地政学

特別レポート

Executive Summary US Deficits Will Rise Before They Fall The Inflation Reduction Act combined with the Chips and Science Act will add $88 billion to the budget deficit through FY2027. The two bills would only reduce the deficit by $11.1 billion by 2031. The deficit that year will be $2 trillion.    Hence Congress’s latest actions add to the deficit in the short run and are effectively deficit-neutral over the long run. That is not disinflationary.  Gridlock is still the likeliest outcome of the midterm elections. That is disinflationary for 2023-24 because fiscal policy freezes. Whether gridlock will persist after 2024 is unknown. Federal investments in US computer chips and renewable energy could enhance productivity over the long run. That could well be disinflationary … but the magnitude and timing are unknown. Overall, US social spending, industrial spending, defense spending, and government intervention are rising as the nation-state responds to social unrest and geopolitical conflict. Inflation will depend on many things, but this policy trend is not disinflationary. Close Recommendation (Tactical) Closing Level CLOSING DATE Return Long US Treasuries Vs. TIPS 1.3768 AUG 12, 2022 1.53%   Bottom Line: Close long US Treasuries relative to TIPS. But stay long the US dollar. Biden’s legislative victories underscore our strategic themes of Limited Big Government and Peak Polarization – and are not disinflationary.  Feature President Biden’s approval rating ticked up to 40% after a series of policy wins, including the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act and the Chips and Science Act. These bills reinforce our strategic theme of Limited Big Government, i.e. a rising role for the state within the US’s free market context. When Biden unveiled his anti-inflation agenda back in June we argued that his only real options to reduce inflation before the midterm elections hinged on other people: namely the Federal Reserve, the Saudis, the Iranians, and also Capitol Hill. With regard to Congress, we expected Democrats to pass a budget reconciliation bill. We saw that they were repackaging this bill as an “inflation reduction” measure to improve their election prospects. But we argued that it would not fight inflation in any substantive way.1 Now that the bill is on the way to Biden’s desk, it is only fair to ask: What will be the impact? Will it reduce inflation or not? The short version is no. The bill does not stand alone but is part of the Biden administration’s “last-ditch effort” to pass two major bills before the midterms. These two laws are deficit-neutral at best but slightly stimulative in the short run – and hence marginally inflationary. These laws could prove disinflationary over the long run, as investments in semiconductors and renewable energy should drive innovation. But that is hard to predict. We are optimistic on that front but for the foreseeable future the effects are neutral or inflationary. To understand this view, we need to review BCA’s stance on inflation overall and then discuss the legislation. The BCA View On Inflation BCA sees this year’s inflationary bout as both a cyclical and a structural phenomenon. The cyclical rise in inflation stemmed from the pandemic and the ensuing economic stimulus. This cycle is peaking now. Commodity prices are moderating and goods spending has fallen two-thirds of the way back to where it stood prior to the pandemic, suggesting that inflation will take a step back. At very least inflation has stopped skyrocketing (Chart 1). Yet the structural drivers of inflation will persist. Chart 1Inflation Rolls Over ... For Now The long-term inflation thesis hinges first and foremost on global population trends. Fewer prime-age workers as a share of the population means that the price of a prime-age worker goes up. It also hinges on the decline in the global glut of savings, the rise of mercantilism and trade protectionism (i.e. hypo-globalization), and the conclusion of household deleveraging in the wake of the 2008 crisis. Structurally looser fiscal policy – soft budgets – also plays a role. The decay of the liberal world order since 2008 financial crisis entails that western governments face the combined threats of social unrest at home and great power competition abroad. These governments’ answer is to take a more active role in the economy to appease popular wrath, improve energy security, and bulk up national defense. The result will be larger deficits. Larger budget deficits reduce the savings available to the private sector and constrain future supply, feeding into inflation. The result is that, in the United States, the neutral rate of interest will likely prove to be higher than expected, monetary conditions will be looser than expected in real terms, and hence the economy will overheat. At least until central banks and fiscal authorities impose austerity.  Bottom Line: Inflation is a cyclical and structural phenomenon in the United States. Cyclically inflation is starting to moderate as various factors from the pandemic and fiscal stimulus wear off. But structurally inflation will be a persistent problem due to population aging, the end of the savings glut, hypo-globalization, geopolitical conflict, and a rising government role in the economy. New Laws Do Not Cut The Deficit Until 2027 At Best Now we can put the Biden administration’s policy into context. The stagflationary cyclical backdrop poses a severe challenge for the ruling Democratic Party. Midterm elections are only three months away and yet headline inflation is still running at 8.5% and core inflation is rising unabated at 5.9% year-on-year. The median voter suffers from high inflation in the form of falling real income and wages. Yet the Democratic legislative agenda has focused on increasing spending, which adds to inflation.  If US gasoline prices continue to moderate, the median household’s inflation expectations will come down – and that is a positive short-term development for Democrats (Chart 2). That is why President Biden went to Saudi Arabia with his tail between his legs to beg for more crude oil production. That is why he is trying to do a deal with Iran too (though there our view is pessimistic). That is why he has urged Europe to wait until after the midterm to implement full oil sanctions on Russia. Hence also the Senate repackaged the -$4 trillion “Build Back Better” spending splurge as a +$300 billion “Inflation Reduction” fiscal reform. But will the Inflation Reduction Act truly reduce inflation? Will it affect the cyclical or structural drivers mentioned above?  Chart 2Inflation Expectations Moderating The title of the bill alone should prompt investors to be skeptical. The bill does not meaningfully reduce budget deficits. According to the Democratic Party it will generate $300 billion in savings over 10 years, mostly as a result of capping drug costs that Medicare pays to hospitals on behalf of about 64 million Americans. However, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget provides a more realistic scenario in which the savings amount to $160 billion, or about half as much as advertised (Table 1).2 The CBO estimates the bill will reduce the budget deficit by $100 billion over 10 years, one third of the official selling point. Table 1What Is Inside The Inflation Reduction Act Of 2022? Table 2 shows the CBO’s baseline estimates of the US budget deficit outlook as of July 2021, May 2022, and August 2022 (i.e. the latter with the new legislation). The trend line with the reconciliation bill is virtually indistinguishable from the May estimate (Chart 3). Table 2US Budget Balance Projections Before/After The Inflation Reduction Act Chart 3What Deficit Reduction? Table 3 shows the specific change in the budget deficit for each year, illustrated in Chart 4. The bill modestly reduces the deficit in 2023 but increases the deficit in subsequent years until 2028. When the bill’s savings peak at $41 billion in 2031, they will shave off 2% of the $2 trillion deficit. Table 3Change In US Deficit Due To Inflation Reduction Act And Chips And Science Act In other words, the deficit reduction will not occur until after the 2028 election – by which time it will be swamped by other political and economic factors. In addition, the bipartisan Chips and Science Act will add $47.5 billion to the budget deficit through FY2026 and $79.3 billion through FY2031. Combining them shows that Congress is still adding to spending despite today’s 5.9% core inflation reading – while delaying the miniscule deficit reduction until the latter part of the decade. Credit should be given to the Democrats for offsetting their new spending with revenue increases. But in realistic terms Congress’s latest actions are deficit-neutral at best. The question was how to pay for the desired spending rather than how to impose budget consolidation. Austerity is politically impractical in the context of left-wing and right-wing populism. Chart 4US Deficits Will Rise Before They Fall The new fiscal spending makes sense given the strategic predicament that the US faces. But it should flag to investors that the only real fiscal discipline on the horizon will come after the midterm election, when Congress is gridlocked and fiscal policy is basically frozen. Bottom Line: The Inflation Reduction Act combined with the Chips and Science Act will add about $88 billion to the budget deficit through FY2027. The two bills only reduce the growth of the budget deficit by $11.1 billion by 2031. They will not reduce investors’ inflation expectations over the next five years. Cyclical inflation expectations will fall for other reasons – such as Fed rate hikes, the slowdown in global growth, and looming gridlock. Reducing Drug Prices And EV Prices Is Not Generally Disinflationary What about the sector effects of the Inflation Reduction Act? Could they be disinflationary? The bill raises a minimum corporate tax rate of 15% to pay for renewable energy subsidies, it bulks up the Internal Revenue Service’s tax collecting capabilities to pay for an expansion of Obamacare subsidies, and it empowers Medicare to negotiate pharmaceutical prices, creating revenue savings for the federal government.   Theoretically caps on drug prices will push prices down, while subsidies to buy electric vehicles (EV) will incentivize Americans to buy those cars and expand the domestic EV supply chain. Hence Democrats can at least claim to be reducing drug price inflation and arguably EV price inflation. Drug price caps are popular and could increase social stability. Electric car subsidies are less popular but tap into demands for domestic manufacturing and action on climate change. Neither will generate substantial opposition in the voting booth. However, the general level of prices will not fall as a result of these sector-specific interventions. Spending on motor vehicles is around 4.2% of total personal consumption expenditure (Chart 5, first panel). Spending on prescription drugs is around 3.2% of total personal consumption expenditure (Chart 5, second panel). Hence the bill could at maximum affect 7.4% of total consumer spending. But only certain drugs will face price caps and only EVs will be subsidized, so the effect is even narrower than that. Spending on cars grew by 1.7% between 2003-20, in line with economic growth. Drug spending grew faster, in line with an aging society, at 2.9% over the same period (Chart 6). Normally the contribution to inflation is negligible for cars but higher-than-average for drugs. True, after Covid-19 car prices surged while drug prices fell below average, but that process should normalize (Chart 7).  Chart 5The Role Of Cars And Drugs In Inflation Chart 6Growth Of Car And Drug Spending Chart 7Change In Car And Drug Prices Only 20 drugs will be eligible for Medicare negotiation per year. The top 20 drugs amount to around 18% of the pharmaceutical market. The new government-negotiated prices will begin to take effect in 2027. The effect will be to dampen domestic manufacturers’ incentive to produce generics, leading to supply constraints or substitution effects (e.g. imports). Hence overall drug prices will not fall as much as expected. The US lacks universal healthcare coverage, so price controls represent an economic transfer between corporations or between corporations and government – not between corporations and consumers. Capping drug prices will benefit insurers directly and consumers only indirectly. The profit will change from the hands of Big Pharma to Big Insurance (managed healthcare providers) (Chart 8). Incidentally big insurers will also benefit from the bill’s expansion of the Obamacare subsidies. Of course, Obamacare enrollees will see a marginal increase in disposable income – especially lower-income individuals, who have a higher propensity to consume. This is positive from the perspective of social stability but likely to be inflationary, not disinflationary. Lower insurance premiums mean more spending cash. Chart 8Big Insurance Versus Big Pharma As for the bill’s green subsidies, EVs account for about 5.6% of cars sold. Subsidies will encourage the production of EVs and accelerate the growth of EV market share. The point is to make EV prices competitive with other cars since EVs are more costly to make, especially if they are to be made domestically. Non-EVs may have to lower their prices but, as we have seen, car inflation is not a major contributor to general inflation, at least not in normal times. Of course, no electric vehicles will qualify for the new rebate immediately. The law requires a large share of qualifying electric cars to be manufactured in North America, or at least not to be produced in “countries of concern” such as China. China is still the leader in making critical components of EVs, especially batteries. Such policies are not conducive to the most efficient manufacturing methods and lowest consumer prices. Rather they seek to shift supply chains to allied countries or to “onshore” them within the United States for strategic reasons, even at a higher cost to consumers. As such the new law reflects the US’s newfound populism, economic nationalism, industrial policy, and trade protectionism. It epitomizes the connection between great power competition and hypo-globalization, prioritizing supply chain resilience at the expense of economic efficiency. That makes sense from a national security point of view but is not likely to be disinflationary – quite the opposite. The bipartisan Chips and Science Act will dovetail with these measures to revive US industrial policy, steer capital into priority projects, and encourage domestic investment. This law and the climate change subsidies are federal investments that should boost productivity and enhance the supply side of the economy. We are optimistic over the long run regarding the productivity enhancements that could accrue from the government’s historic shift to re-initiate these kinds of investments. The space program in the 1960s may be too optimistic but it is still analogous. The US is already in the midst of Cold War II.  If a major breakthrough in renewable energy eventually occurs that is tied to investments from the Inflation Reduction Act, then it will justify the bill’s anti-inflation moniker. But that remains to be seen. In the meantime, these investments will quicken US economic activity when the economy is already at full employment and inflation is running hot. Bottom Line: Cars do not contribute much to inflation in normal times and this bill gives subsidies to make electric cars in the US, which is not optimal for costs. Drugs contribute positively to inflation but Medicare caps will not lower drug prices until 2027 and general price effects are debatable. Overall, social unrest and great power competition are leading to greater government involvement in the economy, which is marginally inflationary. Economic Slowdown Is Disinflationary What will be the effect of this legislation on the midterm election campaign? Economic sentiment improved over the past month, even among Republicans. That led to a drop in polarization for the right reasons, i.e. a resilient economy, rather than the wrong reasons, i.e. the universal loathing of inflation (Chart 9). Polarization will stay near peak levels during the 2022-24 election campaign but the bipartisan Chips Act, the Biden administration’s adoption of hawkish foreign policy on trade and China, and the administration’s attempt to pursue at least a deficit-neutral approach to the budget reinforce our “Peak Polarization” theme. Long-term US policy consensus is developing beneath the still extreme polarization in the short term. Business activity is improving, which has contributed to the equity rally on the basis that the Fed is achieving a “soft landing” (Chart 10). We expect a hard landing due to the combination of negative macro and geopolitical factors but the latest data brings a positive surprise. Chart 9Economic Sentiment Ticks Up ... Even Among Republicans Chart 10Business Activity Improves In the short term, Biden and the Democrats will benefit from passing legislation (“getting things done”) and piggybacking on the fact that inflation is rolling over and the economy is showing some positive surprises. Biden’s approval rating is showing signs of stabilizing, albeit at a low level (Chart 11). The two parties are neck and neck in congressional ballot, with Democrats taking back the lead again from Republicans (Chart 12). If this trend continues it will mitigate the Democrats’ losses in the midterms. The Senate is competitive. Chart 11Biden’s Approval Will Perk Up At Least Somewhat Chart 12US Parties Neck And Neck In Generic Congressional Ballot If inflation rolls over, real wages will improve, which will boost consumer confidence and, if it comes by October, could  help the Democrats further (Chart 13). Chart 13Uptick In Real Wage Would Boost Consumer Confidence Still, Democrats are likely to lose the House of Representatives in the midterms, as the ruling party usually loses seats and Democrats only have a five-seat margin. In other words, we would fade the emerging “Blue Sweep” risk (i.e. risk that Democrats keep control of both houses of Congress). A sweep is possible but unlikely, especially because many of Biden’s foreign policy problems can still come back to haunt him before the midterm. Two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth usually results in an official recession. The jury is still out. Bankruptcies are ticking up and unemployment has nowhere to go but up (Chart 14). The stagflationary environment will probably persist through the midterm. Biden will face a rocky road to re-election. Chart 14Yet Unemployment And Bankruptcy Will Rise Investment Takeaways Inflation expectations began to roll over due to the global slowdown, the drop in commodity prices, and the Fed’s rate hikes, but structural factors suggest inflation will remain a problem over the long run. The Inflation Reduction Act will not be implemented in time to have any effect on prices in 2022. It will slightly reduce the budget deficit next year but expand the deficit from FY2024-27. Combined with the Chips and Science Act the effect is slightly stimulative or inflationary until FY2028 at earliest.   The bill increases policy uncertainty ahead of the midterms. Democrats will be able to take credit for any moderation of inflation through October and hence the election will become more competitive. But the election outcome is still highly likely to be congressional gridlock. Gridlock is disinflationary in 2023-24 because it implies that fiscal policy will shift to neutral – or even that real deficit reduction will occur if Biden compromises with a partially or wholly Republican congress. Structurally the US suffers from an imbalance of savings and investment. The global savings glut more than filled the gap and prevented inflation for several decades. Now the society is aging, the savings glut is depleting, globalization is retreating, and governments need to maintain spending to address high domestic and foreign challenges. US policy is forming a new consensus (“Peak Polarization”) that includes a larger role for government within the US context (“Limited Big Government”) in order to fight against social instability and geopolitical threats. The result is inflationary or at least not disinflationary. A high-tech and/or green energy productivity boom is possible and would combat the structural drivers of inflation. We are optimistic but the disinflationary impact is not forthcoming immediately and much remains to be seen.   Matt Gertken Senior Vice President Chief US Political Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri Associate Editor jesse.kuri@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1     Specifically we argued that the bill would be “mildly stimulating for the economy (i.e. inflationary) and none of the supply-side improvements would reduce inflation in time for the midterms.” We also implied that the act would probably not correct the US’s long-term rise in budget deficits as a share of GDP. 2     The difference has to do with the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). Obamacare subsidies were expanded during the pandemic. The reconciliation bill will spend about $100 billion on extending the subsidies by three years. But it will be politically difficult for future congresses to revoke these subsidies. Hence the CBO assumes they will become permanent.   Strategic View Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months)   Table A2Political Risk Matrix Table A3US Political Capital Index Chart A1Presidential Election Model Chart A2Senate Election Model  Table A4House Election Model Table A5APolitical Capital: White House And Congress Table A5BPolitical Capital: Household And Business Sentiment Table A5CPolitical Capital: The Economy And Markets  

特別レポート

エグゼクティブ・サマリー 第4次台湾海峡危機が現実化していることを受けて、世界の大国間での大規模な戦争の確率は上昇しました。 当社のディシジョンツリーは確率を約20%と示唆しており、これはロシアのウクライナ戦争だけを起点に想定した水準の2倍に相当します。世界は五発リボルバーで「ロシアンルーレット」をしている状態です。 今後の基本見解としては、米中の国内政治イベントが今秋に一段落した後、台湾緊張は横ばい（悪化はしないが改善もしない）になると見ています。 しかし、もし中国が第20回党大会後に緊張をエスカレートさせれば、侵攻の確率は大幅に上昇します。 台湾で紛争が発生した場合、ロシアが欧州でさらに攻勢的になる確率が高まります。 イランは核兵器の追求を強く進める可能性が高いです。   2022年下半期にポジティブな触媒は多くない 五連発拳銃によるルーレット 五連発拳銃によるルーレット タクティカル推奨開始日リターン 米国10年国債ロング2022-04-141.3% グローバルのディフェンシブ／サイクリック株式ロング2022-01-2013.8% 結論：投資家は少なくとも中国の党大会と米国の中間選挙が今秋に終わるまでは防御的なポジションを維持すべきです。来年の地政学的リスクは中国の台湾海峡での行動次第です。 特集   チャート 1 第三次世界大戦をめぐる臆測が高まる 五発のリボルバーを使ったルーレット 五発のリボルバーを使ったルーレット 世界の出来事に注意を払う悲観論者たちは、近年第三次世界大戦が勃発するリスクを懸念するようになりました。用語の検索は2019年以降増えていますが、懸念の理由は特定の危機事象というよりもむしろグローバルな多極化という基調にあります（チャート 1）。1 米中、あるいは米露間での大規模な戦争の確率はどのくらいでしょうか。どのように算出できるでしょうか。本レポートでは一連の「ディシジョンツリー」を提示し、各シナリオと確率を形式化して示します。 もしWWIIIを米国がロシアあるいは中国、または両方と直接交戦する戦争と定義するなら、今後数年以内にWWIIIが勃発する確率は20%に達すると計算されます！ これは非常に高い確率ですが、歴史はこうした確率が非現実的でないことを示しており、投資家は油断してはなりません。政治学者グレアム・アリソンは長期的に見た米中戦争の確率は約75%であると歴史的類推に基づいて示しています。 要点は、各国がこのWWIIIリスクを直視し、拒否しない限り世界の政治環境は改善しないということです。最もあり得るのは、WWIIIおよびそれがもたらす核戦争のリスクが最終的な制約となり、各国がそれを認識して行動を改めるケースですが、現在の大国の振る舞いはまだ制約を認識しておらず、短期的には瀬戸際政策を続ける意向が窺えます。 中国による台湾侵攻の確率 まず問いは、中国が台湾に侵攻するかどうかです。2021年4月に当社は第4次台湾海峡危機が12～24か月以内に発生すると予測しましたが、全面戦争には発展しないと見ていました。この見方が今試されています。 図表 1では、中国の台湾に対する政策選択肢をマッピングし、それぞれに確率を割り当てるディシジョンツリーを示します。 図表 1 第4次台湾海峡危機に関するディシジョンツリー（次の24か月） 五連発の拳銃によるルーレット 五連発の拳銃によるルーレット   中国は台湾を侵攻する能力を獲得しましたが、特に核三本柱（トライアド）のさらなる進展がない限り、失敗の確率は依然として高いです。したがって、即時に侵攻のために動員をかける確率は20%と見積もります。 明らかに、中国が侵攻を計画しているという具体的な兆候があれば真剣に受け止めるべきです。 2021年にウクライナ周辺でのロシアの軍事増強を投資家やメディアが軽視したことは損失を招きました。 同時に、米中は台湾海峡の現状を試しているだけであり、現状は今回のエピソード後に強化される可能性が高いという見方もあります。結局のところ、今回の危機は第4次台湾海峡危機であり、過去の危機はいずれも戦争には至りませんでした。 バイデン大統領と習近平が、今秋に予定される重要な国内政治イベントを前にそれぞれの力を誇示しているだけなら、両者は既に目的を達成しています。少なくとも今後数年間にわたっては、これ以上の軍事的見せつけは不要です。 我々は、過去一週間の緊張が残るが現状が強化されるシナリオに40%の確率を割り当てます。 その場合、台湾海峡の構造的問題は2024年の米国と台湾の大統領選挙の後、つまりこの図表の時間枠の外で再燃するでしょう。 残念ながら我々は長期的には悲観的であり、台湾での戦争の確率は高いと考えています。 そのため、我々は今後2年間で状況が悪化するシナリオにも同じく40%の確率を割り当てます。 もし中国が党大会後に演習や制裁を拡大するなら、習指導部が単なる国内向けパフォーマンスではないことが明らかになります。 同様に、もしバイデン政権が中間選挙後も対中ハイテク輸出管理の強化を推し進め、同盟国やパートナーにも同様の対応を求め続けるなら、米国は中国が何らかの攻勢作戦を準備していると暗に判断していることになります。その場合、侵攻の危険性は20%から40%に上昇します。 それでも、米中の危機外交が2023-24年に全面戦争を防ぐという見方は依然として妥当ですが、誤算のリスクは非常に高まります。 このディシジョンツリーの最後の要素は、中国が第二次世界大戦で見られたような従来型の上陸侵攻ではなく、「グレーゾーン戦術」やハイブリッド戦を好むという前提です。理由は複数あります。 第一に、上陸侵攻は最も困難な軍事作戦です。第二に、中国軍は未熟である一方、米国と同盟国は守備を固めています。第三に、ハイブリッド戦は米国の同盟国間に対応の分裂を生みます。第四に、ここ14年でロシアはハイブリッド戦が機能することを何度も示してきました。それは戦略的便益を最大化し、コストを最小化する手段です。 西側が小規模な侵攻にどう反応するかは世界が知っている：経済制裁だ。しかし大規模な侵攻にどう反応するかはまだ分かりません。したがって中国は小さく噛み切るインセンティブを持ちます。 とはいえ台湾の場合、こうした戦術が持続可能でない可能性もあります。当社の台湾に関するディシジョンツリーは、ハイブリッド戦や「代理戦争」が大規模戦争に進展する可能性を完全には織り込んでいません。しかしその可能性は実際には高いのです。したがって我々は米中の大規模戦争のリスクを過小評価しているわけではありません。 結論： 今後2年間で、台湾を巡る米中の代理戦争の主観的確率は約32%、直接的な米中戦争の確率は約4%です。 真の試練は習近平が今秋の党大会で権力を固めた後に訪れます。 我々は習氏が経済の再起動に注力すると予想します したがって我々は中国と台湾を除く新興アジアの市場を引き続き推奨します。 ロシアとNATOの戦争の確率 第二の問いは、ウクライナの戦争が西側とのより広範な戦争に変貌するかどうかです。ウクライナでは既に戦争が継続しているため、ロシアと西側の大規模戦争の確率は中国の場合よりも高くなります。一方、台湾海峡の緊張は現時点ではまだ虚勢の段階にすぎません。 投資家のベースケースとしては、ウクライナ戦争はウクライナ内に限定されると考えるべきです。欧州諸国はドンバスのためだけにロシアと壊滅的な戦いを望んでいません。しかし戦時には物事がしばしば誤ることがあります。 重要な問いは、ロシアがNATO加盟国を攻撃するかどうかです。そうなれば同盟条約の第5条が発動され、「欧州または北米における一つ以上の（同盟）加盟国に対する武力攻撃は、すべての加盟国に対する攻撃と見なされる」ことになり、必要に応じて安全回復のために武力行使が正当化されます。 ロシアのウクライナ侵攻以降、バイデン大統領は繰り返し米国は「NATO領土の一インチたりとも防衛する」と述べており、これは政策の変更ではなく米国のレッドラインであり極めて高い可能性で防衛されるでしょう。したがってこれはロシアにとって重大な制約です。 図表 2ではロシアの選択肢をマッピングし、確率を割り当てます。 図表 2 ロシア・ウクライナ戦争に関するディシジョンツリー（次の24か月） 五発のリボルバーを使ったルーレット 五発のリボルバーを使ったルーレット   我々はロシアがドンバス地域とクリミアへの陸路を確保し、勝利を宣言する確率を55%と見ています。ロシアは征服地を何らかの外交合意、つまり停戦という形で正当化しようと動き始めるでしょう。これが我々の2023年のベースケースです。 ロシアが既に外交に向けた動きを始めている証拠があります。2 理由はロシア経済が打撃を受け、世界のコモディティ価格が下落し、人的・物的資源が消耗しているからです。プーチン大統領はドニエプル川河口など、侵攻した地域を支配している限り、ウクライナを弱体化させるという目的は大部分達成したと見なすでしょう。 プーチンは征服地を固め、経済と社会を立て直す必要があります。早ければ早いほどロシアにとって有利であり、欧州がコンセンサスを形成して将来的に天然ガスの全面禁輸を実施するのを防げます。 しかしプーチンの野心が彼を破滅に導くリスクもあります。 我々は侵攻が南西ウクライナ（戦略的港湾都市オデッサを含む）やモルドバ東部に拡大する確率を35%と見積もります。モルドバでは親ロシア派が分離統治するトランスニストリア地域にロシア軍が駐留しています。 この新たなキャンペーンはウクライナを完全に内陸化し、モルドバを無力化し、ロシアにより大きな海上アクセスを与えるでしょう。しかしそれはEUを結束させ、天然ガス禁輸を誘発し、ロシアを弱体化させて絶望的な状況に追い込む可能性もあります。報復に出れば、広範な戦争につながることも考えられます。 フィンランドやスウェーデンがNATO加盟を試みたことでプーチンが攻撃する確率は7%にすぎないと見ます。スターリンはフィンランドに失敗し、プーチンの軍はキエフすら征服できませんでした。英国はこれらの国の支援を約束しており、攻撃はNATOとの戦争を引き起こす公算が大きいでしょう。フィンランド攻撃の決断はロシアがNATOがそこに基地を置く計画を立てていると本当に信じた場合にのみ生じるでしょう。つまりそれがロシアの宣言したレッドラインです。 バルト三国に対するロシアの攻撃は、それらが既にNATOに加盟しているため可能性は低いです。ただしプーチンが絶望的になれば起こり得るというリスクはあります。 我々はバルト侵攻のリスクを3%と見積もります。 要するに、ロシアが欧州に対するエネルギーの締め付けを停戦交渉で有利な合意を引き出すためではなく侵攻の拡大に使うなら、より広範な戦争の確率は上昇します。 結論： 結果として、今後24か月での鎮静化の確率は55%、小規模なエスカレーション（例：オデッサ、モルドバ）は35%、NATO加盟国を巻き込みNATOとロシアの戦争に発展する大規模なエスカレーションは10%です。 戦術的には、もし世界経済が回復しロシアが軍事作戦を中止して停戦交渉に舵を切る明確な転換を示すなら、先進国の欧州通貨および資産を買うべきです。景気循環的には、欧州資産で持続的な強気市場が実現するには米露間のより深い理解が必要です。 米国・イスラエルによるイラン攻撃の確率 今年起きている第三の地政学的危機は、バイデン大統領とアリー・ハメネイ師が2015年の米国・イラン核合意に再加盟することで当面先送りになる可能性があります。しかし我々は懐疑的です。 バイデン政権は2015年の核合意に再加盟して、イランの原油を日量約100万バレル市場に戻し、中間選挙前にガソリン価格を下げたいと考えています。米国のグランドストラテジーはまたイランと関与して中東を安定化させ、米国がアジアへ軸足を移せるようにしたいと考えています。 EUはイラン資源への需要がより大きく、イランの核獶取得を防ぎたいので合意を提案しています。ロシアと中国も対米制裁解除とイランとの貿易を望むため支持的ですし、必ずしもイランに核が持たれることを望んでいるわけではありません。 ただし一つ問題があります：イランは体制の長期的生存を確保するために核兵器を必要としている。 問題はハメネイが再び米国との合意を承認するかどうかです。最初の合意は彼の体制に大きな代償をもたらして裏切られました。近い将来ハメネイに代わって権力を握ることを望むエブラヒム・ライシ大統領は、自らのキャリアと個人の安全を2024年の大統領選の共和党勝利に賭けることには強く反対するでしょう。 イランは既に核ブレイクアウト能力を達成しています—核装置を構築できるだけの60%濃縮ウランを保有している—そして最終的に核抑止力を獲得しようとしない理由が不明です。特に将来的に米国やその同盟国からの軍事攻撃から体制を守る必要が生じる可能性があるためです。 ただし当社の確信度は中程度です。バイデン大統領は制裁解除を望んでおり一方的にそれを行うことができるからです。バイデン政権はいまだ合意を成立させるための予備的措置を講じていませんが、それは変わる可能性があります。3 短期的なつなぎ合意には好循環的な理屈があります。 BCAのコモディティ＆エネルギー・ストラテジスト、ボブ・ライアンによれば、サウジアラビアとUAEの間の予備生産余力は合わせて約150万バレルに過ぎません。EUの石油禁輸と西側諸国の対ロシア制裁は約200万バレル／日を市場から押し出すため、OPECの余力の大部分を吸収します。したがってバイデン政権はイランが市場にもたらし得る100万バレルを必要としています。 我々はイランが制裁解除を認める合意に署名し、バイデンに制裁解除を可能にする可能性を否定できません。それは彼らの経済に利益をもたらします。彼らは核査察を許容しつつ、密かに弾頭や弾道ミサイル開発に注力を移すかもしれません。イランは不可逆的に核計画を放棄するわけではなく、時間稼ぎに長けています。 それでもイランの国内政治は合意を支持しておらず、米国が提供できる信頼できる安全保障の保証がなければ、イランのグランドストラテジーは合意を支持しません。米国はその外交政策の一貫性の欠如からそのような保証を提供できないのです。米国のグランドストラテジーは合意が検証可能であれば支持しますが、イランが合意を口実に爆弾を追求するようなケースは容認しません。 イランは3年間の最大制裁、パンデミック、世界的混乱を経ても屈服していません。そしてロシアと中国が西側に攻勢をかけるようになったことで、戦略的利益を引き出す見通しがより大きくなったとイランは見ています。 モスクワと北京は対ワシントンの共通の不満のため戦略的パートナーになり得ます。一方で米国はルーハニ政権を裏切ったのと同じようにライシ政権を裏切ることも容易であり、その結果として経済は再び翻弄され、最高指導者と政治体制は国民から二重に愚か者と見なされるでしょう。 図表 3はイランの選択肢を整理しています。 図表 3 イラン核危機に関するディシジョンツリー（次の24か月） 五連発拳銃でのルーレット 五連発拳銃でのルーレット   交渉が決裂した場合（50%）、イランは米国とイスラエルが攻撃する前に核兵器確保へ向けて突進するでしょう。 米国とイランが合意に達した場合（40%）、イランは2024年の米国選挙まで合意の条件に従う可能性があり、当面は投資家の懸念材料が除かれます。しかし長期的に核抑止力を得ようとする利害は変わらず、2024年以降に紛争が再燃するでしょう。 協議が決着せず継続する場合（10%）、イランは合意の制約なしに核計画を漸進的に進めるでしょう（ただし突発的な突進を必ずしも必要としないかもしれません）。 要するに、ロシアと中国はイランが核計画を凍結してもイランを必要としますが、米国とイスラエルはイランを抑止するために勢力均衡のアブラハム同盟を形成するでしょう—たとえイランが核計画を凍結してもです。 結論： 投資家は短期的なつなぎの米国・イラン核合意に40%の確率を割り当てるべきです。原油価格の下落は一時的なものにとどまるでしょう。長期的な供給拡大は、米国がイランに不可逆的に核計画を停止させるのに十分な安全保障保証を提供できないため期待できません。 第三次世界大戦の確率 ここからが難しい部分で、これら3つの地政学的危機を合わせて考えます。以下では単純化しすぎていますが、異なるプレーヤーとその選択肢について我々の考えを形式化するのが目的です。 図表 4は中国／台湾紛争に関する結論から出発し、その結果としてロシアのより広範な戦争の確率を調整し、イランが核兵器追求に極めて積極的であるという見方を加えたものです。時間枠は再び2年です。 図表 4 第三次世界大戦に関するディシジョンツリー（次の24か月） 五発の銃を使ったルーレット 五発の銃を使ったルーレット   WWIIIとは異なる紛争シナリオとしては「限定戦争」があり—これは米国が関与しない、あるいは間接的にしか関与しないハイブリッド戦や代理戦争を指す危険な概念です。あるいはロシアと中国を巻き込まないイランとの紛争である可能性もあります。 我々は中国から議論を始めます。なぜなら中国は現代で最も有能で野心的なグローバルパワーだからです。中国の戦略的台頭は世界秩序を揺るがし米国に挑戦しています。また今年のいくつかの証拠から、ロシアは戦争をウクライナ外に拡大する意図を持っていない可能性が示唆されていることも理由です。 中国が台湾に対してさらなる攻撃的行動を取れば、ロシアがより大きなリスクを取るユニークな機会が生まれます。そうでない場合、WWIIIの確率は2年間で急落します。これが我々のベースケースです。 しかし中国が台湾を攻撃し米国が台湾を防衛する場合、我々はロシアがバルト三国に侵攻する確率が高まると見ています。もし中国がハイブリッド攻撃を行い米国が台湾を間接的にしか支援しないなら、ロシアの攻勢の確率はわずかにしか上がりません。 結果として、WWIII（米国がロシアまたは中国、あるいは両者と直接戦う戦争）の確率は20%になります。こうした戦争が限定的に留まるかどうかは議論の余地があります。1945年以降の戦争ゲームは、主要核保有国間の戦争はエスカレートしやすいことを示しています。しかし核兵器は相互確証破壊という究極の制約をもたらします。核エスカレーションのリスクがあるため、我々はディシジョンツリーにおけるWWIIIの確率を下方に丸めています。 より確からしい59%の「限定戦争」シナリオは一見ポジティブな結果のように見えるかもしれませんが、そこには今日の水準からの地政学的緊張の大幅な上昇、例えば中国の台湾に対するハイブリッド戦などが含まれます。 結論： この試算ではWWIIIの確率は最大20%に達し得ます。これは我々のロシアに関するディシジョンツリーの水準の倍であり、当社の台湾危機の予測が現実化したことを考慮すると妥当です。 重要な要因は、今秋の党大会後に北京が台湾への圧力をさらにエスカレートさせるかどうかです。それが危険な連鎖反応を引き起こす可能性があります。 世界経済と金融市場は地政学的リスクからの下振れリスクを依然として抱えていますが、ロシアが停戦に向かい、中国が台湾への行動を遅らせて経済再起動に集中する場合、2023年には改善が見られる可能性があります。 投資の示唆 今年初めにロシアがウクライナに侵攻した際、当社の同僚であるチーフ・グローバル・ストラテジストのピーター・ベレジンは核による破滅の確率を10%と主張しました。 少なくともこれはロシアとNATOが衝突する確率として合理的な数値です。 今や予想された台湾危機が現実になりました。我々は主要な戦争の確率が20%へと倍増したと推定します。 逆に言えばより良い結果が起こる確率は80%です。分析的には、我々は依然としてロシアが限定的な目的—ウクライナを繁栄や軍事的に強大にさせないよう弱体化する—を追求していると見ており、中国も限定的な目的—台湾を国家たる存在としてではなく従属へと向かわせることで威嚇する—を追求していると見ています。 これらの目的が変わらない限り、我々はまだ第三次世界大戦からは遠いと考えます。 世界は不活化されたウクライナと従属した台湾と共存できます。 しかし否定できないのは、2008年のグローバル金融危機以降の世界情勢の軌跡が第二次世界大戦前の道筋と不快なほど似ているということです：金融危機、経済後退、デフレ、国内不安、通貨切り下げ、貿易保護主義、債務の貨幣化、軍備増強、インフレ、そして侵略戦争。ルーレットがゲームなら、世界戦争の確率は6分の1、すなわち17%であり、我々のディシジョンツリーの20%という結果に近い数値です。 我々が仮に大げさであるとしても、WWIIIの確率が20%に達すると論理的に主張できること自体が、投資家が現在のウクライナと台湾をめぐる緊張が低下するまで大きなリスクを取るのを待つべきであることを示唆しています。 簡単なチェックリストを見ると、グローバルマクロと地政学の文脈は陰鬱です（表 1）。チェックリストの改善が見られるまでより楽観的になるのは控えるべきです。 表 1 2022年下半期にポジティブな触媒は多くない 五発の拳銃を使ったルーレット 五発の拳銃を使ったルーレット     チャート 2 2022年下半期は防御的ポジションを維持 2022年下半期は防御的なポジションを維持する 2022年下半期は防御的なポジションを維持する 具体的には、投資家はロシアがNATOに拡大しないこと、そして中国が当面台湾を侵攻しないことに合理的な安心感を持つ必要があります。 これはワシントンとモスクワ、ワシントンと北京の間で紛争を回避する新たな外交的理解を要求します。 そのような理解は危機の中でしか築かれません。関連する危機は進行中ですがまだ完了していません。 通常の解決策である外交を通じて戦争リスクが払拭されるまで、グローバル株式にはさらに下振れリスクがある可能性が高いです。 世界システムの具体的かつ信頼できる改善が見られるまで、リスク資産に対して一般的なオーバーウェイト姿勢を取るのは控えましょう。株より政府債券を重視し、グローバル株より米国株、景気敏感セクターよりディフェンシブ・セクターを好み、中国・台湾の通貨と資産は評価を下げることを推奨します（チャート 2）。     マット・ガートケン チーフ・ジオポリティカル・ストラテジストmattg@bcaresearch.com  脚注 1      記：Graham Allison、Destined For War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap?（New York: Houghton Miffin Harcourt, 2017）。 2     例えば、オデッサからの穀物輸送に関するトルコ仲介の合意、2015年イラン核合意への再加盟を支持する外交的動き、ヘルソンのような征服地での住民投票、軍縮交渉での影響力強化の試みなどです。欧州のエネルギーを断つことは最終的に欧州を停戦に有利な条件で妥協させるための圧力手段です。 3     イランは依然として余計な要求を出しています—最近ではIAEAがイランの未公表の核施設で発見された特定の人工ウラン粒子の出所を調査している件を取り下げるよう要求しました。IAEAはこの調査を取り下げておらず、取り下げればIAEAの信頼性が損なわれます。一方でバイデンは制裁を強化しており、制裁解除はイランの主要な要求です。バイデンはイラン革命防衛隊やイQods部隊をテロ指定から外していません。これらのハードルは決定的ではありませんが、我々の見方を変える前に何らかの進展を見るべきだと考えます。 戦略テーマ オープン・タクティカル・ポジション（0～6か月） オープン・サイクリック推奨（6～18か月） 地域別地政学リスクマトリックス 「打率」：地政学ストラテジーの成果（）

Executive Summary Oil Markets Remain Tight US and Iranian negotiators received an EU proposal for reviving the Iran nuclear deal on Monday, which could return ~ 1mm b/d of oil to markets.  The EU’s embargo of Russian seaborne crude imports, which commences December 5, will remove 90% of seaborne imports of Russian crude (~ 2.3mm b/d) by year-end.  In February 2023, another 800k b/d of refined products will be embargoed.  December also will usher in insurance and reinsurance sanctions on shipping Russian oil – arguably the strongest sanctions the EU, UK and US can impose. Without those Iranian barrels, the determination of the EU, UK and US to enforce a Russian oil embargo will be suspect. We give odds of 60% to a US-Iran deal getting done in the near term.  Our Geopolitical Strategy maintains the likelihood of a deal is 40% at best. Bottom Line: Oil markets are pricing in the likelihood of large energy supply dislocations over the next couple of months.  The evolution of prices hinges upon the degree to which the EU’s embargo on Russian oil imports is implemented.  A revived Iran nuclear deal with the West would offset some of the embargoed Russian oil.  Even so, oil balances still will remain tilted to deficit conditions in 2023.  We continue to expect Brent will move above our 2022 $110/bbl expectation by 4Q22, and average $117/bbl next year. Feature US and Iranian negotiators received a proposal from EU negotiators for reviving the Iran nuclear deal on Monday.1 If the US and Iran can agree, the door opens for 1mm b/d of Iranian oil to return to markets. These barrels are becoming increasingly important to the EU, especially following the suspension of southerly flows of oil on Russia’s Druzhba pipeline due to a payment dispute.2 Brent popped ~ $1.50/bbl Tuesday morning as the Druzhba news broke, and the backwardation in the forward market increased (Chart 1). Brent gave back these early gains by the end of trading, following news a Hungarian refiner transferred the fee required to use the Ukrainian section of the pipeline.3 Chart 1Oil Markets Remain Tight Complicated Motives On All Sides The EU obviously has an interest in freezing Iran’s nuclear program and accessing more Iranian fossil fuels while it is locked in an energy struggle with Russia – hence the its proposal to revive the Iran nuclear deal. However, the US and Iranian positions are more complicated. Iranian’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has an interest in removing the US’s economic sanctions – and in obtaining deliverable nuclear weapons, notes Matt Gertken, BCA Research’s chief geopolitical strategist. Khamenei’s plan is to develop a nuclear weapon so that Iran can deter any aggression from a future US administration or the Abraham alliance. This is the path to regime survival, power succession, and national security. Hence Iran will not freeze its nuclear program over the long run. But Khamenei may wish to buy time while the Democrats still run the White House. Chart 2KSA, UAE Preserving Spare Capacity We’ve noted repeatedly the Biden administration has been pressing the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) – the only states in OPEC 2.0 able to raise output and maintain production at higher levels – to increase output for the better part of this year. These efforts yielded only a 100k b/d production increase earlier this month. KSA and the UAE insist they are close to the maximum levels of oil they can supply to the market, given their current production and the need to maintain minimal spare capacity (Chart 2).4 KSA’s max capacity is 12mm b/d. The Kingdom will be producing at or slightly above 11mm b/d later this year to offset declines in non-core OPEC 2.0 production. KSA’s trying to get its max capacity to 13mm b/d, but that will take until 2027, according to the state oil company ARAMCO. UAE’s max capacity is 4mm b/d. It will be producing at or close to 3.5mm b/d this year, and after that they’ll want to hang on to that last bit as spare capacity. UAE’s trying to get its spare capacity to 5mm b/d, but that’s going to take until 2030, according to its state oil company ADNOC. There’s an increasing risk to the Russian output arising from the EU embargo scheduled to take effect December 5, and sanctions on providing insurance and reinsurance to ships carrying Russian material. If the EU/UK/US embargo is successful and results in Russia being forced to shut in 2mm b/d by the end of next year, per our expectation, KSA and UAE spare capacity will not cover the loss of production, and falling output within OPEC 2.0. Given these dynamics – and the expectation at least some of the sanctions will stick after Dec. 5 – KSA and UAE have to hang on to those last barrels to be able to meet the increasingly likely loss of Russian shut-in production. Additional spare capacity is not available in the US shales, or in any of the other producing provinces outside OPEC 2.0 sufficient to cover the loss of Russian barrels. Indeed, output from OPEC 2.0 outside the core producers has been trending lower for years (Chart 3).5 Complicating a deal with Iran is the possibility it could re-open the breach between the US and KSA. If KSA wanted to express its displeasure with a US-Iran deal it wouldn’t need to do much to re-balance the market: If the Kingdom does not offset production losses by the rest of OPEC 2.0, or step up to cover, e.g., Libyan production – now back on the market with just under 500k b/d – global supply falls and prices rise, all else equal.6 Chart 3KSA, UAE Are Core OPEC 2.0 Our Geopolitical Strategy gives 40% odds of an Iran deal and 60% odds that negotiations fall apart (or drag on without resolution). We make the odds higher – 60% chance of success – given the compelling interest of the Biden administration to get more oil into the market going into midterms in November, and a general interest in the West to offset potential losses of Russian volumes to sanctions that kick in in December. The difference in these views hinges on what Iran will do, as the Biden administration is seeking a deal. Sanctions Kicking In In December The EU is set to roll into its embargo of Russian oil imports on December 5. If fully implemented, ~ 2.3mm b/d of seaborne imports of Russian crude oil will be excluded from EU markets by year-end. Beginning in February, another 800k b/d of refined products will be embargoed. EU, UK and US shipping insurance and reinsurance sanctions also are set to kick in in December. These arguably are the strongest sanctions available to the West in its effort to take Russian oil and refined products off the market (no insurance means no shipping). The EU recently relaxed sanctions on buying and transporting Russian crude oil, which will allow additional volumes of oil to be purchased and transported to end-use markets.7 While this will let a little more Russian oil into the market in the near term, we believe it opens the possibility of additional exceptions being made by the EU to make more oil available, if prices move sharply higher on the back of increasing supply scarcity. The EU and US are looking a bit wobbly on the insurance and reinsurance bans due to kick in in December.8 If they relax or forego these sanctions in some fashion, more Russian crude and products will flow to market in 4Q22 than currently is anticipated. This would undermine US efforts to secure a price cap on Russian oil sales. Slower sanction enforcement is a path available to Biden that does not involve bowing to Iran’s various demands. Some, but not all, of the Russian volumes lost to EU exports will continue to be scooped up by China and India, which have become the largest buyers of Russian oil following the sanctions imposed by the West after the invasion of Ukraine.9 India loaded 29.5mm barrels of Russian crude in July – a record – while China loaded 18.1mm barrels. These levels likely will fall, but these two states will remain big buyers of Russian crude and products going forward. Household Budgets Will Remain Strained High energy prices – particularly for gasoline and diesel fuel – and falling real incomes have eaten into US household budgets, and are a key factor for Biden’s low approval ratings (Chart 4). July US CPI was unchanged from June and was 8.5% higher y-o-y. While the gasoline price index dropped from June, it remained one of the main contributors to the high energy index. (Chart 5).10 Based on the sharp increase in gasoline prices over the first six months of this year, we estimate the cost of running a car is 50% higher in 1H22 vs. 1H21 in the US. Chart 4Wealth Destruction Key To Low Biden Approval Chart 5Energy Driving High US Prices US gasoline and distillate prices have rolled over since mid-June, driven by high refined-product prices, which weakened demand, and fear of global recession as central banks tighten monetary policy. Higher Russian crude output in 1H22 – up 3.6% to ~ 10.1mm b/d – partly contributed to weaker product prices. However, this trend likely will reverse: Russian crude output in 2Q22 was down 1.1% y/y to 9.7mm b/d, based on our estimates. We expect prices of gasoline and diesel fuel to remain at elevated levels, given low inventories (Chart 6), and a second consecutive year of lower US refining capacity (Chart 7). Higher crude oil prices brought about by Russian oil and product embargoes will feed into these refined product prices, pushing them higher. Chart 6Low Product Stocks… Chart 7…And Refining Capacity Are Bullish For Petrol Products There is scope for an increase in gasoline demand over the rest of the driving season, while elevated US and overseas distillate demand will support diesel and heating oil prices. The eurozone’s record high inflation in July was driven by energy prices (Chart 8), indicating high energy prices are a problem for households worldwide. According to the Household Electricity Price Index, residential electricity prices in EU capitals were more than 70% higher in 1H22 y/y. The IMF expects high fuel prices will increase EU households’ share of energy expenditure by 7% in 2022.11 In response to high energy prices, governments are enacting policies such as price caps and direct transfers to lower the damage to household wealth.12 An unintended consequence of this will be high prices for longer, as consumers will not register the signal the market is sending via higher prices to encourage lower demand. This will result in continued draws on inventories. Chart 8High Energy Prices Responsible For Eurozone Inflation Investment Implications With EU sanctions scheduled to become effective December 5, oil markets are focused on supply measures that could sharply reduce Russian oil exports. This makes the US-Iran negotiations to revive the Iran nuclear deal critically important. Agreement to restore the deal could return 1mm b/d of oil to markets at a time when supplies are at risk of contracting sharply going into 2023. Failure to restore these volumes will tighten supply significantly if the EU’s embargo of Russian oil imports is successful. We give the restoration of the Iran nuclear deal a 60% chance of success. In and of itself, the return of Iranian oil exports will not offset all of the potential loss of Russian crude oil exports to the EU. That said, the evolution of crude oil prices hinges upon the degree to which the EU’s embargo on Russian oil imports is implemented. There's a subtle point to be aware of in the evolution of US-Iran negotiations: The Biden administration could just turn a blind eye to Iranian crude sales, without agreeing to revive the nuclear deal being negotiated. Signing a deal, on the other hand, would be more positive for supply than merely not contesting Iranian's renewed exports of 1mm b/d of crude. It is worthwhile bearing in mind that the point of the deal is that Iran pauses its nuclear program, which reduces war risk in the medium term, or as long as deal is in force. Reducing the level of agita in the region, at least for a couple of years, is a net benefit. Our geopolitical strategist Matt Gertken notes, "If Iranians sign a deal, then they are endorsing Biden and the Democratic Party for 2024, meaning they want a Democratic White House in the US through 2028. There would be no reason to sign it unless you plan to implement at least through 2024." We remain bullish oil, and continue to expect Brent to trade above $110/bbl on average this year, and $117/bbl next year. We remain long the XOP ETF to retain our exposure to oil and gas E+Ps.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com Paula Struk Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy paula.struk@bcaresearch.com     Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish The EIA expects US natural gas inventories to finish the injection season at ~ 3.5 Tcf – 6% below the five-year average – at the end of October (Chart 9). LNG exports are expected to average 11.2 Bcf/d, which, if realized, will be 14% over 2021 levels. The EIA increased its estimate of LNG exports on the back of an earlier-than-expected return of Freeport LNG exports. For 2023, the EIA expects US LNG exports will average 12.7 Bcf/d. Close to 70% of the 57 bcm of US LNG exports are being shipped to Europe, where it is helping offset the cutoff of Russian gas supplies following the war in Ukraine. In 1H22, the US became the world’s largest exporter of LNG. Dry gas production in the US is expected to average just under 97 Bcf/d in 2022, a 3% increase over 2021 levels. Base Metals: Bullish Total Chinese copper imports for July were up 9.3% at ~464kt for July, despite economic weakness and a property market slowed by companies' payment defaults and lower consumer confidence in real estate groups. Copper in SHFE warehouses were at 35kt which is 65% lower y/y as of the week ending August 5th, while stocks in China’s copper bonded inventories were 40% lower y/y at 262kt for the month of June. Low copper prices and Chinese stocks, and high imports indicate that the world’s largest copper consumer is capitalizing on weak prices to restock low inventories. Precious Metals: Bullish The World Gold Council reported gold ETF outflows for the third consecutive month in July at 80.1 tons (Chart 10) due to low gold prices, a strong USD and a hawkish Fed. The latest July US CPI data was unchanged from June, as high prices due to pandemic induced supply chain bottlenecks eased. Inflation remains well above target. Despite the mildly positive inflation data, we expect the Fed to hike interest rates again in September. The magnitude of this hike will depend on the August US CPI and employment prints, given the Fed’s data dependency. By year-end, if the Russian oil embargo and insurance bans on shipping vessels are implemented in their current form, high crude oil prices will feed into inflation, and the Fed will be forced to remain aggressive. Chart 9 Chart 10     Footnotes 1     Please see Agreement on nuclear deal within reach but obstacles remain published by politico.com on August 8, 2022. 2     Please see Russia suspends oil exports via southern leg of Druzhba pipeline due to transit payment issues published by reuters.com on August 9, 2022. 3    Please see Oil drops on Druzhba pipeline news and U.S. inflation expectations published by reuters.com on August 10, 2022.  According to the International Association of Oil Transporters, the Druzhba pipeline capacity is ~ 1.3mm b/d.  In July, its southern leg supplying Hungary, the Czech Republic and was carrying ~ 230k b/d, according to OilX, a satellite service monitoring oil and shipping movements globally. 4    Please see Tighter Oil Markets On The Way, which we published on July 21, 2022, for additional detail. 5    Please see footnote #4. 6    The background factor in this situation is Russia’s involvement in Libya’s civil disorder.  We noted in our July 14, 2022 report Russia Pulls Oil, Gas Supply Strings: “Sporadic force majeure declarations and output losses in Libya, where Russian mercenaries actively support Khalifa Haftar’s Libyan National Army (LNA), continue to make supply assessments difficult.” 7     Please see How the EU Will Allow a Slight Increase in Russian Oil Exports published by Bloomberg.com on August 1, 2022. 8    Please see US warns of surge in fuel costs as it renews push for Russian oil price cap published by ft.com on July 26, 2022. 9    Please see Russian crude prices recover on strong India, China demand, and Column-Russian crude is more reliant on India and China, but signs of a peak: Russell | Reuters, published by reuters.com on August 7 and August 9, 2022. 10   After fuel oils, the 44% y-o-y increase in the gasoline price index was the largest contributor to the increase in the energy index. 11    Please see Surging Energy Prices in Europe in the Aftermath of the War: How to Support the Vulnerable and Speed up the Transition Away from Fossil Fuels, published by the IMF on July 29, 2022. 12    For an example of such policy, please see State aid: Commission approves Spanish and Portuguese measure to lower electricity prices amid energy crisis     Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Trades Closed in 2022

Executive Summary Biden Taps China-Bashing Consensus House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan reflects one of our emerging views in 2022: the Biden administration’s willingness to take foreign policy risks ahead of the midterm elections. Biden’s foreign policy will continue to be reactive and focused on domestic politics through the midterms. Hence global policy uncertainty and geopolitical risk will remain elevated at least until November 8.  Biden is seeing progress on his legislative agenda. Congress is passing a bill to compete with China while the Democrats are increasingly likely to pass a second reconciliation bill, both as predicted. These developments support our view that President Biden’s approval rating will stabilize and election races will tighten, keeping domestic US policy uncertainty elevated through November. These trends pose a risk to our view that Republicans will take the Senate, but the prevailing macroeconomic and geopolitical environment is still negative for the ruling Democratic Party. We expect legislative gridlock and frozen US fiscal policy in 2023-24. Close Recommendation (Tactical) Initiation Date  Return Long Refinitiv Renewables Vs. S&P 500 Mar 30, 2022 25.4% Long Biotech Vs. Pharmaceuticals Jul 8,  2022 -3.3% Bottom Line: While US and global uncertainty remain high, we will stay long US dollar, long large caps over small caps, and long US Treasuries versus TIPS. But these are tactical trades and are watching closely to see if macroeconomic and geopolitical factors improve later this year. Feature President Biden’s average monthly job approval rating hit its lowest point, 38.5%, in July 2022. However, Biden’s anti-inflation campaign and midterm election tactics are starting to bear fruit: gasoline prices have fallen from a peak of $5 per gallon to $4.2 today, the Democratic Congress is securing some last-minute legislative wins, and women voters are mobilizing to preserve abortion access.  These developments mean that the Democratic Party’s electoral prospects will improve marginally between now and the midterm election, causing Senate and congressional races to tighten – as we have expected. US policy uncertainty will increase. Investors will see a rising risk that Democrats will keep control of the Senate – and conceivably even the House – and hence retain unified control of the executive and legislative branches. This “Blue Sweep” risk will challenge the market consensus, which overwhelmingly (and still correctly) expects congressional gridlock in 2023-24. A continued blue sweep would mean larger tax hikes and social spending, while gridlock would neutralize fiscal policy for the next two years. Investors should fade this inflationary blue sweep risk and continue to plan for disinflationary gridlock. First, our quantitative election models still predict that Democrats will lose control of both House and Senate (Appendix). Second, Biden’s midterm tactics face very significant limitations, particularly emanating from geopolitics – the snake in this report’s title. Pelosi’s Trip To Taiwan Raises Near-Term Market Risks One of Biden’s election tactics is our third key view for 2022: reactive foreign policy. Initially we viewed this reactiveness as “risk-averse” but in May we began to argue that Biden could take risky bets given his collapsing approval ratings. Either way, Biden is using foreign policy as a means of improving his party’s domestic political fortunes. In particular, he is willing to take big risks with China, Russia, Iran, and terrorist groups like Al Qaeda. The template is the 1962 congressional election, when President John F. Kennedy largely defied the midterm election curse by taking a tough stance against Russia in the Cuban Missile Crisis (Chart 1). If Biden achieves a foreign policy victory, then Democrats will benefit. If he instigates a crisis, voters will rally around his administration out of patriotism. Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taipei is the prominent example of this key view. The trip required full support from the US executive branch and military and was not only the swan song of a single politician. It was one element of the Biden administration’s decision to maintain the Trump administration’s hawkish China policy. Thus while Congress passes the $52 billion Chips and Science Act to enhance US competitiveness in technology and semiconductor manufacturing, Biden is also contemplating tightening export controls on computer chip equipment that China needs to upgrade its industry.1 Biden is reacting to a bipartisan and popular consensus holding that the US needs to take concrete measures to challenge China and protect American industry (Chart 2). This is different from the old norm of rhetorical China-bashing during midterms. Chart 1Biden Provokes Foreign Rivals Chart 2Biden Taps China-Bashing Consensus Reactive US foreign policy will continue through November and possibly beyond – including but not limited to China. The US chose to sell long-range weapons to Ukraine and provide intelligence targeting Russian forces, prompting Russia to declare that the US is now “directly” involved in the Ukraine conflict. The US decision to eradicate Al Qaeda leader Ayman Al-Zawahiri also reflects this foreign policy trend. Reactive foreign policy will increase the near-term risk of new negative geopolitical surprises for markets. Note that the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis analogy is inverted when it comes to the Taiwan Strait. China is willing to take much greater risks than the US in its sphere of influence. The same goes for Russia in Ukraine. If US policy backfires then it may assist the Democrats in the election – but not if Biden suffers a humiliation or if the US economy suffers as a result. Chart 3US Import Prices Will Stay High From Greater China US import prices will continue to rise from Greater China (Chart 3), undermining Biden’s anti-inflation agenda. Supply kinks in the semiconductor industry will become relevant again whenever demand rebounds  (Chart 4). Global energy prices will also remain high as a result of the EU’s oil embargo and Russia’s continued tightening of European natural gas supplies. Chart 4New Semiconductor Kinks Will Appear When Demand Recovers OPEC has decided only to increase oil production by 100,000 barrels per day, despite Biden’s visit to Saudi Arabia cap in hand. We argued that the Saudis would give a token but would largely focus on weakening global demand rather than pumping substantially more oil to help Biden and the Democrats in the election. The Saudis know that Biden is still attempting to negotiate a nuclear deal with Iran that would free up Iranian exports. So the Saudis are not giving much relief, and if Biden fails on Iran, oil supply disruptions will increase. Bottom Line: Price pressures will intensify as a result of the US-China and US-Russia standoffs – and probably also the US-Iran standoff. Hawkish foreign policy is not conducive to reducing inflationary ills. Global policy uncertainty and geopolitical risk will remain high throughout the midterm election season, causing continued volatility for US equities. Abortion Boosts Democratic Election Odds Earlier this year we highlighted that the Supreme Court’s overturning of the 1972 Roe v. Wade decision would lead to a significant mobilization of women voters in favor of the Democratic Party ahead of the midterm election. The first major electoral test since the court’s ruling, a popular referendum in the state of Kansas, produced a surprising result on August 2 that confirms and strengthens this thesis. Kansas is a deeply religious and conservative state where President Trump defeated President Biden by a 15% margin in 2020. The referendum was held during the primary election season, when electoral turnout skews heavily toward conservatives and the elderly. Yet Kansans voted by an 18% margin (59% versus 41%) not to amend the constitution, i.e. not to empower the legislature to tighten regulations on abortion. Voter turnout is not yet reported but likely far higher than in recent non-presidential primary elections. Kansans voted in the direction of  nationwide opinion polling on whether abortion should be accessible in cases where the mother’s health is endangered. They did not vote in accordance with more expansive defenses of abortion, which are less popular (Chart 5). If the red state of Kansas votes this way then other states will see an even more substantial effect, at least when abortion is on the ballot. Chart 5Abortion Will Mitigate Democrats’ Losses The question is how much of this Roe v. Wade effect will carry over to the general congressional elections. The referendum focused exclusively on abortion. Voters did not vote on party lines. Voters never like it when governments try to take away rights or privileges that have previously been granted. But in November the election will center on other topics, including inflation and the economy. And midterm elections almost always penalize the incumbent party. Our quantitative election models imply that Democrats will lose 22 seats in the House and two seats in the Senate, yielding Congress to the Republicans next year (Appendix). Still, women’s turnout presents a risk to our models. Women’s support for the Democratic Party has not improved markedly since the Supreme Court ruling, as we have shown in recent reports (Chart 6). But the polling could pick up again. Women’s turnout could be a significant tailwind in a year of headwinds for the Democrats. Bottom Line: Democrats’ electoral prospects have improved, as we anticipated earlier this year (Chart 7). This trend will continue as a result of the mobilization of women. Republicans are still highly likely to take Congress but our conviction on the Senate is much lower than it is on the House. Chart 6Biden’s And Democrats’ Approval Among Women Chart 7Democrats’ Odds Will Improve On Margin Reconciliation Bill: Still 65% Chance Of Passing Ultimately Democrats’ electoral performance will depend on inflation, the economy, and cyclical dynamics. If inflation falls over the course of the next three months, then Democrats will have a much better chance of stemming midterm losses. That is why President Biden rebranded his slimmed down “Build Back Better” reconciliation bill as the “Inflation Reduction Act.” We maintain our 65% odds that the bill will pass, as we have done all year. There is still at least a 35% chance that Senator Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona could defect from the Democrats, given that she opposed any new tax hikes and the reconciliation bill will impose a 15% minimum tax on corporations. A single absence or defection would topple the budget reconciliation process, which enables Democrats to pass the bill on a simple majority vote. We have always argued that Sinema would ultimately fall in line rather than betraying her party at the last minute before the election. This is even more likely given that moderate-in-chief, Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, negotiated and now champions the bill. But some other surprise could still erase the Democrats’ single-seat majority, so we stick with 65% odds. Most notably the bill will succeed because it actually reduces the budget deficit – by an estimated $300 billion over a decade (Table 1). Deficit reduction was the original purpose of lowering the number of votes required to pass a bill under the budget reconciliation process. Now Democrats are using savings generated from new government caps on pharmaceuticals (a popular measure) to fund health and climate subsidies. Given deficit reduction, it is conceivable that a moderate Republican could even vote for the bill. Table 1Democrats’ Inflation Reduction Act (Budget Reconciliation) Bottom Line: Democrats are more likely than ever to pass their fiscal 2022 reconciliation bill by the September 30 deadline. The bill will cap some drug prices and reduce the deficit marginally, so it can be packaged as an anti-inflation bill, giving Democrats a legislative win ahead of the midterm. However, its anti-inflationary impact will ultimately be negligible as $300 billion in savings hardly effects the long-term rising trajectory of US budget deficits relative to output. The bill will add to voters’ discretionary income and spur the renewable energy industry. And if it helps the Democrats retain power, then it enables further spending and tax hikes down the road, which would prove inflationary. The reconciliation bill, annual appropriations, and the China competition bill were the remaining bills that we argued would narrowly pass before the US Congress became gridlocked again. So far this view is on track.   Investment Takeaways Companies that paid a high effective corporate tax rate before President Trump’s tax cuts have benefited relative to those that paid a low effective rate. They stood to suffer most if Trump’s tax cuts were repealed. But Democrats were forced to discard their attempt to raise the overall corporate tax rate last year. Instead the minimum corporate rate will rise to 15%, hitting those that paid the lowest effective rate, such as Big Tech companies, relative to high-tax rate sectors such as energy (Chart 8, top panel). Tactically energy may still underperform tech but cyclically energy could outperform and the reconciliation bill would feed into that trend. Similarly, companies that faced high foreign tax risk, because they made good income abroad but paid low foreign tax rates, stand to suffer most from the imposition of a minimum corporate tax rate (Chart 8, bottom panel). Again, Big Tech stands to suffer, although it has already priced a lot of bad news and may not perform poorly in the near term. Chart 8Market Responds To Minimum Corporate Tax Chart 9Market Responds To New Climate Subsidies Renewable energy stocks have rallied sharply on the news of the Democrats’ reconciliation bill getting back on track (Chart 9). We are booking a 25.4% gain on this tactical trade and will move to the sidelines for now, although renewable energy remains a secular investment theme. Health stocks, particularly pharmaceuticals, have taken a hit from the new legislation as we expected. However, biotech has not outperformed pharmaceuticals as we expected, so we will close this tactical trade for a loss of 3.3%. The reconciliation bill will cap drug prices for only the most popular generic drugs and does not pose as much of a threat to biotech companies (Chart 10). Biotech should perform well tactically as long bond yields decline – they are also historically undervalued, as noted by Dhaval Joshi of our Counterpoint strategy service. So we will stick to long Biotech versus the broad market. US semiconductors remain in a long bull market and will be in heavy demand once global and US economic activity stabilize. They are also likely to outperform competitors in Greater China that face a high and persistent geopolitical risk premium (Chart 11).  Chart 10Market Responds To Drug Price Caps Chart 11Market Responds To China Competition Bill Tactically we prefer bonds to stocks, US equities to global equities, defensive sectors to cyclicals, large caps to small caps, and growth stocks to value stocks (Chart 12). The US is entering a technical recession, Europe is entering recession, China’s economy is weak, and geopolitical tensions are at extreme highs over Ukraine, Taiwan, and Iran. The US is facing an increasingly uncertain midterm election. These trends prevent us from adding risk in our portfolio in the short term. However, much bad news is priced and we are on the lookout for positive economic surprises and successful diplomatic initiatives to change the investment outlook for 2023. If the US and China recommit to the status quo in the Taiwan Strait, if Russia moves toward ceasefire talks in Ukraine, if the US and Iran rejoin the 2015 nuclear deal, then we will take a much more optimistic attitude. Some political and geopolitical risks could begin to recede in the fourth quarter – although that remains to be seen. And even then, geopolitical risk is rising on a secular basis. Chart 12Tactically Recession And Geopolitics Will Weigh On Risk Assets Matt Gertken Senior Vice President Chief US Political Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com       Footnotes 1     Alexandra Alper and Karen Freifeld, “U.S. considers crackdown on memory chip makers in China,” Reuters, August 1, 2022, reuters.com.   Strategic View Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Table A2Political Risk Matrix Table A3US Political Capital Index Chart A1Presidential Election Model Chart A2Senate Election Model  Table A4House Election Model Table A5APolitical Capital: White House And Congress Table A5BPolitical Capital: Household And Business Sentiment Table A5CPolitical Capital: The Economy And Markets

Executive Summary Biden Can Take Risks Ahead Of Midterms News reports suggest House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will travel to Taiwan and meet with Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen in the coming days. China has promised military counter-measures if she visits. Structural factors suggest US-China tensions over Taiwan could explode: China’s reversion to autocracy and hawkish foreign policy, Taiwan’s assertion of autonomy, and the US’s political instability and foreign policy reactiveness. Cyclical factors also suggest that tensions could escalate: China’s instability in the wake of Covid-19, the ramifications of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the budding Russo-Chinese alliance, the Biden administration’s domestic political vulnerability, and the Xi administration’s domestic political vulnerability. In particular, Xi cannot back down. A diplomatic crisis or military showdown is likely in the short run but not yet a full-scale war. Taiwan is harder to invade than Ukraine, the US is not attempting a radical boost to Taiwan’s military, Taiwan is not moving toward formal independence, and the Chinese economy is not yet collapsing beyond all hope. However, over the long run we fear that a Taiwan war is more likely than not. Tactically investors should prefer government bonds to equities, US equities to global, defensive sectors to cyclicals, and safe havens to risky assets. Investors should short Chinese and Taiwanese currencies and assets. Tactical Recommendation Inception Date Return LONG US SEMICONDUCTOR & SEMI EQUIPMENT / TAIWAN EQUITIES 2022-06-23 14.6% LONG KOREA/ SHORT TAIWAN EQUITIES 2020-03-27 -23.5% Bottom Line: Tactically investors should buy safe-haven assets and await a resolution of the US-China confrontation over Taiwan, which could cause a dramatic escalation in strategic tensions. Feature A fourth Taiwan Strait crisis is likely upon us. Speaker of the US House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi will visit Taiwan during her travel around Asia Pacific this week, according to the Wall Street Journal on August 1. Chinese President Xi Jinping warned US President Joe Biden in a phone conversation on July 28 that “those who play with fire will eventually get burned,” referring specifically to US relations with Taiwan. Chinese foreign ministry officials have threatened “forceful” countermeasures if Pelosi visits the island, explicitly saying that the People’s Liberation Army would respond in some way.   There is still some uncertainty over whether Pelosi will go. She delayed the trip in April. Rumors emerged over July that she would resume but President Joe Biden suggested on July 20 that US military officials opposed the trip, believed the timing to be inappropriate. Taiwan was not mentioned in Pelosi’s official itinerary published on July 31, which includes Singapore, Japan, South Korea, and Malaysia. But the Wall Street Journal report has been corroborated by US and Taiwanese officials. Assuming Pelosi goes, China will respond with some military show of force. The US may pretend that one hand (the White House, the Department of Defense) does not know what the other hand is doing (the House of Representatives). But China will not be convinced. There are three major reasons that we have predicted a fourth Taiwan Strait crisis: 1.   China’s reversion to autocracy and foreign policy hawkishness: After the Great Recession, China was forced into a painful downshift in potential economic growth, stemming from a contracting labor force, excessive debt, and changes in the international economy (Chart 1). As economic growth has slowed, China has pursued political centralization, economic mercantilism, military modernization, and foreign policy assertiveness, offering nationalism as a distraction from the disappointments of the new middle class. While China may not be ready to launch a full-scale invasion of Taiwan, it is willing to do so if the Communist Party regime’s survival is at stake. Chart 1China's Slowdown Leads To Hawkishness 2.   Taiwan’s reassertion of autonomy: Taiwanese people began to sour on mainland China with the Great Recession and increasingly developed an independent identity (Chart 2). China’s growing economic influence, combined with Xi Jinping’s re-centralization of power across Greater China, provoked a backlash in Taiwan beginning in 2013 that culminated in the nominally pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party gaining full control of the island in 2016. The US-China trade war, China’s imposition of control over critical buffer spaces (including the South China Sea and Hong Kong), and US export controls on advanced technologies thrust Taiwan into the middle of a strategic confrontation. While Taiwan is not seeking war or formal political independence, it is seeking closer ties with the US and democratic allies to protect against Beijing’s encroachment.     3.   US political instability and foreign policy reaction: The Great Recession brought the US’s latent political instability from a simmer to a boil. The Washington establishment withdrew from the war on terrorism only to face discontent at home and strategic competition from China and Russia. China intensified its acquisition of US technology while North Korea obtained a nuclear arsenal under China’s watch. A surge in populism led the US to initiate a trade war against China and to impose restrictions on critical technologies to slow China’s modernization. While the US political factions bickered over domestic policy, they both tapped into a popular consensus on economic nationalism and hawkishness toward China (Chart 3). While the US is struggling to curb Russia and Iran, its greatest long-term challenge stems from China and it is increasingly focused on containing China’s economy and strategic ambitions. Chart 2Taiwanese Souring On China Chart 3US Hawkish Consensus On China In addition, there are important cyclical reasons why investors should take very seriously the risk of a major geopolitical crisis emanating from Taiwan in the short run: The Covid-19 pandemic intensified US (and global) distrust of China and accelerated the divorce of the US and Chinese economies. It also threw the Chinese economy into a downward spin, threatening Xi Jinping’s personal security and the Communist Party’s regime security. Hypo-globalization reduces critical economic constraints on military conflict. The Ukraine war highlighted the willingness of ambitious strongman regimes to go to war to prevent neighboring countries from allying with the United States. Taiwan is critical to Chinese security just as Ukraine is critical to Russian. Taiwan, like Ukraine, lacks a mutual defense treaty with the US and yet is attempting to create a de facto treaty through political, economic, and military cooperation – a scenario that will incentivize Chinese military action if it ever believes the US will take irrevocable steps to increase its commitment to defend Taiwan. At the same time, the US will try to deter China more effectively, since its deterrence failed in the case of Ukraine, which entails upgrading the Taiwanese relationship. Hence China will feel threatened and accuse the US of altering the status quo. Russo-Chinese alliance prevents US-China reengagement. Russia threw itself into China’s arms by cutting off natural gas to Europe. China cannot reject Russia’s overture because it needs Russia’s alliance to break through American strategic containment in the coming years. China needs Russia’s natural resources and its cooperation in gaining economic access to Central Asia and the Middle East. The US cannot pursue strategic détente with China if China is allying with Russia, since a Russo-Chinese alliance poses an unprecedented threat to American global influence and security (Chart 4). The Democratic Party is desperate to mitigate looming election losses. President Biden’s approval rating has fallen to 39%, while headline inflation hits 9% and the economy slips into a technical recession. The Republican Party is lined up for a victory in the midterm elections, yet Democrats view the populist Republicans as an existential threat. Hence Biden and Democratic leaders like Pelosi are willing to take significant risks to salvage the election, including provoking foreign rivals. The administration is contemplating tougher export controls on China’s access to semiconductor manufacturing equipment and Congress is passing bipartisan legislation to make the US more competitive against China. Any major confrontation abroad would generate a patriotic rally among voters, as did the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, which saved the Democrats from heavy losses in the midterms that year (Chart 5). China’s domestic politics support a foreign confrontation. As Xi attempts to cement another five-to-ten years in power at the twentieth national party congress this fall, the pandemic restrictions, political repression, property bust, and economic slowdown ensure that he has little good news to celebrate at home. He could benefit from taking an aggressive stance against the imperialist Americans over Taiwan – and he cannot afford to back down or lose face. Ultimately China’s regime legitimacy is at stake in Taiwan so it is willing to take greater risks than the United States.   Chart 4US Cannot Engage With Russo-Chinese Behemoth Chart 5Biden Can Take Risks Ahead Of Midterms All of the above demonstrates that investors should not be complacent but should take risk off the table until the Pelosi trip blows over. A major diplomatic or geopolitical crisis will occur if Pelosi indeed visits Taiwan, for China will be required to react to uphold the credibility of its warnings, and Beijing will have a national and political interest in overreacting rather than underreacting. The Americans will then have a national and political interest in preserving their own credibility. This dynamic could lead to a major escalation in strategic tensions. Could a crisis lead to full-scale war? Yes it could but most likely it will not – at least not yet. Here are some important limitations, which investors should monitor closely. If these are reduced or overcome, then a larger conflict becomes more probable: Taiwan is harder to invade than Ukraine. Taiwan is an island and islands that are politically unified can only be subdued with enormous cost of blood and treasure even by the most powerful armies. Taiwan is critical to the global economy, unlike Ukraine. While it lacks defense treaties, it has stronger strategic partnerships than Ukraine did. The Chinese military has not fought an expeditionary war since Vietnam in 1979. The US sent aircraft carriers to the Taiwan Strait in each of the previous three crises since the 1950s, signaling that it is willing to defend Taiwan, and currently has at least two aircraft carriers in Asia Pacific (Map 1). China needs to be prepared for potential American and Japanese intervention if it is to attack Taiwan, which requires an advanced triad of nuclear arms.    Map 1US Aircraft Carriers Suggest Taiwan Risk Is Substantial The US is not sending any game-changing offensive weapon systems. Instead the US is sending a mere politician. China opposes anything resembling state-to-state relations but Taiwan’s defensive capability would not be improved. Hence China would not be forced to take aggressive military action. Instead China is attempting to set a very low bar for intervening in US-Taiwan political relations. Beijing can intervene in a way that enforces the new line but remains beneath the threshold of war. Going forward, US arms sales to Taiwan will be a much riskier affair and the delivery of a weapons system could trigger conflict (Chart 6). Chinese economy is not (yet) beyond help. China still has authoritarian powers to manipulate the domestic economy, suggesting that policy makers will intervene to slow down the property bust and stimulate activity. After Xi Jinping consolidates power, we expect a pro-growth strategy to be unveiled that will lead to a stabilization of growth in 2023. This is necessary for Xi to maintain domestic stability, which is existential to the regime and its long-term security. If stimulus and interventions fail utterly and China collapses into a full-blown financial crisis, then China will lose the ability to improve its security over the long run and the risk of conflict with foreign powers will rise. But as long as China’s economy is not collapsing, China maintains the prospect of building its influence and power over time and conquering Taiwan through absorption rather than extremely risky armed conflict (Chart 7). Chart 6US Arms Sales Could Trigger A Real Conflict Chart 7More Economic Stimulus Is Coming Taiwan is not moving toward formal independence. The Tsai Ing-wen administration is nominally in favor of independence but has chosen rhetorical sleight of hand over any formal change to Taiwan’s status. Taiwanese people support the status quo knowing that they will live in a war zone if they declare independence. The long-term problem stems from the fact that a clear majority opposes unification with the mainland (Chart 8). Taiwan and the US face elections in 2022 and 2024. If the Kuomintang stages a comeback in Taiwanese politics, or the Democrats win reelection in 2024, then China still has the ability to pursue its aims through diplomacy. Whereas if the Democratic Progressive Party remains in full control of Taiwan, and the Republicans regain the White House, Beijing may conclude that little can be gained through diplomacy. Especially if these US and Taiwanese parties proceed to press their interests aggressively. Chart 8Taiwanese Not Declaring Independence Hence the most likely outcome if Pelosi visits Taiwan is a US-China geopolitical crisis of some sort but not a full-scale war. A crisis short of war could establish a new set of red lines over Taiwan that could govern the US-China relationship in the medium term with reduced uncertainty. But it would bring very bad news in the short run and lead to a permanent deterioration in US-China relations and global stability over the long run, which markets must price first.   Bottom Line: Tactically investors should prefer government bonds to equities, US equities to global, defensive sectors to cyclicals, and safe havens to risky assets. Stay short Chinese and Taiwanese currencies and assets. While semiconductor stocks stand at risk, investors should favor US semiconductor companies over Chinese and Taiwanese (Chart 9). Chart 9Investors Should Seek Safe Havens Matt Gertken Chief Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com   Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Regional Geopolitical Risk Matrix

Executive Summary Italy’s right-wing alliance, led by Brothers of Italy, will likely outperform in  the upcoming election. The new government will prioritize the economy, posing a risk to the EU’s united front against Russia. It is conducive to an eventual ceasefire, which is marginally positive for risk assets in 2023. We recommend investors underweight Italian assets on a tactical basis. China’s political risks will remain elevated until Xi consolidates power this fall, positive news will come after, if at all. Geopolitical risk in the Taiwan Strait will remain high and persistent until China and the US reach a new understanding. Separately, we are booking a 9% gain on our long US equities relative to UAE equities trade. Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Tactical Recommendation Inception Date Return LONG US / UAE EQUITIES (CLOSED) 2022-03-11 9.0% Bottom Line: Italy’s political turmoil suggests a more pragmatic policy toward Russia going forward. Europe’s energy cutoff will also motivate governments to negotiate with Russia. Feature In this report we update our GeoRisk Indicators, with a special focus on Italy’s newest political turmoil. Italy Over the past several months, we have argued that Italy was a source of political risk within the European Union and that the market underestimated the probability of an early Italian election. In the past two weeks, this forecast has become a reality (Chart 1). Chart 1Italy: GeoRisk Indicator The grand coalition under Prime Minister Mario Draghi had fulfilled its two main purposes – to distribute EU recovery funds and secure an establishment politician in the Italian presidency. At the same time, headline inflation hit 8.5% in June, the highest since 1986, even as the Italian and global economy slowed down, Italian government bonds sold off, and Russia induced an energy crisis. The stagflationary economic environment is biting hard and the different coalition members are looking to their individual interests ahead of election season. On July 14, Giuseppe Conte, the former prime minister, pulled its populist Five Star Movement (M5S) out of Mario Draghi’s national unity government, triggering a new round of political turmoil in Italy. Draghi’s first resignation was rejected by Italian President Mattarella later that day. However, on July 21, the League and Forza Italia also defected from the grand coalition. After Draghi’s plan of reviving the coalition collapsed, President Mattarella accepted his resignation and called for a snap election to be held on September 25, ten months ahead of the original schedule. Based on the latest public opinion polls, right-wing political parties are well-positioned for the upcoming election. The far-right Brothers of Italy is now the front runner in the election race and is expected to win around 23% of the votes. Another far-right party, the League, is the third most popular party, with nearly 15% support despite a drop in support during its time within the grand coalition. In addition, the center-right Forza Italia receives 8.5% of the support. Together, the right-wing conservative bloc amounts to 46.5% of voting intentions. There is still positive momentum for Brothers of Italy to harvest more support given that they are the flag-bearer for anti-incumbent sentiment amid the stagflationary economy. By contrast, the left-wing parties – the Democrats, the Left, and the Greens – only command about 27%. The possibility of an extended left-wing coalition, even with the inclusion of the M5S, is looking slim. On July 25, Enrico Letta, the leader of the Democratic Party, publicly expressed his anger against party leader Giuseppe Conte and ruled out any electoral pact with the M5S because of the recent political chaos they caused. He stressed that the Democratic Party would seek ties with parties that had remained loyal to Draghi’s national unity. However, there are not many parties left for the Democrats to partner with. Apart from the Left and the Greens, the Democrats’ best chance would be the center-left Action Party and Italia Viva, which is led by Matteo Renzi, who served as the secretary of the Democratic Party from 2013 to 2018. However, these four parties are small and will not enable the Democrats to form a government. Courting M5S is the Democrats’ only chance to set up an alternative to the right-wing bloc, but that will require the election to force the two parties together. Related Report  Geopolitical StrategyLe Pen And Other Hurdles (GeoRisk Update) The Democratic Party was the biggest supporter of Draghi’s government, while the Brothers of Italy were the sole major opposition. Thus the September 25 election will be a race between these two major parties. Both are expected to outperform current polling, as they will attract the most supporters from each side. The other right-wing parties, Forza Italia and the League, will at least perform in line with their polling, while the other left-wing parties will underperform. In the meantime, M5S’ popularity will continue to decline – the party is bruised over its role in Draghi’s coalition and divided over how to respond to the Ukraine war. Foreign policy is a major factor in this election. Italy has the highest share of citizens in the Eurozone who support solving the Russia-Ukraine conflict through peaceful dialogue (52% versus the Eurozone average of 35%). Italy has long maintained pragmatic relations with Russia, including the Putin administration, as it imported 40% of its natural gas from there prior to 2022. The EU is struggling to maintain a united front against Russia, and war policy will be a key focal point among the different parties. Draghi and the Democratic Party are the strongest supporters of the EU’s oil embargo on Russia and decision to send arms to support Ukraine. On the other side, the right-wing Forza Italia and the League have been more equivocal due to their traditional friendship with Russia. What’s more important is the stance of the Brothers of Italy on Russia, as it is the largest party now and will probably lead a right-wing government after the election. On July 27, the three right-wing parties struck a deal to officially form an alliance in the upcoming election and whichever party wins the most votes would determine the next prime minister if the alliance wins. This deal puts Giorgia Meloni, the leader of Brothers of Italy, one step closer to becoming Italy’s first female PM. Giorgia Meloni, unlike her right-wing peers, has endorsed Draghi’s hawkish stance towards Russia. Recently, she stressed that Italy would keep sending arms to Ukraine if her party forms a government after the election. However, Meloni’s speech could be a tactical move to win the election more than an unshakeable policy position. First, like the other two right-wing parties, the Brothers of Italy have had close connections with Russia. After the 2018 Russian presidential election, Meloni congratulated Putin and claimed his victory was “the unequivocal will of Russians.” In addition, she is close to Prime Minister Viktor Orban of Hungary and National Rally leader Marine Le Pen of France, both of whom have criticized the EU’s decision to provide military support to Kyiv. Hence her sharp change of stance this year seems calculated to avoid accusations of being pro-Russian. But that does not preclude a more pragmatic approach to Russia once in office. Second, Meloni has compromised other far-right positions to broaden her voter base. She has reversed the party’s original anti-EU stance and claimed it does not seek to leave the EU, as most European anti-establishment parties have had to do in order to make themselves electable. Being the only female in the election race, Meloni also pledged to protect women’s access to safe abortions in Italy, also a softer stance than before. Even if the Brothers of Italy distance themselves from some unpopular right-wing positions, including on Ukraine, they probably cannot form a government on their own. They will need to court Forza Italia and the League. These two parties prefer a more pragmatic approach to Russia and a peaceful resolution to the war. Thus while it will be hard to find a middle ground on the issue of Ukraine, the election will likely prevent Italy from taking a more confrontational stance toward Russia. It will probably do the opposite. Consider the context in which the next Italian government will operate. Russia declared on July 25 that it will further reduce natural gas supplies to Europe through Nord Stream 1, as we expected, bringing pipeline flows to 20% of its full capacity.  Energy prices will go up even as European economic activity and industry will suffer greater strains. If Meloni is elected as the new prime minister this September, she will have to keep talking tough on Russia while simultaneously seeking a solution to soaring energy prices and economic crisis. This solution will be diplomacy – unless Russia seeks to expand its invasion all the way to Moldova. A right-wing victory is the most likely outcome based on opinion polling, the negative cyclical economy, and the underlying structural factors supporting populism in Italy that we have monitored for years. Such a coalition will not be pro-Russian but it will be pragmatic and focused on salvaging Italy’s economy, which means it will be highly inclined toward diplomacy. If Russia halts its military advance – does not attempt to conquer southwestern Ukraine to Moldova – then this point will be greatly reinforced. Italy will become a new veto player within the European Union when it comes to any major new sanctions on Russia. While Europeans will continue diversifying their energy mix away from Russia, it will be much harder for the EU to implement a natural gas embargo in the coming years if Italy as well as Hungary oppose it. Even if we are wrong, and the Democratic Party or other left-wing parties surprise to the upside in the election, the new coalition will most likely have to focus on mitigating the economic crisis and thus pursuing diplomacy with Russia. That is, as long as Russia pushes for a ceasefire after it achieves its military aims in Donetsk, the last holdout within the south-southeastern territories Russia is trying to conquer. Bottom Line: Due to persistent political uncertainty, we recommend investors underweight Italian stocks and bonds at least until a new government takes shape, which could take months even after the election. However, government bonds will remain vulnerable if a right-wing coalition assumes power, since it will pursue loose fiscal policies and will eschew structural reforms. Overall Italy’s early elections will lead to a new government that is focused on short-term economic growth, likely including pragmatism toward Russia. From an investment point of view that will not be a negative development, though much depends on whether Russia expands its invasion or declares victory after Donetsk. Russia Market-based measures of Russian geopolitical risk are rebounding after subsiding from peak levels hit during the invasion of Ukraine in February (Chart 2). Chart 2Russia: GeoRisk Indicator Russia’s continued tightening of natural gas supplies (and food exports) this week is precisely what we predicted would happen despite a wave of wishful thinking from investors over the past month. The optimists claimed that Russia would resume Nord Stream 1 pipeline flows after a regular “maintenance” period. They also said that Canada’s cooperation in resolving some “technical” issues around turbines would stabilize natural gas supply. The truth is that Russia is seeking to achieve its war aims in Ukraine. Until it has achieved its aims, it will use a range of leverage, including tightening food and energy supplies. Most likely Russia will halt the advance after completing the conquest of the Donbas region and land-bridge to Crimea. Then it will seek to legitimize its conquests through a ceasefire agreement. However, it could launch a new phase of the war to try to take Odessa and Transniestria, which would cement European resolve, even in Italy, and trigger a new round of sanctions. Bottom Line: Russia faces a fork in the road once it completes the conquest of Donetsk. Most likely it will declare victory and start pushing for a ceasefire late this year or early next year. Movement toward a ceasefire would reduce geopolitical risk for global financial markets in 2023. But there is still a substantial risk that Russia could expand the invasion to eastern Moldova, which would escalate the overarching Russia-West conflict and sustain the high level of geopolitical risk for markets. China Chinese political and geopolitical risk will continue to rise and the bounce in Chinese relative equity performance is faltering as we expected (Chart 3). Chart 3China: GeoRisk Indicator China’s leaders will hold their secretive annual meeting at Beidaihe in August ahead of the critical Communist Party national congress this fall. General Secretary Xi Jinping is attempting to cement himself as the paramount leader in China, comparable to Chairman Mao Zedong, transforming China’s governance from that of single-party rule to single-person rule. The reversion to autocratic government is coinciding with a historic economic slowdown consisting of cyclical factors (weak domestic demand, weakening foreign demand, draconian Covid-19 restrictions) and structural factors (labor force contraction, property sector bust, social change and unrest). Both Xi and US President Biden face major domestic political challenges in the coming months with the party congress and the US midterm election. Hence they are holding talks to try to stabilize relations. But we do not think they will succeed. China cannot reject Russia’s strategic overture, while the US cannot afford to re-engage with a China that is partnering with Russia in a challenge to the liberal-democratic world order. In addition, US policies are erratic and the US cannot credibly promise China that it will not pursue a containment strategy even if China offers trade concessions. Bottom Line: China-related political and geopolitical risks will remain very high until at least after the twentieth party congress. At that point we expect President Xi to loosen a range of policies to stabilize the economy and foreign trade relations. These policies may bring positive news in 2023, though China’s biggest macroeconomic and geopolitical problems remain structural in nature and we remain underweight Chinese assets. Taiwan For many years we have warned of a “fourth Taiwan Strait crisis” due to the unsustainable geopolitical situation between China, Taiwan, and the United States. After the war in Ukraine we argued that the US would try to boost its strategic deterrence around Taiwan, since it failed to deter Russia from invading Ukraine, but that the increased commitment to Taiwan would in fact provoke China (Chart 4). Chart 4Taiwan: GeoRisk Indicator Until the US and China reach a new understanding over Taiwan, we argued that the region would be susceptible to rising tensions and crisis points that would send investors fleeing from risky assets, especially risky regional assets. It is possible that we have arrived at this crisis now, with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi making preparations to visit Taiwan, China pledging “forceful” countermeasures if she does, President Biden suggesting that the US military thinks Pelosi should not visit, and Biden and Xi preparing for a phone conversation. In essence China is giving an ultimatum and setting a new bar, and a very low bar, for taking some kind of action on Taiwan, i.e. the mere visit of a US House speaker, which has happened before (House Speaker Newt Gingrich in 1997). China’s purpose is to lay the groundwork for preventing the US from upgrading Taiwan relations in any more substantial way, whether political or military. If the Biden administration calls off the Pelosi visit, then American relations with Taiwan will have been curtailed, at least for this administration. If Biden goes forward with the visit, then Beijing will need to respond with an aggressive show of force to prevent any future president from repeating the exercise or building on it. And if this show threatens US personnel or security, a full-blown diplomatic or military crisis could ensue. While we doubt it would lead to full-scale war, it could lead to a frightening confrontation. Biden may want to stabilize relations with China, since he is primarily focused on countering Russia, but his options are limited. China cannot save him from inflation but it can solidify the public perception that he is weak. Hence he is more likely to maintain his administration’s hawkish approach. Biden’s approval rating is 38% and his party faces a drubbing in the midterm elections. A confrontation with Russia, China, Iran, or anyone else would likely help his party by producing a public rally around the flag. Any unilateral concessions will merely strengthen Xi’s power consolidation at the party congress, which is detrimental to US interests. Only if the Biden administration pursues a dovish policy of re-engagement that is subsequently confirmed by the 2024 presidential election will there be potential for a substantial US-China economic re-engagement. We are pessimistic. Bottom Line: Taiwan-related geopolitical risk will rise in the short run. If there is a new US-China understanding over Taiwan, then regional and global geopolitical risk will decline over the medium term. But we remain short Taiwanese assets. Investment Takeaways Investors should remain defensively positioned until the US midterm election ends with congressional gridlock; the Chinese party congress is over and Xi Jinping launches a broad pro-growth policy; and Russia starts pushing for a ceasefire in Ukraine. We also expect that markets will need to get over new, unexpected oil supply shocks arising from the failure of US-Iran nuclear negotiations, which remains off the radar and therefore a source of negative surprises. Any US-Iran nuclear deal would be a major positive surprise that postpones this risk for a few years. Having said that, we are booking a 9% gain on our long US versus UAE equity trade for technical reasons. Democrats have reached a deal to pass a budget reconciliation bill in an effort to mitigate midterm election losses. This development reinforces the 65% odds of passage that we have maintained for this bill’s passage in our US Political Strategy reports since last year.   Yushu Ma Research Analyst yushu.ma@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken Chief Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Appendix UK Chart 5UK: GeoRisk Indicator Germany Chart 6Germany: GeoRisk Indicator France Chart 7France: GeoRisk Indicator Spain Chart 8Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Canada Chart 9Canada: GeoRisk Indicator Australia Chart 10Australia: GeoRisk Indicator Korea Chart 11Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Brazil Chart 12Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator Turkey Chart 13Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator South Africa Chart 14South Africa: GeoRisk Indicator Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Regional Geopolitical Risk Matrix "Batting Average": Geopolitical Strategy Trades Geopolitical Calendar

特別レポート

Executive Summary Iran Reaches Nuclear Breakout The next geopolitical crisis will stem from the Middle East. The US, Russia, and China are striving for greater influence there and Iran’s nuclear quest is reaching a critical juncture. The risk of US-Israeli attacks against Iran remains 40% over the medium term and will rise sharply if Iran attempts to construct a deliverable nuclear device. Saudi Arabia may increase oil production but only if global demand holds up, which OPEC will assess at its August 3 meeting. Global growth risks will prevail in the short term and reduce its urgency. Russia will continue to squeeze supplies of energy and food for the outside world. The restart of Nord Stream 1 and the Turkey-brokered grain export proposal are unreliable signals. Russia’s aim is victory in Ukraine and any leverage will be used. The US may be done with the Middle East but the Middle East may not be done with the US. Structurally we remain bullish on gold and European defense stocks but we are booking 17% and 18% gains on our current trades. The deterioration in global growth and likely pullback in inflation will temporarily undercut these trades. Tactical Recommendation Inception Date Return LONG GOLD (CLOSED) 2019-06-12 17.1% LONG EUROPEAN AEROSPACE & DEFENSE / EUROPEAN TECH EQUITIES (CLOSED) 2022-03-18 17.9% Bottom Line: Global demand is weakening, which will weigh on bond yields and commodities. Yet underlying oil supply constraints persist – and US-Iran conflict will exacerbate global stagflation. Feature Chart 1Equity Volatility And Oil Price Volatility US President Joe Biden visited Saudi Arabia last week in a belated attempt to make amends with OPEC, increase oil production, and reduce inflation ahead of the midterm election. Biden also visited Israel to deter Iran, which is the next geopolitical crisis that markets are underrating. Meanwhile Russian President Vladimir Putin went to Iran on his second trip outside of Russia since this year’s invasion of Ukraine. Putin sought an ally in his conflict with the West, while also negotiating with Turkish President Recep Erdogan, who sought to position himself as a regional power broker. In this report we analyze Biden’s and Putin’s trips and what they mean for the global economy and macro investors. Macroeconomics is bearish for oil in the short term but geopolitics is bullish for oil in the short-to-medium term. The result is volatility (Chart 1). OPEC May Pump More Oil But Not On Biden’s Time Frame Here are the important developments from Biden’s trip: A credible threat against Iran: The US and Israel issued a joint declaration underscoring their red line against Iranian nuclear weaponization.1 Meanwhile the Iranians claimed to have achieved “nuclear breakout,” i.e. enough highly enriched uranium to construct a nuclear device (Chart 2). A balance-of-power coalition to contain Iran: Israel and Saudi Arabia improved relations on the margin. Each took action to build on the strategic détente between Israel and various Arab states that is embodied in the 2020 Abraham Accords.2 This strategic détente has staying power because it is a self-interested attempt by the various nations to protect themselves against common rivals, particularly Iran (Chart 3). Biden also tried to set up a missile defense network with Israel and the Arabs, although it was not finalized.3 Chart 2Iran Reaches Nuclear Breakout A reaffirmed US-Saudi partnership: The US and Saudi Arabia reaffirmed their partnership despite a rocky patch over the past decade. The rocky patch arises from US energy independence, China’s growth, and US attempts to normalize ties with Iran (Chart 4). These trends caused the Saudis to doubt US support and to view China as a strategic hedge. Chart 3Iran: Surrounded And Outgunned​​​​​​ President Biden came into office aiming to redo the Iran deal and halt arms sales to Saudi Arabia. Since then he has been chastened by high energy prices, a low approval rating, and hawkish Iranian policy. On this trip he came cap in hand to the Saudis in a classic example of geopolitical constraints. If the US-Iran deal is verifiably dead, then US-Saudi ties will improve sustainably. (Though of course the Saudis will still do business with China and even start trading with China in the renminbi.) What global investors want to know is whether the Saudis and OPEC will pump more oil. The answer is maybe someday. The Saudis will increase production to save the global business cycle but not the Democrats’ election cycle. They told Biden that they will increase production only if there is sufficient global demand. Global Brent crude prices have fallen by 6% since May, when Biden booked his trip, so the kingdom is not in a great rush to pump more. Its economy is doing well this year (Chart 5). Chart 4Drivers Of Saudi Anxiety​​​​​ Chart 5Saudis Won't Pump If Demand Is Weak​​​​​​ At the same time, if global demand rebounds, the Saudis will not want global supply constraints to generate punitive prices that cap the rebound or kill the business cycle. After all, a global recession would deplete Saudi coffers, set back the regime’s economic reforms, exacerbate social problems, and potentially stir up political dissent (Chart 6). Related Report  Geopolitical StrategyThird Quarter Geopolitical Outlook: Thunder And Lightning Hence the Saudis will not increase production substantially until they have assessed the global economy and discussed the outlook with the other members of the OPEC cartel in August and September, when the July 2021 agreement to increase production expires. We expect global demand to weaken as Europe and China continue to struggle. Our Commodity & Energy Strategist Bob Ryan argues that further escalation in the energy war between the EU and Russia could push prices above $220 per barrel by Q4 2023, whereas an economic collapse could push Brent down to $60 per barrel. His base case Brent price forecast remains $110 per barrel on average in 2022 and $117 per barrel in 2023 (Chart 7). Chart 6Saudis Will Pump To Prevent Recession​​​​​​ Chart 7BCA's July 2022 Oil Price Forecast​​​​​​ The geopolitical view suggests upside oil risks over the short-to-medium time frame but the macroeconomic view suggests that downside risks will be priced first. Bottom Line: Saudi Arabia may increase production but not at any US president’s beck and call. The Saudis are not focused on US elections, they benefit from the current level of prices, and they do not suffer if Republicans take Congress in November. The downside risk in oil prices stems from demand disappointments in global growth (especially China) rather than any immediate shifts in Saudi production discipline. Volatility will remain high. US-Iran Talks: Dying But Not Dead Yet In fact the Middle East underscores underlying and structural oil supply constraints despite falling global demand. While Iran is a perennial geopolitical risk, the world is reaching a critical juncture over the next couple of years. Investors should not assume that Iran can quietly achieve nuclear arms like North Korea. Since August 2021 we have argued that the US and Iran would fail to put back together the 2015 nuclear deal (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPA). This failure would in turn lead to renewed instability across the Middle East and sporadic supply disruptions as the different nations trade military threats and potentially engage in direct warfare. This forecast is on track after Biden’s and Putin’s trip – but we cannot yet say that it is fully confirmed. Biden’s joint declaration with Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid closed any daylight that existed between the US and Israel. Given that there was some doubt about the intentions of Biden and the Democrats, it is now crystal clear that the US is determined to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons even if it requires military action. The US specifically said that it will use “all instruments of national power” to prevent that outcome. Chart 8Iran Not Forced To Capitulate Judging by the tone of the statement, the Israelis wrote the document and Biden signed it.4 Biden’s foreign policy emphasizes shoring up US alliances and partnerships, which means letting allies and partners set the line. Israel’s Begin Doctrine – which says that Israel is willing to attack unilaterally and preemptively to prevent a hostile neighbor from obtaining nuclear weapons – has been reinforced. The US is making a final effort to intimidate Iran into rejoining the deal. By clearly and unequivocally reiterating its stance on nuclear weapons, and removing doubts about its stance on Israel, there is still a chance that the Iranian calculus could change. This is possible notwithstanding Ayatollah Khamenei’s friendliness with Putin and criticisms of western deception.5 After all, why would the Iranians want to be attacked by the US and Israeli militaries? Iran will need to think very carefully about what it does next. Khamenei just turned 83 years old and is trying to secure the Islamic Republic’s power transition and survival after his death. Here are the risks: Iran’s economy, buoyed by the commodity cycle, is not so weak as to force Khamenei to capitulate. Back in 2015 oil prices had collapsed and his country was diplomatically isolated. Today the economy has somewhat weathered the storm of the US’s maximum pressure sanctions (Chart 8). Iran is in bad shape but it has not been brought to its knees. Another risk is that Khamenei believes the American public lacks the appetite for war. Americans say they are weary of Middle Eastern wars and do not feel particularly threatened by Iran. However, this would be a miscalculation. US war-weariness is nearing the end of its course. The US engages in a major military expedition roughly every decade. Americans are restless and divided – and the political elite fear populism – so a new foreign distraction is not as unlikely as the consensus holds. Moreover a nuclear Iran is not an idle threat but would trigger a regional nuclear arms race and overturn the US grand strategy of maintaining a balance of power in the Middle East (as in other regions). In short, the US government can easily mobilize the people to accept air strikes to prevent Iran from going nuclear because there is latent animosity toward Iran in both political parties (Chart 9). Chart 9Risk: Iran Overrates US War-Weariness Another risk is that Iran forges ahead believing that the US and Israel are unwilling or unable to attack and destroy its nuclear program. The western powers might opt for containment like they did with North Korea or they might attack and fail to eliminate the program. This is hard to believe but Iran clearly cannot accept US security guarantees as an alternative to a nuclear deterrent when it seeks regime survival. At the same time Russia is courting Iran, encouraging it to join forces against the American empire. Iran is planning to sell drones to Russia for use in Ukraine, while Russia is maintaining nuclear and defense cooperation with Iran. Putin’s trip highlighted a growing strategic partnership despite a low base of economic ties  (Chart 10).6 Chart 10Russo-Iranian Ties​​​​​​ Chart 11West Vulnerable To Middle East War While Russia does not have an interest in a nuclear-armed Iran, it is not afraid of Iran alone, and it would benefit enormously if the US and Israel got bogged down in a new war that destabilized the Middle East. Oil prices would rise, the US would be distracted, and Europe would be even more vulnerable (Chart 11). Chart 12China's Slowdown And Dependency On Middle East China’s interest is different. It would prefer for Iran to undermine the West by means of a subtle and long-term game of economic engagement rather than a destabilizing war in the region that would upset China’s already weak economy. However, Beijing will not join with the US against Iran, especially if Iran and Russia are aligned. Ultimately China needs to access Iranian energy reserves via overland routes so that it gains greater supply security vis-à-vis the American navy (Chart 12). Since June 2019, we have maintained 40% odds of a military conflict with Iran. The logic is outlined in Diagram 1, which we have not changed. Conflict can take various forms since the western powers prefer sabotage or cyber-attacks to outright assault. But in the end preventing nuclear weapons may require air strikes – and victory is not at all guaranteed. We are very close to moving to the next branch in Diagram 1, which would imply odds of military conflict rise from 40% to 80%. We are not making that call yet but we are getting nervous. Diagram 1Iran Nuclear Crisis: Decision Tree Moreover it is the saber rattling around this process – including an extensive Iranian campaign to deter attack – that will disrupt oil distribution and transport sooner rather than later. Bottom Line: The US and Iran could still find diplomatic accommodation to avoid the next step in our decision tree. Therefore we are keeping the odds of war at a subjective 40%. But we have reached a critical juncture. The next step in the process entails a major increase in the odds of air strikes. Putin’s Supply Squeeze Will Continue As we go to press, financial markets are reacting to President Putin’s marginal easing of Russian political pressure on food and energy supplies. First, Putin took steps toward a deal, proposed by Turkish President Erdogan, to allow Ukrainian grain exports to resume from the Black Sea. Second, Putin allowed a partial restart of the Nord Stream 1 natural gas pipeline, after a total cutoff occurred during the regular, annual maintenance period. However, these moves should be kept into perspective. Nord Stream 1 is still operating at only 40% of capacity. Russia reduced the flow by 60% after the EU agreed to impose a near-total ban on Russian oil exports by the end of the year. Russia is imposing pain on the European economy in pursuit of its strategic objectives and will continue to throttle Europe’s natural gas supply. Russia’s aims are as follows: (1) break up European consensus on Russia and prevent a natural gas embargo from being implemented in future (2) pressure Europe into negotiating a ceasefire in Ukraine that legitimizes Russia’s conquests (3) underscore Russia’s new red line against NATO military deployments in Finland and Sweden. Europe, for its part, will continue to diversify its natural gas sources as rapidly as possible to reduce Russia’s leverage. The European Commission is asking countries to decrease their natural gas consumption by 15% from August to March. This will require rationing regardless of Russia’s supply squeeze. The collapse in trust incentivizes Russia to use its leverage while it still has it and Europe to try to take that leverage away. The economic costs are frontloaded, particularly this winter. The same goes for the Turkish proposal to resume grain exports. Russia will continue to blockade Ukraine until it achieves its military objectives. The blockade will be tightened or loosened as necessary to achieve diplomatic goals. Part of the reason Russia invaded in the first place was to seize control of Ukraine’s coast and hold the country’s ports, trade, and economy hostage. Bottom Line: Russia’s relaxation of food and energy flows is not reliable. Flows will wax and wane depending on the status of strategic negotiations with the West. Europe’s economy will continue to suffer from a Russia-induced supply squeeze until Russia achieves a ceasefire in Ukraine. So will emerging markets that depend on grain imports, such as Turkey, Egypt, and Pakistan. Investment Takeaways The critical juncture has arrived for our Iran view. If Iran does not start returning to nuclear compliance soon, then a fateful path of conflict will be embarked upon. The Saudis will not give Biden more oil barrels just yet. But they may end up doing that if global demand holds up and the US reassures them that their regional security needs will be met. First, the path for oil over the next year will depend on the path of global demand. Our view is negative, with Europe heading toward recession, China struggling to stimulate its economy effectively, and the Fed unlikely to achieve a soft landing. Second, the path of conflict with Iran will lead to a higher frequency of oil supply disruptions across the Middle East that will start happening very quickly after the US-Iran talks are pronounced dead. In other words, oil prices will be volatile in a stagflationary environment. In addition, while inflation might roll over for various reasons, it is not likely to occur because of any special large actions by Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are waiting on global cues. Of these, China is the most important. We are booking a 17% gain on our long gold trade as real rates rise and China’s economy deteriorates (Chart 13). This is in line with our Commodity & Energy Strategy, which is also stepping aside on gold for now. Longer term we remain constructive as we see a secular rise in geopolitical risk and persistent inflation problems. Chart 13Book Gains On Gold ... For Now We are booking an 18% gain on our long European defense / short European tech trade. Falling bond yields will benefit European tech (Chart 14). We remain bullish on European and global defense stocks. Chart 14Book Gains On EU Defense Vs Tech ... For Now​​​​​​ Chart 15Markets Underrate Middle East Geopolitical Risk ​​​​​ Stay long US equities relative to UAE equities. Middle Eastern geopolitical risk is underrated (Chart 15). Matt Gertken Chief Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      The White House, “The Jerusalem U.S.-Israel Strategic Partnership Joint Declaration,” July 14, 2022, whitehouse.gov. 2     Israel and the US will remove international peacekeepers from the formerly Egyptian Red Sea islands of Tiran and Sanafir, which clears the way for Saudi Arabia to turn them into tourist destinations. Saudi Arabia also removed its tight airspace restrictions on Israel, enabling civilian Israeli airlines to fly through Saudi airspace on normal basis. Of course, Saudi allowance for Israeli military flights to pass through Saudi airspace would be an important question in any future military operation against Iran. 3     The US has long wanted regional missile defense integration. The Biden administration is proposing “integrated air defense cooperation” that would include Israel as well as the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). A regional “air and missile defense architecture” would counter drones and missiles from rival states and non-state actors such as Iran and its militant proxies. Simultaneously the Israelis are putting forward the proposed Middle East Air Defense Alliance (MEAD) in meetings with the same GCC nations. Going forward, Iran’s nuclear ambitions will give more impetus to these attempts to cooperate on air defense. 4     This is apparent from the hard line on Iran and the relatively soft line on Russia in the document. Israel is wary of taking too hard of a line against Russia because of its security concerns in Syria where Russian forces are present. See footnote 1 above. 5     Khamenei called for long-term cooperation between Russia and Iran; he justified Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as a defense against NATO encroachment; he called for the removal of the US dollar as the global reserve currency. See “Khamenei: Tehran, Moscow must stay vigilant against Western deception,” Israel Hayom, July 20, 2022, israelhayom.com. 6     Russia’s natural gas champion Gazprom signed an ostensible $40 billion memorandum of understanding with Iran’s National Oil Company to develop gas fields and pipelines. See Nadeen Ebrahim, “Iran and Russia’s friendship is more complicated than it seems,” CNN, July 20, 2022, cnn.com. However, while there are longstanding obstacles to Russo-Iranian cooperation, the West’s tough new sanctions on Russia and EU diversification will make Moscow more willing to invest in Iran. Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Regional Geopolitical Risk Matrix

Executive Summary Upside Oil Price Risk Dominates Despite global recession fears and uncertainty over Russia’s retaliation for the EU embargo against its exports, oil markets will continue to tighten. After breaching $15/bbl in June, the Dec22 vs Dec23 Brent backwardation – our preferred seasonal indicator for inventory tightness – is back above $10/bbl and rising.  There is an increasing risk Russia will cut crude output, if G7 states impose a price cap on its oil sales.  Our modeling indicates the loss of an additional 2mm b/d of Russian output vs our base case beginning in 4Q22 would lift prices above $220/bbl by 4Q23. On the downside, our modeling indicates the loss of 2mm b/d of demand vs our base case – i.e., essentially wiping out this year’s expected growth – would push average Brent prices toward $60/bbl next year. Our base case forecast for Brent crude oil is unchanged.  We expect 2022 Brent to average $110/bbl, and for 2023 prices to average $117/bbl.  WTI will trade $3-$4/bbl below Brent. Bottom Line: We expect markets to continue to tighten as the EU embargo of Russia oil progresses.  A price cap on Russian oil sales could lead to a production cut that takes prices above $220/bbl by 4Q23.  An economic collapse could push Brent toward $60/bbl.  Risks remain skewed to the upside.  Our base case Brent price forecast remains unchanged: $110/bbl on average this year and $117/bbl in 2023. Feature The global oil market is tightening even with China demand restrained by its zero-Covid-19 tolerance policy, and parts of Europe almost surely facing recession if Russian pipeline gas supplies are cut off or tighten significantly between now and the approach of winter. Upside price risk dominates, in our view. Our Brent price forecast remains unchanged, averaging $110/bbl this year and $117/bbl in 2023. Markets remain tight: Oil supply will remain below demand, which will force inventories to draw (Chart 1). Related Report  Commodity & Energy StrategyRecession Unlikely To Batter Oil Prices This will push Brent into a steeper backwardation going into year-end, forcing the Dec22 v Dec23 Brent spread higher (Chart 2). High levels of backwardation – i.e., prompt-delivery futures trading above deferred-delivery futures – is how inventory tightness manifests itself: Refiners are willing to pay more for prompt delivery than deferred delivery, because they need oil now to meet demand. This is occurring despite weaker demand coming out of China and EU states, as the latter begins to ration energy supplies ahead of the coming winter. Chart 1Inventories Will Tighten Chart 2Markets Will Backwardate Further Russia Risk Is Increasing The supply-side risks that we outlined in last week's report — chiefly the risk Russia will unilaterally cut oil supply if a price cap is imposed by G7 states led by the US – remain in place. We expect the EU to follow through on its commitment to phase out all Russian oil and refined product imports in 2H22 and 1Q23. The EU formally agreed to cut 90% of its Russian oil imports by the end of this year. The EU’s goal is to be completely out of ~ 2.3mm b/d of seaborne crude oil imports and 800k b/d of pipeline imports this year. In 1Q23, the EU will be reducing its refined product imports (e.g., diesel fuel) from Russia as well. Russia will lose more than 4mm b/d of crude and product exports to the EU as a result of these embargoes. We continue to expect the cutoffs in EU exports will result in Russia being forced to shut in 1.6mm b/d of production this year and another 500k b/d next year. In our base case, we expect this to take Russian crude production down from more than 10.5mm b/d prior to its invasion of Ukraine to something close to 8.0mm b/d by the end of next year. Spare capacity remains tight. Almost all of OPEC 2.0’s spare capacity is in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). These are the only two OPEC 2.0 states that are able to increase production and maintain it at higher levels for an indefinite period of time. Despite repeated pleas from the US, these states continue to indicate they do not see the need to sharply increase oil production, even after US President Joe Biden made a trip to the region last week to ask them in person to do so. With ~ 2-3mm b/d of spare capacity available – the exact level is not public knowledge – digging into spare capacity now would leave nothing in the tank, so to speak, to meet another supply shock (e.g., a unilateral cut-off of Russian supplies in response to a G7 price cap on oil sales). KSA, as a matter of policy, maintains a minimal level of spare capacity (1.0 – 1.5mm b/d) to handle unforeseen supply shocks. In addition, the OPEC 2.0 agreement to return production removed from the market during the COVID-19 pandemic agreed last July, and the US release of 1mm b/d of inventories out of its Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) both expire in September.1 The US SPR has not indicated it will extend its release of inventory beyond September. Markets will tighten. The return of barrels from OPEC 2.0 is largely moot, since only KSA and the UAE – which we dub Core OPEC 2.0 – have been able to consistently raise output since the July 2021 agreement to return barrels to the market. The other OPEC 2.0 member states – the “Other Guys” – have consistently missed their production quotas this past year (Chart 3). Lastly, the odds of the US and Iran reaching a rapprochement continue to fade, almost to the point of vanishing. Iran reportedly will supply Russia with drones for its war in Ukraine. This indicates the Iranian government has all but capitulated on reviving its nuclear deal with the US, which would have brought an additional 1mm b/d back on the market.2 Outside of OPEC 2.0, we expect US production in the Lower 48 states ex-US Gulf will increase 0.8mm b/d this year, and 0.75mm b/d next year, given price levels and the shape of the WTI forward curve (Chart 4). This is mostly unchanged from previous production expectations. Chart 3Lower OPEC 2.0 Production ex-KSA, UAE Chart 4Capital Discipline Drives US Shale Production Growth We continue to expect US shale-oil producers will maintain capital discipline, and will continue to prioritize shareholder interests by returning capital to investors via share buybacks and strong dividend distributions. Besides, boosting output over the balance of this year is becoming increasingly difficult, given oil-services equipment shortages and lack of capital.3 In our base case, we continue to anticipate demand will rise by 2.0mm b/d this year and 1.8mm b/d next year. This is lower than our estimates at the start of the year by close to 3mm b/d. This is all down to the sharp GDP growth slowdown forecast by the World Bank last month, which pushed our oil-demand estimates lower.4 Oil demand continues to grow, albeit it slowly, which, against a backdrop of tightening supplies, means the risk to prices remains to the upside. In our base case, the supply-demand fundamentals are largely balanced (Chart 5). These fundamentals (Table 1) are driving our forecast for $110/bbl Brent this year and $117/bbl next year (Chart 6). Chart 5Markets Remain Finely Balanced Chart 6Brent Backwardation Will Steepen Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) To Dec23 Uncertain Evolutions: Between $60 And $220/bbl We have noted the heightened uncertainty surrounding our oil-price expectations, which makes forecasting more tentative than usual.5 This week, we consider larger supply and demand shocks via econometric simulations to at least define possible price paths consistent with our assumptions and modeling. To the upside, we estimate a 2mm b/d loss of output resulting from a cutoff of Russian crude oil production. Relative to the status quo ante – i.e., prior to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February – this would remove a total of ~ 4mm b/d of Russian production from the market (2mm in our base case plus an additional 2mm b/d). Our modeling indicates this could push prices above $220/bbl by 4Q23, depending on how the additional 2mm b/d production cut is implemented – i.e., suddenly or staged pro-rata (Chart 7).6 This high-price scenario would be difficult for markets to adjust to, given the short-term inelasticity of global oil demand. In its wake, we would expect demand destruction on a large scale. Chart 7Upside Oil Price Risk Dominates On the downside, we simulate a sharp contraction in oil consumption that removes an additional 2mm b/d of demand vs our base case – i.e., essentially wiping out this year’s expected growth. This would push average 2023 prices toward $60/bbl in our modeling. Losing this much demand would amount to a global economic collapse. A deep global recession cannot be ruled out, as markets have been reminding us over the past couple of weeks. However, the downside risks are not as pronounced as the upside risks in our estimation. There has not been an excessive accumulation of inventory in the OECD, as Chart 1 indicates. In the non-OECD economies, inventory accumulation in China appears to be intentional and policy driven. In addition, the supply response to sharply lower prices would be met by sharply lower production by KSA and the UAE, along with the US shale-oil producers over the course of a couple of months. This would arrest the down leg a demand shock produced in previous oil-price collapses when production was not as flexible, and inventories adjusted with longer lags. Economic growth in the EU could slow in some but not all of the member states, according to recent IMF estimates.7 The US may slow, and is at risk to a hard landing due to poorly calibrated Fed tightening. This could usher in a deep recession. However, the US also might even benefit from the EU going into recession, since it is not as resource constrained as the EU. Lastly, the EU’s been getting ready for this Russian energy cut-off and has lined up alternative energy sources (LNG and coal mostly). In addition, states already have begun asking their citizens to conserve energy, particularly natural gas. This forced conservation can achieve significant energy savings and is not new to the world: It was demonstrated by Japan after the Fukushima disaster in 2011 and the US in the late 1970s. Investment Implications Our base case oil-price forecast remains $110/bbl and $117/bbl on average for this year and next. Simulations of uncertain prices evolutions – i.e., evolutions we cannot attach a probability to at present – indicate upside price risk is dominant. This inclines us to remain long oil equities via the XOP ETF. We were tactically long 4Q22 and 1Q23 TTF futures until stop losses on both trades were elected on July 15th, generating returns of 89.6% and 83.1% respectively.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com Paula Struk Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy paula.struk@bcaresearch.com     Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish Markets will await the conclusion of maintenance on the Nord Stream 1 (NS1) pipeline scheduled for this week. We continue to expect a cut-off of Russian natgas shipments to Europe, in addition to the 60% of volumes that already have been cut. In its latest GDP forecasts, the IMF expects EU GDP growth of 2.9% and 2.5% in 2022 and 2023, respectively. In and of itself, this would support our expectation for oil prices averaging $110/bbl and $117/bbl this year and next, as it is in line with the GDP forecast expected by the World Bank, which drives our forecasts. However, EU GDP still could contract in response to a complete shut-off of Russian gas imports in 2H22, particularly if it is sudden and prompts the EU to go to Phase 3 of its energy emergency plan and invoke gas rationing. EU gas inventories continue to build going into winter (Chart 8). Markets are critically dialed in to how the inventory builds ahead of winter proceed following NS1 maintenance: If it is delayed for technical reasons the storage fill rate will slow. Base Metals: Bullish China formally created a state-backed company to oversee all of its iron ore imports and overseas ore assets on Tuesday. The purpose of this company is to wrest pricing power away from iron ore suppliers – most of which are based in Australia – and reduce its reliance on Australian iron ore imports. A single buying entity will effectively create a monopsony, since China imports ~70% of global iron ore to supply its steel making industry, the largest in the world. Precious Metals: Bullish We have tactically downgraded our gold view on the back of continued USD strength. Reports of civil unrest in China – which was forecast by BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy - arising from the unfolding mortgage crisis likely will boost demand for gold, but it will boost demand for USD even more, in our view (Chart 9). We are closely monitoring this situation, along with possible increases in systemic financial risk in Chinese banks, which also would support USD demand. We remain strategically bullish gold. Chart 8 Chart 9       Footnotes 1     Please see OPEC+ agrees oil supply boost after UAE, Saudi reach compromise and U.S. to sell up to 45 mln bbls oil from reserve as part of historic release published by reuters.com on July 19, 2021 and June 14, 2022, respectively. OPEC 2.0 is our moniker for the producer coalition led by KSA and Russia; it also is referred to as OPEC+ in the media. 2     This could presage an unravelling of the status quo in the Middle East, as our colleagues at BCA Research’s Geopolitical Strategy highlight in their most recent report Questions From The Road published on July 15, 2022. 3    Please see Fracking Growth ‘Almost Impossible’ This Year, Halliburton Says, published by bloomberg.com on July 19, 2022. 4    Please see Recession Unlikely To Batter Oil Prices, which we published on June 16, 2022. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 5    Running simulations is a good way to identify risks and at least have an intuition for where prices might go given difference evolutions of fundamentals. Please see Russia Pulls Oil, Gas Supply Strings for discussions and simulations of prices in response to different supply and shocks we ran last week. 6    The timing and depth of the shocks we simulate here are not assigned a probability to express our view of their likelihood. This reflects our belief that these are highly uncertain outcomes. That said, having an intuition for what to expect should the markets evolve in such a way as to create a probability one of these outcomes has become likely is useful. 7     The smaller EU economies are most at risk to sharp economic downturns from a cutoff in Russian gas exports, according to the IMF. The Fund estimates that in “Hungary, the Slovak Republic and the Czech Republic—there is a risk of shortages of as much as 40 percent of gas consumption and of gross domestic product shrinking by up to 6 percent.” Please see How a Russian Natural Gas Cutoff Could Weigh on Europe’s Economies published by the IMF on July 19, 2022. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations We were stopped out of our Long 4Q22 TTF Futures trade on July 15, with a return of 89.6%. We were stopped out of our Long 1Q23 TTF Futures trade on July 15, with a  return of 83.1%.  Strategic Recommendations Trades Closed in 2022