canadian economy was recovering faster than expected from the effects of the Omicron variant and the associated restrictions on activity, coming off a robust 6.7% annualized real GDP growth rate in Q4/2021. The BoC now estimates that economic slack created by the pandemic shock has been fully absorbed, with the unemployment rate at 6.5%. Canadian headline inflation reached a 32-year high of 5.1% in January (Chart 10) – a level that Governor Macklem bluntly called “too high” in a speech the day following the rate hike. The BoC’s CPI-trim measure that excludes the most volatile components is also at an elevated reading of 4%, suggesting that the higher inflation is broad based. The BoC sees persistent high inflation as a risk to the stability of medium-term inflation expectations, thus justifying tighter monetary policy. According the latest BoC Survey of Consumer Expectations, Canadians expect inflation to be 4.1% over the next two years and 3.5% over the next five years, both of which are above the BoC’s 1-3% inflation target band. So with a robust economy, tight labor market, inflation well above the BoC target and elevated consumer inflation expectations showing no signs of settling, why is the OIS curve discounting such a relatively low peak in the BoC policy rate? The answer lies with Canada’s housing bubble and the associated high household debt levels. In a recent Special Report, our colleagues at The Bank Credit Analyst estimated that the neutral rate in Canada was no higher than 1.75%- the previous peak in rates during the 2017-2018 tightening cycle. A big reason for that was the high level of Canadian household debt, which now sits at 180% of disposable income. This compares to the equivalent measure in the US of 124%, showing that unlike their southern neighbors, Canadian households had little appetite for deleveraging after the 2008 financial crisis (Chart 11). Chart 10Good Reasons For A More Aggressive BoC​​​​​​ Chart 11A Big Reason For A Less Aggressive BoC​​​​​​ Chart 12Position For Narrower Canada-US Bond Spreads The Bank Credit Analyst report estimated that if the BoC hiked rates to 2.5% over the next two years – just below the high end of the BoC neutral range – the Canadian household debt service ratio would climb to a new high of 15.5% (bottom panel). This would greatly restrict Canadian consumer spending and likely trigger a sharp pullback in both housing demand and real estate prices. The conclusion: the neutral interest rate in Canada is likely closer to the peak seen during the previous 2018/19 hiking cycle around 1.75%. We have been recommending an underweight stance on Canadian government bonds in global fixed income portfolios dating back to the spring of 2021. However, with markets now discounting a peak in rates within plausible estimates of neutral, the window for additional underperformance of Canadian government bonds may be closing - but not equally versus all developed economies. We have found that a useful leading indicator of 10-year cross-country government bond yield spreads is the differential between our 24-month discounters. The discounters measure the cumulative amount of short-term interest rate increases over the next two years priced into OIS curves. Currently the “discounter gaps” are signaling room for Canadian spread widening versus the UK and Japan and, to a lesser extent, core Europe (Chart 12). However, the discounter gap is pointing to significant potential for narrowing of the Canada-US 10-year spread over the next year (top panel). This would occur even if the BoC follows the Fed with rate hikes in 2022, as the Fed is likely to deliver more increases in 2023/24 than the BoC. This week, we are introducing two new recommended positions to benefit from narrower Canada-US government bond spreads: We are reducing the size of our underweight position in our model bond portfolio in half, offset by a reduction in the allocation to US Treasuries (see the table on page 13). We are introducing a new trade in our Tactical Overlay, going long Canadian 10-year government bond futures versus selling 10-year US Treasury futures on a duration-matched basis (the specific details of the trade can be found in the table on page 15) We are maintaining our cyclical underweight recommendation on Canada, in a global bond portfolio context, given the potential for Canadian yield spreads to widen versus core Europe, Japan and the UK. That underweight recommendation will be more concentrated versus countries relative to the US. Bottom Line: Markets are discounting a peak in interest rates at the low end of the Bank of Canada’s neutral range, which is reasonable given high household debt levels in Canada. This creates an opportunity for bond investors to go long Canadian government bonds versus US Treasuries.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      The allocations to inflation-linked bonds shown in the model bond portfolio reflect both the recommended country weights and the recommended weighting of linkers versus nominal bonds within each country.  For example, we are neutral US TIPS versus nominal bonds within the US Treasury component of the portfolio, but since we are also underweight the US as a country allocation, the TIPS allocation is below the custom benchmark index weight. GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning     Active Duration Contribution: GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. Custom Performance Benchmark The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Global Fixed Income - Strategic Recommendations* Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Tactical Overlay Trades