天然ガス

特別レポート

Executive Summary The Good: There are compelling reasons to believe the Ukraine war will not break out into a broader NATO-Russia war, i.e. World War III. The Bad: The 1945 peace settlement is breaking down and the world is fundamentally less stable. Even if the Ukraine war is contained, other wars are likely in the coming decade. The Ugly: Russia is not a rising power but a falling power and its attempt to latch onto China will jeopardize global stability for the foreseeable future. Secular Rise In Geopolitical Risk Is Empirical Trade Recommendation Inception Date Return LONG GOLD (STRATEGIC) 2019-12-06 32.3% Bottom Line: Within international equities, favor bourses that are least exposed to secular US geopolitical conflict with Russia and China, particularly in the Americas, Western Europe, and Oceania. Feature Two weeks ago our Global Investment Strategy service wrote a report called “The Economic And Financial Consequences Of The War In Ukraine,” arguing that while the war’s impact on commodity markets and financial conditions would be significant, the global economy would continue to grow and equity prices would rise over the coming 12 months. Related Report  Geopolitical Strategy2022 Key Views: The Gathering Storm This companion special report will consider the geopolitical consequences of the Ukraine war. The primary consequence is that “Great Power Struggle” will intensify, as the return of war to Europe will force even the most pacific countries like Germany and Japan to pursue their national security with fewer illusions about the capacity for global cooperation. Globalization will continue to decay into “Hypo-Globalization” or regionalism, as the US severs ties with Russia and China and encourages its allies to do the same. Specifically, Germany will ultimately cleave to the West, China will ultimately cleave to Russia, a new shatter-belt will emerge from East Europe to the Middle East to East Asia, and US domestic politics will fall short of civil war. Given that US financial assets are already richly priced, global investors should seek to diversify into cheaper international equities that are nevertheless geopolitically secure, especially those in the Americas, western Europe, and Oceania. Global Versus Regional Wars Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is a continuation of a regional war that started in 2014. The war has been contained within Ukraine since 2014 and the latest expansion of the war is also contained so far. The war broke out because Russia views a western-allied Ukraine as an intolerable threat to its national security. Its historic grand strategy calls for buffer space against western military forces. Moscow feared that time would only deepen Ukraine’s bonds with the West, making military intervention difficult now but impossible in the future. As long as Russia fails to neutralize Ukraine in a military-strategic sense, the war will continue. President Putin cannot accept defeat or the current stalemate and will likely intensify the war until he can declare victory, at least on the goal of “de-militarization” of Ukraine. So far Ukraine’s battlefield successes and military support from NATO make a Russian victory unlikely, portending further war. If Ukraine and Russia provide each other with acceptable security guarantees, an early ceasefire is possible. But up to now  Ukraine is unwilling to accept de-militarization and the loss of Crimea and the Donbass, which are core Russian demands (Map 1). Map 1Russian Invasion Of Ukraine, 2022 Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has caused a spike in the global geopolitical risk index, which is driven by international media discourse (Chart 1). The spike confirms that geopolitical risk is on a secular upward trend. The trough occurred after the fall of the Soviet Union when the world enjoyed relative peace and prosperity. The new trend began with the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and the US’s preemptive invasion of Iraq. This war initiated a fateful sequence in which the US became divided and distracted, Russia and China seized the opportunity to rebuild their spheres of influence, and international stability began to decline. Chart 1Secular Rise In Geopolitical Risk Is Empirical Now Russia’s invasion of Ukraine presents an opportunity for the US and its allies to rediscover their core national interests and the importance of collective security. This implies increasing strategic pressure not only on Russia but also on China and their ragtag group of allies, including Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea. The world will become even less stable in this context. Chart 2Russian War Aims Limited Still, Russia will not expand the Ukraine war to other states unless it faces regime collapse and grows desperate. The war is manifestly a stretch for Russia’s military capabilities and a larger war would weaken rather than strengthen Russia’s national security. NATO utterly overwhelms Russia’s military capacity, even if we are exceedingly generous and assume that China offers full military support along with the rest of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (Chart 2). As things stand Russia still has the hope of reducing Ukraine without destroying its economic foundation, i.e. commodity exports. But an expansion of the war would destroy the regime – and possibly large swathes of the world given the risk of nuclear weapons in such a scenario. If Russia’s strategic aim were to rebuild the Soviet Union, then it would know that it would eventually need to fight a war with NATO and would have attacked critical NATO military bases first. At very least it would have cut off Europe’s energy supplies to induce a recession and hinder the Europeans from mounting a rapid military defense. It would have made deeper arrangements for China to buy its energy prior to any of these actions. At present, about three-fifths of Russian oil is seaborne and can be easily repurposed, but its natural gas exports are fixed by pipelines and the pipeline infrastructure to the Far East is woefully lacking (Chart 3). The evidence does not suggest that Russia aims for world war. Rather, it is planning on a war limited to eastern and southern Ukraine. Chart 3Russia Gas Cutoff Would Mean Desperation, Disaster None of the great powers are willing or forced to wage war with Russia directly. The US and UK are the most removed and hence most aggressive in arming Ukraine but they are still avoiding direct involvement: they have repeatedly renounced any intention of committing troops or imposing a no-fly zone over Ukraine and they are still limiting the quality of their defense aid for fear of Russian reprisals. The EU is even more keen to avoid a larger war. Germany and France are still attempting to maintain basic level of economic integration with Russia. China is not likely to enter the war on Russia’s behalf – it will assist Russia as far as it can without breaking economic relations with Europe. The war’s limitations are positive for global investors but only marginally. The law that governs the history of war is the law of unintended consequences. Investors should absolutely worry about unintended consequences, even as they strive to be clear-headed about Russia’s limited means and ends. If Russia fails or grows desperate, if it makes mistakes or miscalculates, if the US is unresponsive and aggressive, or if lesser powers attempt to provoke greater American or European security guarantees, then the war could spiral out of control. This risk should keep every investor alive to the need to maintain a reasonable allocation to safe-haven assets.  If not, the end-game is likely a deliberate or de facto partition of Ukraine, with Russia succeeding in stripping Crimea and the Donbass from Ukraine, destroying most of its formal military capacity, and possibly installing a pro-Russian government in Kyiv. Western Ukraine will become the seat of a government in exile as well as the source of arms and materiel for the militant insurgency that will burn in eastern Ukraine. Over the course of this year Russia is likely to redouble its efforts to achieve its aims – a summer or fall campaign is likely to try to break Ukraine’s resistance. But if and when commodity revenues dry up or Russia’s economic burden becomes unbearable, then it will most likely opt for ceasefire and use Ukrainian military losses as proof of its success in de-militarizing the country. Why Germany Will Play Both Sides But Ultimately Cleave To The West A critical factor in limiting the war to Ukraine is Europe’s continued energy trade with Russia. If either Russia or Europe cuts off energy flows then it will cause an economic crash that will destabilize the societies and increase the risk of military miscalculation. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz once again rejected a European boycott of Russian energy on March 23, while US President Joe Biden visited and urged Europe to intensify sanctions. Scholz argued that no sanctions can be adopted that would hurt European consumers more than the Kremlin. Scholz’s comments related to oil as well as natural gas, although Europe has greater ability to boycott oil, implying that further oil supply tightening should be expected. Germany is not the only European power that will refuse an outright boycott of Russian energy. Russia’s closest neighbors are highly reliant on Russian oil and gas (Chart 4). It only takes a single member to veto EU sanctions. While several western private companies are eschewing business with Russia, other companies will pick up the slack and charge a premium to trade in Russian goods. Chart 4Germany Will Diversify Energy But Not Boycott Russia Chart 5Economically, Germany Will Cleave To The West Germany’s insistence on maintaining a basic level of economic integration with Russia stems from its national interest. During the last Cold War, Germany got dismembered. Germany’s whole history consists of a quest for unification and continental European empire. Modern Germany is as close to that goal as possible. What could shatter this achievement would be a severe recession that would divide the European Union, or a war in Europe that would put Germans on the front lines. An expansion of the US sanction regime to cover all of Russia and China would initiate a new cold war and Germany’s economic model would collapse due to restrictions on both the import and export side. Germany’s strategy has been to maintain security through its alliance with America while retaining independence and prosperity through economic engagement with Russia and China. The Russia side of that equation has been curtailed since 2014 and will now be sharply curtailed. Germany has also been increasing military spending, in a historic shift that echoes Japan’s strategic reawakening over the past decade in face of Chinese security competition. Chart 6Strategically, Germany Will Cleave To The West But Germany will be extremely wary of doing anything to accelerate the process of economic disengagement with China. China does not pose a clear and present military threat to Germany, though its attempt to move up the manufacturing value chain poses an economic threat over time. As long as China does not provide outright military support for Russia’s efforts in Ukraine, and does not adopt Russia’s belligerence against neighboring democracies like Taiwan, Germany will avoid imposing sanctions. This stance will not be a major problem with the US under the Biden administration, which is prioritizing solidarity with the allies, but it could become a major problem in a future Republican administration, which will seek to ramp up the strategic pressure on China. Ultimately, however, Germany will cleave to the West. Germany is undertaking a revolution in fiscal policy to increase domestic demand and reduce export dependency. Meanwhile its export-driven economy is primarily geared toward other developed markets, which rake up 70% of German exports (78% of which go to other EU members). China and the former Soviet Union pale in comparison, at 8% and 3% respectively (Chart 5). From a national security perspective Germany will also be forced to cleave to the United States. NATO vastly outweighs Russia in the military balance. But Russia vastly outweighs Germany (Chart 6). The poor performance of Russia’s military in Ukraine will not console the Germans given Russian instability, belligerence, and nuclear status. Germany has no choice but to rely on the US and NATO for national security. If the US conflict with China escalates to the point that the US demands Germany carry a greater economic cost, then Germany will eventually be forced to yield. But this shift will not occur if driven by American whim – it will only occur if driven by Chinese aggression and alliance with Russia. Which brings us to our next point: China will also strive to retain its economic relationship with Germany and Europe. Why China Will Play Both Sides But Ultimately Cleave To Russia Chart 7China Will Delay Any Break With Europe The US cannot defeat China in a war, so it will continue to penalize China’s economy. Washington aims to erode the foundations of China’s military and technological might so that it cannot create a regional empire and someday challenge the US globally. Chinese cooperation with other US rivals will provide more occasions for the US to punish China. For example, Presidents Biden and Xi Jinping talked on March 18 and Biden formally threatened China with punitive measures if Beijing provides Russia with military aid or helps Russia bypass US sanctions. Since China will help Russia bypass sanctions, US sanctions on China are likely this year, sooner or later. Europe thus becomes all the more important to China as a strategic partner, an export market, and a source of high-quality imports and technology. China needs to retain close relations as long as possible to avoid a catastrophic economic adjustment. Europe is three times larger of an export market for China than Russia and the former Soviet Union (Chart 7). Chart 8China Cannot Reject Russia When push comes to shove, however, China cannot afford to reject Russia. Russia’s decision to break ties with Europe reflects the Putin regime’s assessment that the country cannot preserve its national security against the West without allying with China. Ultimately Russia offers many of the strategic benefits that China needs. Most obviously, if China is ever forced into a military confrontation with the West, say over the status of Taiwan, it will need Russian assistance, just as Russia needs its assistance today. China’s single greatest vulnerability is its reliance on oil imported from the Persian Gulf, which is susceptible to American naval interdiction in the event of conflict. Russia and Central Asia form the second largest source of food, energy, and metals for China (Chart 8). Russia provides an overland route to the supply security that China craves. Chart 9Russia Offers Key To China's Eurasian Strategy Russia also wields immense influence in Central Asia and significant influence in the Middle East. These are the critical regions for China’s Eurasian strategy, symbolized in the Belt and Road Initiative. Chinese investment in the former Soviet Union has lagged its investment in the Middle East and the rest of Asia but the Ukraine war will change that. China will have an historic opportunity to invest in the former Soviet Union, on favorable terms, to secure strategic access all the way to the Middle East (Chart 9). China will always prioritize its East Asian neighbors as investment destinations but it will also need alternatives as the US will inevitably seek to upgrade relations with Southeast Asia. Another reason China must accept Russia’s overtures is that China is aware that it would be strategically isolated if the West pulled off a “Reverse Kissinger” maneuver and allied with Russia. This option seems far-fetched today but when President Putin dies or is overthrown it will become a fear for the Chinese. There has never been deep trust between the Chinese and Russians and the future Russian elite may reject the idea of vassalage to China. Therefore just as Russia needs China today, China will need Russia in the future. Why The Middle East Will Rumble Again The Middle East is destabilizing once again and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine will reinforce this trajectory. Most directly, the reduction in grain exports from Russia and Ukraine will have a disproportionate impact on food supplies and prices in countries like Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, Libya, and Lebanon (Chart 10).   A new shatter-belt will take shape not only in Russia’s and China’s neighborhood, as they seek to establish spheres of influence, but also in the Middle East, which becomes more important to Europe as Europe diversifies away from Russia. Part of the strategic purpose of Russia’s invasion is to gain greater naval access to the Black Sea and Mediterranean, and hence to expand its ability to project power across the Middle East and North Africa. This is both for general strategic purposes and to gain greater leverage over Europe via its non-Russian energy and supply sources. Chart 10A New Shatter-Belt Emerging The critical strategic factor in the Middle East is the US-Iran relationship. If the two sides arrange a strategic détente, then Iranian oil reserves will be developed, the risk of Iraqi civil war will decline, and the risk of general war in the Middle East will decline. This would be an important reduction of oil supply risk in the short and medium term (Chart 11). But our base case is the opposite: we expect either no deal, or a flimsy deal that does not truly reduce regional tensions. Chart 11Middle East Still Unstable, Still Essential A US-Iran nuclear deal might come together soon – we cannot rule it out. The Biden administration is willing to lift sanctions if Iran freezes its nuclear program and pledges to reduce its militant activities in the region. Biden has reportedly even provided Russia with guarantees that it can continue trading with Iran. Theoretically the US and Russia can cooperate to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. Russia’s pound of flesh is that Ukraine be neutralized as a national security threat. However, any US-Iran deal will be a short-term, stop-gap measure that will fall short of a strategic détente. Iran is an impregnable mountain fortress and has a distinct national interest in obtaining deliverable nuclear weapons. Iran will not give up the pursuit of nuclear weapons because it cannot rely on other powers for its security. Iran obviously cannot rely on the United States, as any security guarantees could be overturned with the next party change in the White House. Tehran cannot rely on the US to prevent Israel from attacking it. Therefore Iran must pursue its own national survival and security through the same means as the North Koreans. It must avoid the predicaments of Ukraine, Libya, and Iraq, which never obtained nuclear weaponization and were ultimately invaded. Insofar as Iran wants to avoid isolation, it needs to ally with Russia and China, it cannot embark on a foreign policy revolution of engagement with the West. The Russians and Chinese are unreliable but at least they have an interest in undermining the United States. The more the US is undermined, the more of a chance Iran has to make progress toward nuclear weapons without being subject to a future US attack. Chart 12Iran’s Other Nuclear Option Of course, the US and Israel have declared that nuclear weaponization is a red line. Israel is willing to attack Iran whereas Japan was not willing to attack North Korea – and where there is a will there is a way. But Iran may also believe that Israel would be unsuccessful. It would be an extremely difficult operation. The US has not shown willingness to attack states to prevent them from going nuclear. A split between the US and Israel would be an excellent foreign policy achievement for Tehran. The US may desire to pivot away from the Middle East to focus on containing Russia and China. But the Middle East is critical territory for that same containment policy. If the US abandons the region, it will become less stable until a new security order emerges. If the US stays involved in the region, it will be to contain Iran aggressively or prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons by force. Whatever happens, the region faces instability in the coming decade and the world faces oil supply disruptions as a result. Iran has significant leverage due to its ability to shutter the Strait of Hormuz, the world’s premier oil chokepoint (Chart 12). Why A Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis Looms Chart 13US Cannot Deter China Without Triggering Crisis There is a valid analogy between Ukraine and Taiwan: both receive western military support, hence both pose a fundamental threat to the national security of Russia and China. Yet both lack a mutual defense treaty that obligates the US alliance to come to their defense. This predicament led to war in Ukraine and the odds of an eventual war in Taiwan will go up for the same reason. In the past, China could not prevent the US from arming Taiwan. But it is increasingly gaining the ability to take Taiwan by force and deter the US from military intervention. The US is slated to deliver at least $8.6 billion worth of arms by 2026, a substantial increase in arms sales reminiscent of the 1990s, when the Third Taiwan Strait Crisis occurred (Chart 13). The US will learn from Russian aggression that it needs to improve its vigilance and deterrence against China over Taiwan. China will view this American response as disproportionate and unfair given that China did nothing to Ukraine. Chart 14Taiwanese Opinion Hard To Reconcile With Mainland Rule China is probably just capable of defeating Taiwan in a war but Beijing has powerful economic and political incentives not to take such an enormous risk today, on Russia’s time frame. However, if the 2022-24 election cycle in Taiwan returns the nominally pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party to power, then China may begin to conclude that peaceful reunification will be politically unachievable. Already it is clear from the steady course of Taiwanese opinion since the Great Recession that China is failing to absorb Taiwan through economic attraction (Chart 14). As China’s trend economic growth falters, it will face greater sociopolitical instability at home and an even less compelling case for Taiwan to accept absorption. This will be a very dangerous strategic environment. Taiwan is the epicenter of the US-China strategic competition, which is the primary geopolitical competition of the century because China has stronger economic foundations than Russia. China will become even more of a threat to the US if fortified by Russian alliance – and China’s fears over US support for Taiwan necessitate that alliance. Why The US Will Avoid Civil War None of the headline geopolitical risks outlined above – NATO-Russia war, Israeli-Iranian war, or Sino-Taiwanese war – would be as great of risks if the United States could be relied on to play a stable and predictable role as the world’s leading power. The problem is that the US is divided internally, which has led to erratic and at times belligerent foreign policy, thus feeding the paranoia of US rivals and encouraging self-interested and hawkish foreign policies, and hence global instability. Chart 15True, A Second US Civil War Is Conceivable It seems likely that US political polarization will remain at historic peaks over the 2022-24 election cycle. The Ukraine war will probably feed polarization by adding to the Democratic Party’s woes. Inflation and energy prices have already generated high odds that Republicans will retake control of Congress. But midterm churn is standard political clockwork in the US. The bigger risk is stagflation or even recession, which could produce another diametric reversal of White House policy over a mere four-year period. Former President Donald Trump is favored to be the Republican presidential nominee in 2024 – he is anathema to the left wing and unorthodox and aggressive in his foreign and trade policies. If he is reelected, it will be destabilizing both at home and abroad. But even if Trump is not the candidate, the US is flirting with disaster due to polarization and uncertainties regarding the constitution and electoral system. Chart 16Yet US Polarization Is Peaking... Aided By Foreign Threats US polarization is rooted in ethnic, ideological, regional, and economic disparities that have congealed into pseudo-tribalism. The potential for domestic terrorism of whatever stripe is high. These divisions cannot said to be incapable of leading to widespread political violence, since Americans possess far more firearms per capita than other nations (Chart 15). In the event of a series of negative economic shocks and/or constitutional breakdown, US political instability could get much worse than what was witnessed in 2020-21, when the country saw large-scale social unrest, a contested election, and a rebellion at the Capitol. Yet we would take the other side of the bet. US polarization will likely peak in the coming decade, if it has not peaked already. The US has been extremely polarized since the election of 1800, but polarization collapsed during World War I, the Great Depression, and World War II. True, it rose during the Cold War, but it only really ignited during the Reagan revolution and economic boom of the 1980s, when wealth inequality soared and the Soviet Union collapsed (Chart 16). The return of proactive fiscal policy and serious national security threats will likely drive polarization down going forward. Investment Takeaways The good news is that the war in Ukraine is unlikely to spread to the rest of Europe and engender World War III. The bad news is that the risk of such a war has not been higher for decades. Investors should hedge against the tail risk by maintaining significant safe-haven assets such as gold, cash, Treasuries, and farmland. Chart 17Investment Takeaways Europe and China will strive to maintain their economic relationship, which will delay a total breakdown in East-West relations. However, Germany and Europe will ultimately cleave to the US, while China will ultimately cleave to Russia, and the pace of transition into a new bifurcated world will accelerate depending on events. If the energy shock escalates to the point of triggering a European or global economic crash, the pace of strategic confrontation will accelerate. The global peace that emerged in 1945 is encountering very significant strains comparable to the most precarious moments of the Cold War. The Cold War period was not peaceful everywhere but the US and USSR avoided World War III. They did so on the basis of the peace settlement of 1945. The reason the 1945 peace regime is decaying is because the US, the preponderant power, is capable of achieving global hegemony, which is threatening to other great powers. The US combines the greatest share of wealth and military power and no single power can resist it. Yet a number of powers are capable of challenging and undermining it, namely China, but also Russia in a military sense, as well as lesser powers. The US is internally divided and struggling to maintain its power and prestige. The result is a return to the normal, anarchic structure of international relations throughout history. Several powerful states are competing for national security in a world that lacks overarching law. Great Power struggle is here to stay. Investors must adjust their portfolios to keep them in tune with foreign policies – in addition to monetary and fiscal policies. Given that US and Indian equities are already richly valued, in great part reflecting this geopolitical dynamic, investors should look for opportunities in international markets that are relatively secure from geopolitical risk, such as in the Americas, Western Europe, and Oceania (Chart 17).   Matt Gertken Chief Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months)

特別レポート

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

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

Executive Summary Nuclear Worries Take Center Stage Vladimir Putin has now committed himself to orchestrating a regime change in Kyiv. Anything less would be seen as a defeat for him. Assuming he succeeds, and it is far from obvious that he will, the resulting insurgency will drain Russian resources. Along with continued sanctions, this will lead to a further deterioration in Russian living standards and growing domestic discontent. If Putin concludes that he has no future, the risk is that he will decide that no one else should have a future either. Although there is a huge margin of error around any estimate, subjectively, we would assign an uncomfortably high 10% chance of a civilization-ending global nuclear war over the next 12 months. These odds place some credence on Brandon Carter’s highly controversial Doomsday Argument. Even if World War III is ultimately averted, markets could experience a freak-out moment over the next few weeks, similar to what happened at the outset of the pandemic. Google searches for nuclear war are already spiking. Despite the risk of nuclear war, it makes sense to stay constructive on stocks over the next 12 months. If an ICBM is heading your way, the size and composition of your portfolio becomes irrelevant. Thus, from a purely financial perspective, you should largely ignore existential risk, even if you do care about it greatly from a personal perspective. Bottom Line: The risk of Armageddon has risen dramatically. Stay bullish on stocks over a 12-month horizon. All In on Sanctions In the criminal justice system, there is a reason why the punishment for armed robbery is lower than for murder. If the punishment were the same, an armed robber would have a perverse incentive to kill his victim in order to better conceal his crime. The same logic applies, or at least used to apply, to geopolitics: You do not impose maximum sanctions from the get-go because that removes your ability to influence your enemy with the threat of further sanctions. Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the West chose to go all in on sanctions, levying every type imaginable with the exception of those entailing a big cost to the West (such as cutting off Russian energy exports). Most notably, many Russian banks have been blocked from the SWIFT messaging system while the Russian central bank’s foreign exchange reserves have been frozen. Even FIFA has barred Russia from international competition, just weeks before it was set to participate in the qualifying rounds of the 2022 World Cup. At this point, there is not much more that can be done on the sanctions front. This leaves military intervention as the only avenue available to further pressure Russia. A growing chorus of Western pundits, some of whom could not have picked out Ukraine on a map two weeks ago, have begun clamoring for regime change… this time, in Moscow. As one might imagine, this is not something that sits well with Putin. Last week, he declared that “No matter who tries to stand in our way or … create threats for our country and our people, they must know that Russia will respond immediately, and the consequences will be such as you have never seen in your entire history.” To ensure there was no uncertainty about what he was talking about, he proceeded to place Russia’s nuclear forces on “special regime of combat duty.” Yes, It’s Possible The Putin regime has used nuclear weapons of a sort in the past. The FSB likely orchestrated the poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko with polonium-210 in 2006, leaving traces of the radioactive substance scattered in dozens of places across London. As former US presidential advisor and Putin biographer Fiona Hill said in a recent interview with Politico, “Every time you think, “No, he wouldn’t, would he?” Well, yes, he would.” Admittedly, there is a big difference between dropping polonium into a cup of tea at the Millennium hotel in Mayfair and dropping a 10-megaton nuclear bomb on London or any other major Western city. Still, if Putin feels that he has no future, he may try to take everyone down with him. The collapse in the ruble, and what is sure to be a major plunge of living standards across Russia, could foment internal opposition to Putin. A quiet retirement is not an option for him. Based on the latest exchange rates, Russia’s GDP is smaller than Mexico’s and barely higher than that of Illinois (Chart 1). While denying gas to Europe is a very real threat, it has a limited shelf life. Europe will aggressively build out infrastructure to process LNG imports. Chart 1Russia's Economic Power Has Faded In a few years, the one viable weapon that Russia will have at its disposal is its nuclear arsenal. As Dutch historian Jolle Demmers has said, “It is precisely the decline and contraction of Russian power, coupled with the possession of nuclear weapons and a tormented repressive president, that poses great risks.” Some of the world’s most prominent strategic thinkers flagged these risks before the invasion, but with little effect. The Mother of All Risks In simulated war games, it is generally difficult to get participants to cross the nuclear threshold, but once they do, a full-blown nuclear exchange usually ensues.1 The idea of “limited” nuclear war is a mirage.  How high are the odds of such a full-blown war? I must confess that my own feelings on the matter are heavily colored by my writings on existential risk. As I argued in Section XII of my special report, “Life, Death, and Finance in the Cosmic Multiverse,” we are probably greatly understating existential risk, especially when we look prospectively into the future. Although there is a huge margin of error around any estimate, subjectively, we would assign an uncomfortably high 10% chance of a civilization-ending global nuclear war over the next 12 months. These odds place some credence on Brandon Carter’s highly controversial Doomsday argument (See Box 1). A Paradox for Investors For investors, existential risk represents a paradoxical concept. If an ICBM is heading your way, the question of whether you are overweight or underweight stocks would be pretty far down on your list of priorities. And even if you were inclined to think about your portfolio, how would you alter it? In a full-blown global nuclear war, most stocks would go to zero while governments would probably be forced to default or inflate away their debt. Gold might retain some value – provided that you kept it in your physical possession – but even then, you would still have trouble exchanging it for anything of value if nothing of value were available to purchase. This means that from a purely financial perspective, you should largely ignore existential risk, even if you do care greatly about it from a personal perspective. What, then, can we say about the current market environment? I touched on many of the key issues in Monday’s Special Alert, in which we tactically downgraded global equities from overweight to neutral. I encourage readers to consult that report for our latest market views. In the remainder of today’s report, allow me to elaborate on a couple of key themes. A Freak-Out Moment Is Coming Chart 2Nuclear Worries Take Center Stage The market today reminds me of early 2020. We wrote a report on February 21 of that year entitled “Markets Too Complacent About The Coronavirus,” in which we noted that a full-blown pandemic “could lead to 20 million deaths worldwide,” and that “This would likely trigger a global downturn as deep as the Great Recession of 2008/09, with the only consolation being that the recovery would be much more rapid than the one following the financial crisis.” Many saw that report as alarmist, just as they saw our subsequent decision to upgrade stocks in March as cavalier.  Even if you knew in February 2020 that the S&P 500 would reach an all-time high later that year, you should have still shorted equities aggressively on a tactical basis. I feel the same way about the present. Google searches for nuclear war are spiking (Chart 2). A freak-out moment is coming, which will present a good buying opportunity for investors. Just to be on the safe side, I picked up a couple of bottles of Potassium Iodide earlier this week. When I checked the pharmacy again yesterday, all the bottles were sold out. They are now being hawked on Amazon for ten times the regular price. From Cold War to Hot Economy? The spike in commodity prices – especially energy prices – will have a negative near-term impact on global growth, while also limiting the ability of central banks to slow the pace of planned rate hikes (Chart 3). In general, inflation expectations and oil prices move together (Chart 4).   Chart 3Central Banks: Caught Between A Rock And A Hard Place   Chart 4Inflation Expectations And Oil Prices Go Hand-In-Hand Assuming the geopolitical situation stabilizes in a few months, oil prices should come down. The forward curve for oil is heavily backwardated now: The spot price for Brent is $111/bbl while the December 2022 price is $93/bbl (Chart 5). BCA’s commodity strategists expect the price of Brent oil to fall to $88/bbl by year-end. The decline in energy prices should provide some relief to global growth and risk assets in the back half of the year, which is one reason we are more constructive on equities over a 12-month horizon than a 3-month horizon. Looking out beyond the next year or two, the new cold war will lead to higher, not lower, interest rates. Increased spending on defense and alternative energy sources will prop up aggregate demand, especially in Europe where the need to diversify away from Russian gas is greatest. As Chart 6 shows, capex in the euro area cratered following the euro debt crisis. Capital spending via the Recovery Fund and other sources will rise significantly over the next few years. Chart 5The Brent Curve Is Heavily Backwardated Chart 6European Capex Is Poised To Increase In addition, the shift to a multipolar world will expedite the retreat from globalization. Rising globalization was an important force restraining inflation – and interest rates – over the past few decades. Lastly, the ever-present danger of war could prompt households to reduce savings. It does not make sense to save for a rainy day if that day never arrives. Lower savings implies a higher equilibrium rate of interest. As we discussed in our recent report entitled “A Two-Stage Fed Tightening Cycle,” after raising rates modesty this year, the Fed will resume hiking rates towards the end of 2023 or in 2024, as it becomes clear that the neutral rate in nominal terms is closer to 3%-to-4% rather than the 2% that the market assumes. The secular bull market in equities will likely end at that point. In summary, equity investors should be somewhat cautious over the next three months, more optimistic over a 12-month horizon, but more cautious again over a longer-term horizon of 2-to-5 years. Box 1The Doomsday Argument In A Nutshell Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1     For example, an article from the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation discusses a Reagan administration war game called “Proud Prophet,” an exercise the Americans hatched to test the theory of limited nuclear strikes. The result of this exercise was that the “Soviet Union perceived even a low-yield nuclear strike as an attack, and responded with a massive missile salvo.” Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores

Executive Summary Hopes of an imminent peace deal between Russia and Ukraine will be dashed. The conflict will worsen over the coming days. As was the case during the original Cold War, both sides will eventually forge an understanding that allows the pursuit of mutually beneficial arrangements. A stabilization in geopolitical relations, coupled with fading pandemic headwinds, should keep global growth above trend this year, helping to support corporate earnings. The era of hyperglobalization is over. While central banks will temper their plans to raise rates in the near term, increased spending on defense and energy independence will lead to higher interest rates down the road. How Stocks Fared During The Cuban Missile Crisis Bottom Line: The near-term outlook for risk assets has deteriorated. We are downgrading global equities from overweight to neutral on a tactical 3-month horizon. We continue to expect stocks to outperform bonds on a 12-month horizon as the global economic recovery gains momentum. On an even longer 2-to-5-year horizon, equities are likely to struggle as interest rates rise more than expected.   Dear Client, Given the rapidly evolving situation in Ukraine, we are sending you our thoughts earlier than normal this week. We will continue to update you as events warrant it. Best regards, Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist   False Dawn In the lead-up to the invasion, Vladimir Putin assumed that Ukrainian forces would fold just as quickly as US-backed Afghan forces did last summer. He also presumed that the rest of the world would reluctantly accept Russia’s takeover of Ukraine. Both assumptions appear to have been proven wrong. Even if Putin succeeds in installing a puppet government in Kyiv, a protracted insurgency is sure to follow. In the initial days of the invasion, Russian troops generally tried to avoid harming civilians, partly in the hope that Ukrainians would see the Russian military as liberators. Now that this hope has been dashed, a more brutal offensive could unfold. This would trigger even more sanctions, leading to a wider gulf between Russia and the West. It is highly doubtful that sanctions will dissuade Putin from trying to subdue Ukraine. Putin made a name for himself by staging a successful invasion of Chechnya in 1999, just three years after the Yeltsin government had suffered a major defeat there. To withdraw from Ukraine now, without having fomented a regime change in Kyiv, would be a humiliating outcome for him. In this light, BCA’s geopolitical team, led by Matt Gertken, has argued that ongoing peace talks taking place on the border of Ukraine and Belarus are unlikely to amount to much. The situation will get worse before it gets better. Market Implications It always feels a bit crass writing about finance during times like this, but as investment strategists, it is our job to do so. With that in mind, we would make the following observations: Global equities are likely to suffer another leg down in the near term as hopes of an imminent peace deal fizzle. Consequently, we are downgrading our view on global stocks from overweight to neutral on a 3-month horizon. Nimble investors with a low risk tolerance should consider going underweight equities. We are shifting our stance on US stocks from underweight to neutral on a 3-month horizon. Europe could face significant pressures from near-term disruptions to Russian gas supplies. It does not make much sense for Russia to export gas if it is effectively barred from accessing the proceeds of its sales. Central and Eastern Europe will be particularly hard hit (Chart 1). Chart 1Central and Eastern Europe Would Suffer The Most From A Russian Energy Blockade For now, we are maintaining an overweight to stocks on a 12-month horizon. While it will take a month or two, both sides will ultimately forge an understanding whereby Russia and the West continue to publicly bad-mouth each other while still pursuing mutually beneficial arrangements. Remember that during the Cold War, the Soviet Union continued to sell oil to the West. Even the Cuban Missile Crisis had only a fleeting impact on equities (Chart 2). Chart 2How Stocks Fared During The Cuban Missile Crisis Chart 3European Fiscal Policy Will Remain Structurally Looser Over The Coming Years Assuming that any reduction in Russian energy exports is temporary, oil prices will eventually recede. BCA’s commodities team, led by Bob Ryan, expects Brent to settle to $88/bbl by the end of 2022 (down from the current spot price of $101/bbl and close to the forward price of $87/bbl). Like oil, gold prices have upside in the near term but should edge lower once the dust settles.    Global growth should remain solidly above trend in 2022 as pandemic-related headwinds fade and fiscal policy turns more expansionary. Even before the Ukraine invasion, the structural primary budget deficit in Europe was set to swing from a small surplus to a deficit (Chart 3). The emerging new world order will lead to sizable additional military spending, as well as increased outlays towards achieving energy independence (new LNG terminals, more investment in renewables, and perhaps even some steps towards restarting nuclear power programs). China will also step up credit easing and fiscal stimulus. This will not only benefit the Chinese economy, but it will also provide some much-needed support to European exporters (Chart 4). While credit spreads are apt to widen further in the near term, corporate bonds should benefit from stronger growth later this year. US high-yield bonds are pricing in a jump in the default rate from 1.3% over the past 12 months to 4.2% over the coming year, which seems somewhat excessive (Chart 5).  Chart 4Chinese Policy Will Be A Tailwind For Growth Chart 5Credit Markets Are Pricing In An Excessive Default Rate Central banks will temper their plans to raise rates in the near term. Investors and speculators are net short duration at the moment, which could amplify any downward move in bond yields (Chart 6). However, over a multi-year horizon, recent events will lead to both higher inflation and interest rates. Larger budget deficits will sap global savings. The retreat from globalization will also put upward pressure on wages and prices. As defensive currencies, the US dollar and the Japanese yen will strengthen in the near term as the conflict in Ukraine escalates. Looking beyond the next few months, the dollar will weaken. On a purchasing power parity basis, the dollar is amongst the most expensive currencies (Chart 7). For example, relative to the euro, the dollar is 22% overvalued (Chart 8). The US trade deficit has doubled since the start of the pandemic, even as equity inflows have dipped (Chart 9). Speculators are long the greenback, which raises the risk of an eventual reversal in dollar sentiment. Chart 6Short Duration Is A Crowded Trade Chart 7The US Dollar Is Overvalued…   Chart 8...Especially Against The Euro The freezing of Russia’s foreign exchange reserves will encourage China to diversify away from US dollars towards hard assets such as land and infrastructure in economies where they are less likely to be seized. It will also encourage the Chinese authorities to bolster domestic demand and permit a further modest appreciation of the RMB since these two steps will reduce the current account surpluses that make foreign exchange accumulation necessary. EM currencies will benefit from this trend. Chart 9The Trade Deficit Is A Headwind For The Dollar In summary, the near-term outlook for risk assets has deteriorated. We are downgrading global equities from overweight to neutral on a tactical 3-month horizon. We continue to expect stocks to outperform bonds on a 12-month horizon as the global economic recovery gains momentum. On an even longer 2-to-5-year horizon, equities are likely to struggle as interest rates rise more than expected. Trade Update: We closed our long Brent oil trade for a gain of 24% last week. Earlier today, we were stopped out of the trade we initiated on September 16, 2021 going long the Russian ruble and the Brazilian real. The BRL leg was up 6.2% at the time of termination while the RUB leg was down 23.1% (based on the Bloomberg RUB/USD Carry Return Index as of 4pm EST today). Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores

Executive Summary Risk Premium Abates, But Does Not Disappear The risk premium in crude oil and natural gas prices is abating, and we expect that to continue. In the immediate aftermath of Russia's invasion, Brent crude oil traded close to $105/bbl on Thursday. At the urging of China's Xi Jinping, Russian President Vladimir Putin suggested he is prepared to enter negotiations with Ukraine in Minsk to discuss the latter's neutrality. Whether Ukraine is amenable to negotiations framed in this manner remains to be seen. Nothing has changed in supply-demand balances for oil or natgas. Markets are tight, and more supply is needed. In this highly fluid situation, we project Brent crude oil will average $100.00/bbl in 1Q22; $90.30/bbl in 2Q22; $85.00/bbl in 3Q22; and $85.00/bbl in 4Q22 (see Chart). Our estimate for 2023 Brent averages $85.00/bbl. Upside risk dominates in the near term. We expect the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Kuwait, the only members of OPEC 2.0 with the capacity to increase and sustain higher production, to lift output by 1.75mm b/d. The Iran nuclear deal likely gets a boost from the Russian invasion, which will hasten the return of ~ 1.0mm b/d of production in 2H22, perhaps sooner. We also expect the US, and possibly the OECD, to release strategic petroleum reserves, but, as typically is the case, this will have a fleeting impact on markets and pricing. These supply increases will return prices closer to our base case forecast, which we raise slightly to $85/bbl from 2H22 to end-2023. If we fail to see an increase in core-OPEC production, or the US shales, or if Iranian barrels are not returned to export markets, oil prices have a good chance of moving to $140/bbl, as can be seen in the accompanying Chart. Bottom Line: We remain long commodity-index exposure (S&P GSCI and the COMT ETF), along with equity exposure to oil and gas producers via the XOP ETF.  

特別レポート

Executive Summary From Nixon-Mao To Putin-Xi The geopolitical “big picture” of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is the deepening of the Russo-Chinese strategic partnership. While Russia’s economic and military constraints did not prohibit military action in Ukraine, they are still relevant. Most likely they will prevent a broader war with NATO or a total energy embargo of Europe. Still, volatility will persist in the near term as saber-rattling, aftershocks, and spillover incidents will occur this year.  Russo-Chinese relations are well grounded. Russia needs investment capital and resource sales, while China needs overland supply routes and supply security. Both seek to undermine the US in a new game of Great Power competition that will prevent global politics and globalization from normalizing. Tactically we remain defensive but buying opportunities are emerging. We maintain a cyclically constructive view. Favor equity markets of US allies and partners that are geopolitically secure. Trade Recommendation Inception Date Return Long Gold (Strategic) 2019-12-06 32.7% Bottom Line: Tactically investors should remain defensive but cyclically they should look favorably on cheap, geopolitically secure equity markets like those of Australia, Canada, and Mexico. Feature To understand the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the likely consequences, investors need to consider three factors: 1.  Why Russia’s constraints did not prohibit war and how constraints must always be measured against political will. 2.  Why Russia’s constraints will grow more relevant going forward, as the costs of occupation and sanctions take hold, the economy weakens, and sociopolitical pressures build. 3.  Why the struggle of the Great Powers will drive a Russo-Chinese alliance, whose competition with the US-led alliance will further destabilize global trade and investment. Russia’s Geopolitical Will Perhaps the gravest national security threat that Russia can face, according to Russian history, is a western military power based in the Ukraine. Time and again Russia has staged dramatic national efforts at great cost of blood and treasure to defeat western forces that try to encroach on this broad, flat road to Moscow. Putin has been in power for 22 years and his national strategy is well-defined: he aims to resurrect Russian primacy within the former Soviet Union, carve out a regional sphere of influence, and reduce American military threats in Russia’s periphery. He has long aimed to prevent Ukraine from becoming a western defense partner. Chart 1Russia Structured For Conflict While Moscow faced material limitations to military action in Ukraine, these were not prohibitive, as we have argued. Consider the following constraints and their mitigating factors: Costs of war: The first mistake lay in assuming that Russia was not willing to engage in war. Russia had already invaded Ukraine in 2014 and before that Georgia in 2008. The modern Russian economy is structured for conflict: it is heavily militarized (Chart 1). Military spending accounts for 4.3% of GDP, comparable to the United States, also known for waging gratuitous wars and preemptive invasions. Financial burdens: The second mistake was to think that Moscow would avoid conflict for fear of the collapse of the ruble or financial markets. Since Putin rose to power in 2000, the ruble has depreciated by 48% against the dollar and the benchmark stock index has fallen by 57% against EMs. Each new crackdown on domestic or foreign enemies has led to a new round of depreciation and yet Putin remains undeterred from his long-term strategy (Chart 2). Chart 2Putin Doesn't Eschew Conflict For Sake Of Ruble Or Stocks Economic health: Putin’s foreign policy is not constrained by the desire to make the Russian economy more open, complex, advanced, or productive. While China long practiced a foreign policy of lying low, so as to focus on generating wealth that could later be converted into strategic power (which it is doing now), Russia pursued a hawkish foreign policy for the past twenty years despite the blowback on the economy. Russia is still an undiversified petro-state and total factor productivity is approaching zero (Chart 3). Chart 3Putin Doesn't Eschew Conflict For Sake Of Productivity​​​​​​ Chart 4Putin Doesn’t Eschew Conflict For Fear Of Sanctions​​​​​​ Western sanctions: Western sanctions never provided a powerful argument against Russian intervention into Ukraine. Russia knew all along that if it invaded Ukraine, the West would impose a new round of sanctions, as it has done periodically since 2014. The 2014 oil crash had a much greater impact on Russia than the sanctions. Of course, Russia’s overall economic competitiveness is suffering, although it is capable of gaining market share in exporting raw materials, especially as it depreciates its currency (Chart 4). Chart 5Putin Doesn't Eschew Conflict For Sake Of Popular Opinion Public opinion: Surely the average Russian is not interested in Ukraine and hence Putin lacks popular support for a new war? True. But Putin has a strong record of using foreign military adventures as a means of propping up domestic support. Of course, opinion polls, which confirm this pattern, are manipulated and massaged (Chart 5). Nevertheless Russians like all people are highly likely to side with their own country in a military confrontation with foreign countries, at least in the short run. Over the long haul, the public will come to rue the war. Moscow believes that it can manage the domestic fallout when that time comes because it has done so since 2014. We doubt it but that is a question for a later time. Investors also need to consider Putin’s position if he did not stage ever-escalating confrontations with the West. Russia is an autocracy with a weak economy – it cannot win over the hearts and minds of its neighboring nations in a fair, voluntary competition with the West, the EU, and NATO. Russia’s neighbors are made up of formerly repressed Soviet ethnic minorities who now have a chance at national self-determination. But to secure their nationhood, they need economic and military support, and if they receive that support, then they inherently threaten Russia and help the US keep Russia strategically contained. Russia traditionally fights against this risk. Bottom Line: Investors and the media focused on the obstacles to Russian military intervention without analyzing whether there was sufficient political will to surmount the hurdles. Constraints Eroded None of the above suggests that Putin can do whatever he wants. Economic and military constraints are significant. However, constraints erode over time – and they may not be effective when needed. Europe did not promise to cancel all energy trade if Russia invaded: Exports make up 27% of Russian GDP, and 51% of exports go to advanced economies, especially European. Russia is less exposed to trade than the EU but more exposed than the US or even China (Chart 6). However, Russia trades in essential goods, natural resources, and the Europeans cannot afford to cut off their own energy supply. When Russia first invaded Ukraine in 2014, the Germans responded by building the Nord Stream pipeline, basically increasing energy cooperation. Russia concluded that Europeans, not bound to defend Ukraine by any treaty, would continue to import energy in the event of a conflict limited to Ukraine. Chart 6Putin Limits Conflict For Sake Of EU Energy Trade​​​​​​ Chart 7Putin Limits Conflict For Sake Of Chinese Trade​​​​​​ Russia substitutes China for Europe: As trade with the West declines, Russia is shifting toward the Far East, especially China (Chart 7). China is unlikely to reduce any trade and investment for the sake of Ukraine – it desperately needs the resources and the import-security that strong relations with Russia can provide. It cannot replace Europe – but Russia does not expect to lose the European energy trade entirely. (Over time, of course, the EU/China shift to renewables will undermine Russia’s economy and capabilities.) Ukraine is right next door: Aside from active military personnel, the US advantage over Iraq in 2002-03 was greater than the Russian advantage over Ukraine in 2022 (Chart 8). And yet the US got sucked into a quagmire and ultimately suffered political unrest at home. However, Ukraine is not Afghanistan or Iraq. Russia wagers that it can seize strategic territory, including Kiev, without paying the full price that the Soviets paid in Afghanistan and the US paid in Afghanistan and Iraq. This is a very risky gamble. But the point is that the bar to invading Ukraine was lower than that of other recent invasions – it is not on the opposite side of the world. ​​​​​​​Chart 8Putin Limits Conflict For Fear Of Military Overreach Chart 9Putin Limits Conflict For Fear Of Military Weakness NATO faces mutually assured destruction: NATO’s conventional military weight far surpasses Russia’s. For example, Russia, with its Eurasian Union, does not have enough air superiority to engage in offensive initiatives against Europe, even assuming that the United States is not involved. Even if we assume that China joins Russia in a full-fledged military alliance under the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), NATO’s military budget is more than twice as large (Chart 9). However, this military constraint is not operable in the case of Ukraine, which is not a NATO member. Indeed, Russia’s aggression toward Ukraine stems from its fear that Ukraine will become a real or de facto member of NATO. It is the fear of NATO that prompted Russia to attack rather than deterring it, precisely because Ukraine was not a member but wanted to join. Bottom Line: Russia’s constraints did not prohibit military action because several of them had eroded over time. NATO was so threatening as to provoke rather than deter military action. Going forward, Russia’s economic and military constraints will prevent it from expanding the war beyond Ukraine.  Isn’t Russia Overreaching? Yes, Russia is overreaching – the military balances highlighted in Charts 8 and 9 above should make that plain. The Ukrainian insurgency will be fierce and Russia will pay steep costs in occupation and economic sanctions. These will vitiate the economy and popular support for Putin’s regime over the long run. Chart 10The West Is Politically Divided And Vulnerable The West is also vulnerable, however, which has given rise to a fiscal and commodity cycle that helps to explain why Putin staged his risky invasion at this juncture in time: The US and West are politically divided. Western elites see themselves as surrounded by radical parties that threaten to throw them out and overturn the entire political establishment. Their tenuous grip on power is clear from the thin majorities they hold in their legislatures (Chart 10). Nowhere is this clearer than in the United States, where Democrats cannot spare a single seat in the Senate, five in the House of Representatives, in this fall’s midterm elections, yet are facing much bigger losses. Russia believes that its hawkish foreign policy can keep the democracies divided.​​​​​​​ Elites are turning to populist spending: Governments have adopted liberal fiscal policies in the wake of the global financial crisis and the pandemic. They are trying to grow their way out of populist unrest, debt, and various strategic challenges, from supply chains to cyber security to research and development (Chart 11). China is also part of this process, despite its mixed economic policies. The result is greater demand for commodities, which benefits Russia.    Elites are turning to climate change to justify public spending: Governments, particularly in Europe and China, are using fears of climate change to increase their political legitimacy and launch a new government “moonshot” that justifies more robust public investment and pump-priming. The long-term trend toward renewable energy is fundamentally threatening to Russia, although in the short term it makes Russian natural gas and metals all the more necessary. Germany especially envisions natural gas as the fossil-fuel bridge to a green future as it has turned against both nuclear power and coal (Chart 12). Russian aggression will provoke a rethink in some countries but Germany, as a manufacturing economy, is unlikely to abandon its goals for green industrial innovation. Chart 11Politically Vulnerable States Need Fiscal Stimulus​​​​​​ Chart 12The West Reluctant To Abandon Climate Goals​​​​​​ Proactive fiscal and climate policy motivate new capex and commodity cycle: The West’s attempt to revive big government and strategic spending will require vast resource inputs – resources that Russia can sell at higher prices. The new commodity cycle gives Russia maximum leverage over Europe, especially Germany, at this point in time (Chart 13). Later, as inflation and fiscal fatigue halt this cycle, Russia will lose leverage. Chart 13Commodity Cycle Gives Russia Advantage (For Now) Meanwhile Russia’s economic and hence strategic power will subside over time. Russia’s potential GDP growth has fallen since the Great Recession as productivity growth slows and the labor force shrinks (Chart 14). Chart 14Future Will Not Yield Strategic Opportunities For Russia​​​​​​ Chart 15Younger Russians Not Calling The Shots (But Will Someday) In short, the Kremlin has chosen the path of economic austerity and military aggression as a means of maintaining political legitimacy and achieving national security objectives. Western divisions, de-carbonization, the commodity cycle, and Russia’s bleak economic outlook indicated that 2022 was the opportunity to achieve a pressing national security objective, rather than some future date when Russia will be less capable relative to its opponents. In the worst-case scenario – not our base case – the invasion of Ukraine will trigger an escalation of European sanctions that will lead to Russia cutting off Europe’s energy and producing a global energy price shock. And yet that outcome would upset US and European politics in Russia’s favor, while Putin would maintain absolute control at home in a society that is already used to economic austerity and that benefits from high commodity prices. Note that Putin’s strategy will not last forever. Ukraine will mark another case of Russian strategic overreach that will generate a social and political backlash in coming years. While Putin has sufficient support among older, more Soviet-minded Russians for his Ukraine adventure, he lacks support among the younger and middle-aged cohorts who will have to live with the negative economic consequences (Chart 15). The entire former Soviet Union is vulnerable to social unrest and revolution in the coming decade and Russia is no exception. The Russo-Chinese Geopolitical Realignment Chart 16From Nixon-Mao To Putin-Xi From a broader, geopolitical point of view, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine drives another nail into the coffin of the post-Cold War system and hyper-globalization. Russia is further divorcing itself from the western economy, with even the linchpin European energy trade falling victim to renewables and diversification. The US and its allies are imposing export controls on critical technologies such as semiconductors against Russia to cripple any attempts at modernization. The US is already restricting China’s access to semiconductors and from now on is locked into a campaign to try to enforce these export controls via secondary sanctions, giving rise to proxy battles in countries that Russia and China use to circumvent the sanctions. Russia will be forced to link its austere, militarized, resource-driven economy to the Chinese economy. Hence a major new geopolitical realignment is taking place between the US, Russia, and China, on the order of previous realignments since World War II. When the Sino-Soviet communist bloc first arose it threatened to overwhelm the US in economic heft and dominate Eurasia. This communist threat drove the US to undertake vast expeditionary wars, such as in South Korea and Vietnam. These were too costly, so the US sought economic engagement with China in 1972, which isolated the Soviet Union and ultimately helped bring about its demise. Yet China’s economic boom predictably translated into a strategic rise that began to threaten US preeminence, especially since the Great Recession. Today Russia and China have no option other than to cooperate in the face of the US’s increasingly frantic attempts to preserve its global status – and China’s economic growth and technological potential makes this alliance formidable (Chart 16). In short, the last vestiges of the “Nixon-Mao” moment are fading and the “Putin-Xi” alignment is already well-established. Russia cannot accept vassalage to China but it can make many compromises for the sake of strategic security. Their economies are much more complimentary today than they were at the time of the Sino-Soviet split. And Russia’s austere economy will not collapse as long as it retains some energy trade with Europe throughout the pivot to China. In turn the US will attempt to exploit Russian and Chinese regional aggression as a basis for a revitalization of its alliances. But Europe will dampen US enthusiasm by preserving economic engagement with Russia and China. The EU is increasingly an independent geopolitical actor and a neutral one at that. This environment of multipolarity – or Great Power Struggle – will define the coming decades. It will ensure not only periodic shocks, like the Ukraine war, but also a steady undercurrent of growing government involvement in the global economy in pursuit of supply security, energy security, and national security. Competition for security is not stabilizing but destabilizing. Hyper-globalization has given way to hypo-globalization, as regional geopolitical blocs take the place of what once promised to be a highly efficient and thoroughly interconnected global economy. Investment Takeaways Tactically, Geopolitical Strategy believes it is too soon to go long emerging markets. Russia is at war, China is reverting to autocracy, and Brazil is still on the path to debt crisis. Multiples have compressed sharply but the bad news is not fully priced (Chart 17). The dollar is likely to be resilient as the Fed hikes rates and a major European war rages. Europe’s geopolitical and energy insecurity will weigh on investment appetite and corporate earnings. American equities are likely to outperform in the short run. Chart 17Investors Should Not Bet On Russian And European Equities In This Context​​​​​ Chart 18Investors Find Value, Minimize Risk In Geopolitically Secure Equity Markets​​​​​​ Cyclically, global equities outside the US, and pro-cyclical assets offer better value, as long as the war in Ukraine remains contained, a Europe-wide energy shock is averted, and China’s policy easing secures its economic recovery. While European equities will snap back, Europe still faces structural challenges and eastern European emerging markets face a permanent increase in geopolitical risk due to Russian geopolitical decline and aggression. Investors should seek markets that are both cheap and geopolitically secure – namely Australia, Canada, and Mexico (Chart 18). We are also bullish on India over the long run.    Matt Gertken Chief Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months)

特別レポート

Executive Summary EU-Russia Energy Trade To Persist Russia invaded Ukraine to prevent it from becoming a defense partner of the US and its allies. It is not likely to attack NATO members, which share a mutual defense treaty, so the war is limited in scope. Spillovers can occur but the US and Russia have 73 years of experience avoiding direct war. The US and EU will levy sweeping sanctions but they will not halt Russian energy exports, as that would cause a recession in Europe. European political leaders would likely fall from power in the coming years if there were a full-scale energy crisis. European nations will leverage Russian aggression to strengthen their popular support at home, while diversifying away from Russian energy over the long run. Europe will impose tough sanctions on Russia’s non-energy sectors, including finance and technology, to hobble the regime. China will consolidate power at home and strengthen ties with Russia but a war over Taiwan is a medium-to-long term risk.   Bottom Line: Investors should be cautious over the very near term but should prepare to buy the dip of a geopolitical incident that is generally limited to Ukraine and the Black Sea area. Supply responses from oil producers will remove the risk premium from oil prices and send the price of Brent crude to $85 per barrel by the end of the year. EU-Russia energy flows are the key risk to monitor. Feature Russia launched an invasion of Ukraine on February 24. The invasion was not limited to the far eastern corner of the country but involved attacks in the capital Kiev and in the far west and the coastline. Hence investors should proceed on the assumption that Russia will invade all of Ukraine even if it ends up limiting its invasion, as we expect (Map 1). Map 1Russian Invasion Of Ukraine 2022 It is critical for investors to understand the cause of the war in order to gauge its scope and adjust their risk appetite accordingly. Consider: Ukraine does not have mutual defense treaties that automatically trigger a broader war. Russia is attacking Ukraine to prevent it from becoming a defense partner of the US and its allies. Russia does not have the military capacity to attack the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) members, which have a mutual defense pact. Russia is attacking Ukraine because it does not have a mutual defense pact but was seeking one. Russia aims to neutralize Ukraine. If Moscow sacks Kiev and sets up a puppet state, then Ukraine will not seek western defense cooperation for the foreseeable future. If Russia conquers key territories to strengthen its control over Ukraine, then future Ukrainian governments will limit relations with the West for fear of Russian absorption. Russia is likely to seize coastal territory to ensure the long-term ability to blockade Ukraine. Russia will not withdraw troops until it has changed the government and seized key territories. Russia and NATO have no interest in war with each other. In the immediate fog of war, global financial markets will experience uncertainty about whether fighting will expand into a broader war between Russia and NATO. Such an expansion is unlikely because of mutually assured destruction (MAD) due to nuclear weapons. The US and Europe have already pledged that they will not send troops to fight in Ukraine. They will send troops and arms to support neighboring NATO states in central Europe, such as the Baltic states, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, and others. This will serve as a deterrent to Russia to keep its operations limited. Spillover incidents can and will occur, such as with Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 in 2014, but the US and Russia have 73 years of experience avoiding direct war, including when Russia invaded Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968, and Afghanistan in 1979. The US and EU will levy sweeping sanctions but the EU will not halt Russian energy exports. When Russia first invaded Ukraine and seized territory in 2014, Germany responded by working with Russia to build the Nord Stream II pipeline so as to import energy directly from Russia and circumvent Ukraine. This historical fact over the past eight years reveals Germany’s true interests. Thus energy cooperation increased as a result of Russian aggression. Of course, Germany has suspended the certification of that pipeline in light of today’s invasion, but it was not yet operating, so energy flows are not impeded, and it still physically exists for future operation when Germany finds it politically expedient. Hungary, Italy, Finland, the Czech Republic and others will also need to keep up Russian energy flows. Chart 1EU-Russia Energy Trade To Persist Nevertheless, a cessation of energy flows is still the most important risk for investors to monitor, whether triggered by European boycott or Russian embargo. That would cause a recession in Europe. Recession would cause European political leaders to fall from power in the coming years, which explains why they will not pursue that objective in face of Russian aggression. Even the US is vulnerable to a global price shock (during a midterm election year) and hence will allow the EU to keep importing Russian energy, whatever its sanctions package may contain. True, Russia may cut off natural gas flows via Ukraine, which account for nearly 20% of Europe’s imports (Chart 1). Moreover, Europe may threaten or claim that they will sanction the energy sector. But most flows will likely continue. Europe will diversify away from Russian energy over the long run. Instead of cutting off their own vital energy supplies, European nations will leverage Russian aggression to strengthen their popular support at home, while initiating emergency state-led efforts to diversify away from Russian energy over the long run through renewables and imports from the US and its allies. This will be advantageous to European democracies that were already struggling to increase political legitimacy amid nascent populism – they will now have a crusade with which to rally their people and maintain fiscal support for their economy: energy security. Europe will sanction Russia’s non-energy sector. Europe will impose tough sanctions on Russia’s non-energy sectors, including finance and technology, to hobble the regime. Russia will eventually be cut off from the SWIFT banking communications network, since it already has a rudimentary alternative that it developed in recent years, but Germany will not agree to cut it off until the payment alternate to continue energy flows can be arranged, which is ultimately possible. China will take advantage of the moment but is probably not ready to invade Taiwan. China could seize the opportunity to consolidate power at home and it may increase pressure on Taiwan through rhetoric, sanctions, or cyber-attacks, but it is not likely to invade Taiwan. An amphibious invasion of the globally critical territory of Taiwan is far riskier for China than a land invasion of the non-critical territory of Ukraine is for Russia. Russia’s strategic calculations and timing are separate from China’s, despite their growing de facto alliance. But a war in the Taiwan Strait is at risk over the long run, as the situation is geopolitically unsustainable, for reasons similar to that of Ukraine. The situation in Ukraine is likely to get worse before it gets better, implying that investors should expect further volatility in risk assets in the near term. Structurally, the shift to a less geopolitically stable multipolar world will favor defense and cybersecurity stocks. “Great Power Struggle” is our top geopolitical investment theme over the long run and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine highlights its continuing relevance. Bottom Line: A buying opportunity for heavily discounted, pro-cyclical or high-beta assets is emerging rapidly, given our assessment, and we will monitor events over the coming weeks to identify when such a shift is prudent. A wholesale energy cutoff to Europe is the chief risk, as it would justify downgrading global equities relative to long-maturity bonds on a six-to-12 month horizon. Investment Takeaways Global Investment Strategy: With real rates coming down, owning gold remains an attractive hedge. As a fairly cheap and defensive currency, a long yen position is advisable. Assuming the conflict remains contained to Ukraine, equities and other risk assets should recover over the remainder of the year. The geopolitical premium in oil prices should also come down. Consistent with our Commodity & Energy Strategy views, our Global Investment Strategy service is closing its long Brent trade recommendation today for a gain of 24.0%. Commodities & Energy Strategy: While oil exports from Russia are not expected to diminish as a result of the invasion, it will prompt increased production from core OPEC producers – Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Kuwait – to take the elevated risk premium out of Brent crude oil prices and allow refiners to rebuild inventories. The US and Iran may rejoin the 2015 nuclear deal, which would add about 1.0mm b/d of production to the market – Russia’s 2014 invasion of Crimea did not prevent the original nuclear deal. These production increases would take prices from the current $105 per barrel level to $85 per barrel by the second half of 2022 and keep it there throughout 2023, according to our base case view. This change marks an increase on our earlier expectation of an average $79.75 per barrel in 2023 in our previous forecast. European Investment Strategy: European equities are likely to continue to underperform in the near-term. Even if Russia and Europe avoid a full embargo of Russian energy shipments to the West, the disruption caused by a rupture of natural gas flows via Ukraine will keep European gas prices at elevated levels. Additionally, investors will continue to handicap the needed risk premia to compensate for the low but real threat of an energy crisis, which would prove particularly debilitating for Hungary, Poland, Germany, Czechia and Italy (Chart 2). Moreover, European equities sport a strong value and cyclical profile with significant overweight positions in financial and industrial equities. Industrials will suffer from higher input costs. European financials will suffer from a decline in yields as hawks in the European Central Bank are already softening their rhetoric on the need to tighten policy. However, due to the likely temporary nature of the dislocation, we do not recommend selling Europe outright and instead will stick with our current hedges, such as selling EUR/JPY and EUR/CHF. The evolution of the military situation on the ground will warrant a re-valuation of this hedging strategy next week. The euro will soon become a buy. Chart 2EU Economy Highly Vulnerable To Any Large Energy Cutoff Foreign Exchange Strategy: The Ukraine crisis will lead to a period of strength for the US dollar (DXY). Countries requiring foreign capital will be most at risk from an escalation in tensions. We still suspect the DXY will peak near 98-100, but volatility will swamp fundamental biases. Geopolitical Strategy: On a strategic basis, stick with our long trades in gold, arms manufacturers, UK equities relative to EU equities, and the Japanese yen. On a tactical basis, stick with long defensive sectors, large caps, Japanese equities relative to German, and Mexican equities relative to emerging markets. We will revisit these trades next week, after the European energy question becomes clearer, to determine whether to book profits on our bearish tactical trades.   – The BCA Research Team  

Executive Summary Copper Demand Follows GDP European copper demand will increase on the back of still-accommodative monetary policy, coupled with a loosening of COVID-19-related gathering and mobility restrictions as the virus becomes endemic. Copper demand will be supported by the EU's need to diversify natural gas supplies in favor of increased LNG import capacity over the next 10 years, which will require incremental infrastructure investment. Increasing policy stimulus in China and government measures to increase lending to metals-intensive sectors – e.g., construction and grid infrastructure – will boost global copper demand. In the US, the Biden administration is backing a $550 billion bill to fund its renewable-energy buildout, which will result in higher demand for metals and steel over the next decade. Global copper supply growth will be restrained by local politics going forward, particularly in the Americas. Bottom Line: Copper prices have been grinding higher even as China maintains its zero-tolerance COVID-19 public health policy, and markets wait out the Russia-Ukraine standoff.  We are maintaining our forecast for COMEX copper to trade to $5.00/lb this year and $6.00/lb next year.  We remain long commodity-index exposure (S&P GSCI and the COMT ETF), along with equity exposure to miners and traders via the XME and PICK ETFs. Feature Ever since it hit its record high in May 2021, copper prices have been range-bound, despite tight market fundamentals and record low inventories in 3Q21, which, as it happens, have not significantly rebuilt since then (Chart 1, panel 1). This can be explained by weak global macro conditions since prices peaked, which have not been especially conducive to higher copper prices, particularly in Europe and China. Activity in these two markets accounting for ~ 60% and 11% of global refined copper demand, respectively, has had a stop-start aspect that has hindered full recovery to now. Chart 1Global Copper Inventories Remain Tight Chart 2Copper Demand Follows GDP As GDP in these regions rises, demand for copper will rise, as Chart 2 shows. Per our modelling, refined copper demand in China, the EU and the world are highly cointegrated with Nominal GDP estimates provided by the IMF. The coefficient associated with nominal GDP in all three instances is positive. Further, running Granger Causality tests indicate that past and present values of nominal GDP explain present refined copper demand values for all three entities. These results indicate that economic growth and refined copper demand have a positive long-run relationship. China’s zero-COVID tolerance policy and the property-market crisis there have restricted economic growth, activity and hence demand for the metal used heavily in construction and manufacturing. In Europe, lockdowns due to the Omicron variant restricted activity causing supply chain disruptions, which contributed to inflation. Now, Europe is relying on immunity among large shares of its population to keep economies open, as COVID-19 becomes endemic. Germany is loosening restrictions at a slower rate than its neighbors, as COVID still has not reached endemicity (Chart 3). Europe’s top manufacturer reportedly is expected to ease restrictions and increase economic activity by March-end. Chart 3New EU COVID-19 Cases Collapse Natural Gas Remains Critical To Europe Apart from COVID, elevated natural gas prices have and will continue to affect economic activity in Europe. These prices will only get more volatile as fears of a Russian invasion of Ukraine increase. In the short term, we do not expect Russia to cut off all gas supplies to the EU in case of an invasion.1 However, supplies going through Ukraine likely would be cut. Coupled with the region’s precariously low natgas inventory levels, this could fuel a gas price spike (Chart 4). Higher gas prices could lead to demand destruction, if, as occurred this winter, higher power-generating costs arising from higher natgas costs makes electricity too expensive to keep industrial processes like aluminum smelters up and running. In addition, another regional bidding war could incentivize more re-routing of LNG to Europe instead of Asia. This would reduce European prices, but could force Asian markets to raise their bids. Chart 4EU's Natgas Inventories Remain Critical Assuming gas prices do not remain significantly higher for the rest of the year, Europe will start seeing economic activity improve, and as our European Investment Strategy notes, PMIs will bottom out by the second quarter of this year. High immunity levels are allowing European nations to relax restrictions as it becomes apparent that COVID in the continent – at least in Western Europe – appears to be reaching endemicity. Importantly for base metals generally, and copper in particular, lower natgas prices will allow smelters and refining units to remain in service as electricity prices stabilize or even fall in the EU. During the pandemic, households – primarily in DM economies – built up significant levels of excess savings, particularly in Europe. The IMF reported that households in Europe have amassed nearly 1 trillion euros more in savings vs. normal levels over the last two years than if the pandemic had never occurred.2 While the entirety of excess savings will not be released as spending, even a portion of it will spur economic activity, once supply-chain issues are ironed out when the global economy reopens. China's Copper Demand Will Revive China’s property sector crisis last year was a major drag on economic growth. The Chinese government’s efforts to stabilize this sector seem to be paying off. China’s National Bureau of Statistics reported that for January housing prices in China’s first-tier cities reversed a month-on-month decline from December. The number of cities that saw home prices fall in January also was lower compared to December. Continued improvements in the property sector in China will be bullish for copper. Once macro hurdles related to COVID and high gas prices dissipate, and China’s property market stabilizes, economic activity will increase and copper demand will rebound (Chart 5). However, a timeline for this is difficult to handicap, given China's insistence – at least for now – on maintaining a zero-covid public-health policy. The zero-covid policy has resulted in sharply lower infection rates than the rest of the world, but, because it has not been accompanied by wide distribution of mRNA vaccines, immunity in the population is low. As global macro factors become conducive for copper, investors’ focus will switch to tight fundamentals in the copper market (Chart 6). Unlike the first half of 2021, copper’s high prices will be more sustained, given COVID’s current trajectory towards endemicity globally, and relatively higher immunity rates. Chart 5China's Demand Will Rebound Chart 6Coppers Tight Fundamentals Will Come Into Focus Again In addition, markets will have to factor in additional demand from the US that heretofore did not exist: The Biden administration is backing a $550 billion bill to fund renewable-energy development. More such funding can be expected in coming years as the US leans into decarbonization, and competes with the likes of the EU and China for limited base metals supplies. Supply Side Difficulties Mount Local governance is becoming increasingly critical to the supply side of base metals, no moreso than in the Americas – chiefly in Chile, Peru and, of late, the US., where the Biden administration recently shut down a Minnesota mining proposal in a major win for environmental groups.3 A number of these critical commodity-producing states in the Americas have elected – or are leaning toward – left-of-center candidates, some of whom are proposing fundamental changes in the laws and regulations governing resource extraction. Gabriel Boric, Chile’s new president, takes office in March. He has largely focused his campaign on the environment, human rights, and closer ties with other Latin American countries. Boric promotes a “turquoise” foreign policy, which includes “green” policies to combat climate change, and “blue” ones to protect oceans. He is likely to commit Chile, which accounts for ~ 30% of global copper mining, to participation in the Escazú Agreement, is being positioned to span the region.4 Of greatest import to the global metals and mining markets, Boric will push for a constitutional re-write affecting taxes on copper mining, decarbonization, Chile's water crisis and the nationalization of lithium mining. Chile's new constitution is expected to be put up for a vote by the end of 2022. In Peru, which accounts for ~ 10% of global copper output, President Pedro Castillo announced at the UN General Assembly that Peru would declare a "climate emergency," and promised to reach net-zero in Peru by 2050. Civil unrest in Peru directed at mining operations is becoming more widespread, as citizens become increasingly frustrated with pollution and poverty.5 Colombia is not a major metals producer, but it is a resource-based economy leaning left. In May it will hold its general elections to Congress and Presidency. The future president will have pressure on the ratification of the Escazú Agreement, fight against illegal mining, and work on the Amazon deforestation. Presently, a left-of-center candidate, Gustavo Petro, leads the polling, according to the latest December survey by the National Consulting Center.6 Petro is promising to stop approving oil exploration contracts to restructure Colombia's economy away from hydrocarbons, and plans to accelerate the transition towards renewable energy.7 In addition, Petro is trying to gather ideological allies across Latin America and the world to fight against climate change. He hopes Chile’s president-elect Gabriel Boric will be joining this alliance.8 Caution: Downside Risks Remain Apart from the Russia-Ukraine crisis discussed above, there are more headwinds to the bullish copper view. China’s zero-covid policy will lead to reduced activity in the world’s largest producer and consumer of refined copper. This will disrupt global supply chains and, along with high energy prices, spur global inflation, prolonging slow economic growth and activity. Central bank tightening globally – led by the Federal Reserve – will increase borrowing costs, reduce manufacturing, and act as a downside risk to copper, particularly if the Fed miscalculates and lifts rates too high too soon and sparks a USD rally. Finally, while DM economies have high vaccination rates, EM states do not have the same level of immunity (Chart 7). Europe exhibits this dichotomy in immunization rates between advanced and developing countries well. While most of Western Europe appears to be nearing endemicity and reopening, Omicron is spreading quickly into Eastern Europe, where immunity is low. As long as a majority of the global population is not vaccinated, COVID-19 mutations into more virulent and transmissive variants remain a major risk. Chart 7COVID-19 Remains A Risk Investment Implications Copper prices have been grinding higher even as China maintains its zero-tolerance COVID-19 public-health policy, and markets wait out the Russia-Ukraine standoff (Chart 8). As large economies continue to emerge from COVID-19-related disruptions demand for base metals can be expected to increase, particularly for copper. We are maintaining our forecast for COMEX copper to trade to $5.00/lb this year and $6.00/lb next year. We remain long commodity-index exposure (S&P GSCI and the COMT ETF), along with equity exposure to miners and traders via the XME and PICK ETFs. Chart 8Copper Continues To Grid Higher   Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com Paula Struk Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy paula.struk@bcaresearch.com Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com   Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish The US will expand its leading position as the EU-27's and UK's top liquified natural gas (LNG) supplier this year, in our view, although Qatar will provide stiff competition (Chart 9). In January, the EIA reported half of the Europe's LNG originated in the US. For all of 2021, 26% of Europe's LNG came from the US, while 24% came from Qatar and 20% came from Russia. We expect the Russia-Ukraine military standoff, which has the potential to become a kinetic engagement, will prompt Europe to diversify its natural gas supplies away from Russia to reduce its exposure to military and geopolitical pressure on its energy supplies. This also would apply, in our estimation, to pipeline supplies of natural gas from Russia, which shipped 10.7 Bcf/d to Europe in 2021 (vs. 11.8 Bcf and 14.8 Bcf/d in 2020 and 2019, respectively. Norway supplied 10.4 Bcf/d in 2019 and 2020, rising to 11.1 Bcf/d in 2021. We also would expect additional North Sea supplies to be developed to supply Europe in the wake of the current Russia-Ukraine tensions. Base Metals: Bullish Russia’s recognition of the two breakaway states of Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics (DPR and LPR), elicited US sanctions targeting Russian sovereign debt and its banking sector. The possibility of sanctions on Russian nickel and aluminum exports sent both metals to multi-year highs in LME trading. Russia constitutes around 6% and 9% of global primary aluminum and nickel ore supply, respectively. Precariously low inventory levels for both nickel and aluminum are inducing high price volatility. Year-over-year, global January LME aluminum and nickel stocks are 45% and 64% lower respectively. Precious Metals: Bullish Geopolitical uncertainty due to the Russia-Ukraine crisis and Western sanctions levied on Russia has pushed gold prices to levels not seen since its last bull run last year. While gold has risen, Bitcoin – once considered to be a safe-haven asset – has fallen on this uncertainty. Over the last two years, Bitcoin has been moving more in tandem with equity markets than with other safe-haven assets, as cryptocurrency has become more popular and central banks began large asset purchase programs in response to the pandemic (Chart 10). From beginning 2018 to end-2019 the coefficient measuring daily Bitcoin prices’ correlation with the S&P 500 index was ~0.31. From beginning 2020 to present day, this value has increased to ~ 0.86. Chart 9 Chart 10     Footnotes 1     Please see our report from February 3, 2022 entitled Long-Term EU Gas Volatility Will Increase.  It is available as ces.bcaresearch.com. 2     Please see Europe’s Consumers are Sitting on 1 Trillion Euros in Pandemic Savings published by the International Monetary Fund on February 10, 2022. 3    Please see our report from on November 25, 2021 entitled Add Local Politics To Copper Supply Risks, and Biden administration kills Antofagasta's Minnesota copper project published by reuters.com on January 26, 2022. 4    Please see Chile Turns Left: The Foreign Policy Agenda of President Gabriel Boric, published by Australian Institute of Mining Affairs on January 28, 2022. 5    Please see China's MMG faces Peru whack-a-mole as mining protests splinter, published by reuters.com on February 16, 2022. 6    Please see Six Challenges Facing Colombia in 2022, published by Global Americas on January 6, 2022. 7     Please see Gustavo Petro, who leads polls in Colombia, seeks to create an anti-oil front published by Bloomberg on January 14, 2022. 8    Please see Colombia Presidential Favorite Gustavo Petro Wants to Form a Global Anti-Oil Bloc, published by Time on January 14, 2022. Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Trades Closed in 2021

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