通貨

Dear client, In addition to this weekly report, we sent you a Special Report from our Geopolitical Strategy service, highlighting the risk from the Russo-Ukrainian conflict. Kind regards, Chester Executive Summary The Ukraine crisis will lead to a period of strength for the DXY. Countries requiring foreign capital will be most at risk from an escalation in tensions. Portfolio flows have reaccelerated into the US, on the back of a rise in Treasury yields. This will be sustained in the near term. The euro area on the other hand has already witnessed significant portfolio outflows, on the back of Russo-Ukrainian tensions and an energy crisis. Countries with balance of payment surpluses like Switzerland and Australia are good havens amidst the carnage. Oil-producing countries such as Norway and Canada have also seen an improvement in their balance of payments, on the back of a strong terms-of-trade tailwind. This will be sustained in the near term. Balance Of Payments Across The G10 Bottom Line: The dollar is king in a risk-off environment. That said, the US and the UK sport the worst balance of payments backdrops, while Norway, Switzerland, and Sweden have the best. This underpins our long-term preference for Scandinavian currencies in an FX portfolio. In the near term, we think the DXY will peak near 98-100, but volatility will swamp fundamental biases. Feature Chart 1The US Runs A Sizeable Deficit The Russia-Ukraine conflict continues to dictate near-term FX movements. With Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the risk of escalation and/or a miscalculation has risen. FX volatility is increasing sharply, and with it, the risk of a further selloff in currencies dependent on foreign capital inflows. As a reserve currency, the dollar has also been strong. It is difficult to ascertain how this imbroglio will end. However, in this week’s report, we look at which currencies are most vulnerable (and likely to stay vulnerable) from a balance of payments standpoint. Chart 1 plots the basic balance – the sum of the current account balance and foreign investment – across G10 countries. It shows that at first blush, Norway, Switzerland, Sweden, and Australia are the most resilient from a funding standpoint, while New Zealand, the UK, and the US are the most vulnerable. In Chart 2, we rank G10 currencies on eight different criteria: The basic balance, which we highlighted above. Real interest rate differentials, using the 10-year tenor and headline inflation. Relative growth fundamentals, as measured by the Markit manufacturing PMI. Three fair value models which we use in-house. The first is our Purchasing Power Parity model, which adjusts consumption basket weights across the G10 to reflect a more apples-to-apples comparison. The second is our long-term fair value model (LTFV), which adjusts for productivity differentials between countries; and the final is our intermediate-term timing model (ITTM), which separates procyclical from safe-haven currencies by including a risk factor such as corporate spreads. All three models are equally weighted in our rankings. The net international investment position (NIIP), which highlights currencies that are most likely to witness either repatriation flows or a positive income balance in the current account. Finally, net speculative positioning, which tells us which currencies have crowded long positions, and which ones sport a consensus sell. Chart 2The Scandinavian Currencies Are Attractive The conclusions from this chart are similar to our basic balance scenario – NOK, SEK, AUD, CHF, and JPY stand out as winners while GBP, NZD, and USD are the least attractive. The US dollar is a special case given its reserve currency status, with a persistent balance of payments deficit. The rise in the greenback amidst market volatility is a case in point. However, portfolio flows into the dollar also tend to be cyclical, so a resolution in the Ukraine/Russia conflict will put a cap on inflows. Equity portfolio flows had dominated financing of the US current account deficit but are relapsing (Chart 3). Bond portfolio flows have rebounded on the back of rising US yields, but US TIPS yields remain very low by historical standards (Chart 4). If they do not improve much further, specifically relative to other developed markets, it will be tough to justify further inflows into US Treasurys. Chart 3Equity Portfolio Flows Into The US Are Relapsing Chart 4Bond Portfolio Flows Into The US Are Strong In this week’s report, we look at the key drivers of balance of payments dynamics across the G10, starting with the US, especially amidst a scenario where the forfeit of foreign capital could come to the fore. United States Chart 5US Balance Of Payments The US trade deficit continues to hit record lows at -$80.7 billion for the month of December. Over the last few years, it has become increasingly difficult to fund this widening trade deficit via foreign purchases of US Treasurys. A positive net income balance has allowed a slower deterioration in the US current account balance, though at -$214.8 billion for Q3, it remains close to record lows. The overall picture for both the trade and current account balance is more benign as a share of GDP, given robust GDP growth (Chart 5). That said, as a share of GDP, the trade balance stands at -3.5%, the worst in over a decade. Foreign direct investment into the US has been improving of late. This probably reflects an onshoring of manufacturing, triggered by the Covid-19 crisis. That said, despite this improvement, the US still sports a negative net FDI backdrop. In a nutshell, the basic balance in the US (the sum of the current account and foreign direct investment) is still deteriorating. The dollar tends to decline on a multi-year basis when the basic balance peaks and starts worsening.       Euro Area Chart 6Euro Area Balance Of Payments The trade balance in the euro area has significantly deteriorated in recent quarters, on the back of an escalating energy crisis. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine marks the cherry on top. On a rolling 12-month basis, the trade surplus has fallen to 1% of GDP (Chart 6). This is particularly telling since for the month of December, the trade balance came in at €-4.6 billion, the worst since the euro area debt crisis. The current account continues to post a surplus of 2.6% of GDP, on the back of a positive income balance. However, FDI inflows are relapsing. After about two decades of underinvestment in the euro area, FDI inflows were at their highest level, to the tune of about 2% of GDP in 2021. Those have now completely reversed on the back of uncertainty. The combination of an energy crisis and dwindling FDI is crushing the euro area’s basic balance surplus. A rising basic balance surplus has been one of the key pillars underpinning a bullish euro thesis. Should the deterioration continue, it will undermine our longer-term bullish stance on the euro. It is encouraging that portfolio investments have turned less negative in recent quarters, as bond yields in the euro area are rising. Should this continue, it will be a good offset to the deterioration in FDI.   Japan Chart 7Japan Balance Of Payments Like the euro area, the trade balance in Japan continues to be severely hampered by rising energy imports. The trade deficit in January deteriorated to a near record of ¥2.2 trillion, even though export growth remained very robust. Income receipts from Japan’s large investment positions abroad continue to buffer the current account, but a resolution to the energy crisis will be necessary to stem Japan’s basic balance from deteriorating (Chart 7). The process of offshoring has sharply reversed since the Covid-19 crisis. While FDI is still deteriorating, it now stands at -2.4% of GDP, compared to -4.3% just before the pandemic. Net portfolio investments are also accelerating, especially given the rise in long-term interest rates in Japan, positive real rates, and the value bias of Japanese equities. We are buyers of the yen over the long term, but a further rise in global yields and energy prices are key risks to our view.             United Kingdom Chart 8UK Balance Of Payments The UK has the worst trade balance in the G10, and the picture has not improved much since the pandemic (currently at -6.7% of GDP). Similar to both the euro area and Japan, much of the drag on the trade balance has been due to rising import costs from energy and fuels. This puts the UK at risk of an escalation in the conflict between Ukraine and Russia. Meanwhile, the improvement in the income balance over the last few years has started to deteriorate, as transfer payments under the Brexit withdrawal agreement kick in. As a result, the current account balance is deteriorating anew (Chart 8). Both portfolio and direct investment in the UK were robust in the post-Brexit environment but have started to deteriorate. This is critical since significant foreign investment is necessary to boost productivity in the UK and prevent the pound from adjusting much lower. With bond yields in the UK rising, and the FTSE heavy in cyclical stocks, this should limit further deterioration in the UK’s financial account. A significant drop in the estimated path of settlement payments for Brexit will also boost the income balance. The key for the pound over the coming years remains how fast the UK can improve productivity, which will convince foreign investors that the return on capital for UK assets will increase. Canada Chart 9Canada Balance Of Payments Canada’s domestic economy has been relatively insulated from the geopolitical shock in Europe, but its export sector is benefiting tremendously from it. Rising oil prices are boosting Canadian terms of trade. As a result, the current account has turned into a surplus for the first time since 2009, in part driven by an improving trade balance (Chart 9). Outside of trade, part of the improvement in the Canadian current account balance is specifically driven by income receipts from Canada’s positive net international investment position. At C$1.5 trillion, income receipts are becoming an important component of the current account balance. Foreign direct investment into Canada continues to remain robust, given strong commodity prices. This is boosting our basic balance measure, which today sits at a surplus of 2.4% of GDP and should continue to improve. Finally, because of Canada’s improving balance-of-payments backdrop, it is no longer reliant on foreign capital as it had been in the past, which supports the loonie.         Australia Chart 10Australia Balance Of Payments Australia continues to sport the best improvement in both its trade and current account balances over the last few years. As a result, the basic balance has eclipsed 4% of GDP for the first time since we have been measuring this series (Chart 10). The story for Australia remains improving terms of trade, specifically in the most desirable commodities – copper, high-grade iron ore, liquefied natural gas, and to a certain extent, high-grade coal. Foreign direct investment in Australia has eased significantly. Investment in projects in the resource space are now bearing fruit, easing the external funding constraint. Meanwhile, domestic savings can now be easily recycled for sustaining capital investment. In fact, foreign direct investment turned negative in Q4 2021. This also explains the drop in net portfolio investment since Australians now need to build a positive net international investment position. We have a limit buy on the Aussie dollar at 70 cents, as we are bullish the currency over a medium-term horizon.         New Zealand Chart 11New Zealand Balance Of Payments For the third quarter of 2021, New Zealand’s current account balance hit record lows, despite robust commodity (agricultural) prices. Imports of fertilizers, crude oil, and vaccines have led to a widening trade deficit. A drop in the exports of wood also affected the balance. With a negative net international investment position of about 48% of GDP, the income balance also subtracted from the current account total (Chart 11). From a bigger-picture perspective, New Zealand’s basic balance has been negative for many years, as coupon and dividend payments to foreign investors, as well as valuation adjustments from net foreign liabilities, have kept the current account in structural deficit. However, as the prices of key agricultural goods head higher, New Zealand can begin to benefit from a terms-of-trade boom that will limit its external funding requirement. In that respect, portfolio investments are also improving. New Zealand has the highest bond yield in the G10, on the back of the highest policy rate so far (the RBNZ raised interest rates again this week). New Zealand’s defensive equity market has also corrected sharply amidst the general market riot. As such, foreign investors could begin to favor this market again based on high yields and a reset in valuations. Going forward, New Zealand should continue to see further improvement in its basic balance relative to the US, supporting the kiwi. Switzerland Chart 12Switzerland Balance Of Payments The Swiss trade balance remains in a structural surplus, with a post Covid-19 boom that has led a new high as a share of   GDP (Chart 12). Global trade has been rather resilient due to high demand for goods. While Switzerland has a large net international investment position, income flows this quarter were hampered by servicing costs for foreign direct investments. The net international investment position did improve by CHF27 billion on a quarter-over-quarter basis in Q3, on the back of a net increase in foreign asset purchases. Currency movements also had little impact on the portfolio in Q3, which is atypical. The SNB will always have to contend with a structural trade surplus that puts upward pressure on the currency. This will keep the Swiss franc well bid, especially in times of crisis when the positive balance-of-payments backdrop makes the CHF a safe haven.             Norway Chart 13Norway Balance Of Payments Q3 2021 saw a strong recovery in Norway’s trade account that is likely to carry over to this year. A recovery in crude oil and natural gas prices was a welcome boon. The lack of tourism also boosted the services account (Norwegians travel and spend less abroad than foreigners visiting Norway). The ongoing electricity crisis in Europe was also an opportune export channel for Norway, which for the first time, opened its 450-mile-long, 1400-megawatt North Sea cable link to the UK. Positive income flows also benefit the current account and the krone (Chart 13). With one of the largest NIIPs in the world heavily skewed towards equity dividends, the NOK benefits when yields rise, even though the domestic fixed-income market is highly illiquid. While a resolution of the Russian-Ukrainian crisis could sap the geopolitical risk premium from oil, the reopening of the global economy will benefit Norwegian exports of oil and gas. Tepid investment in global oil and gas exploration will also ensure Norway’s terms of trade remain robust.       Sweden Chart 14Sweden Balance Of Payments The Swedish current account balance has deteriorated slightly in the last few quarters, on the back of supply-side bottlenecks. Particularly, exports of cars have been hampered amidst a semiconductor shortage. That said, the primary income surplus remains a key pillar of the current account, keeping the basic balance at a healthy surplus of about 6% of GDP (Chart 14). Portfolio inflows into Sweden have dwindled, like most other European economies. If this has been due to geopolitical tensions in Europe, it will eventually prove to be fleeting. That said, the Riksbank remains one of the most dovish in the G10 and the OMX is also one of the most cyclical stock markets, which may have spooked short-term foreign investments. The Swedish krona has been the weakest G10 currency year-to-date. Given that we expect most of the headwinds to be temporary, and the basic balance backdrop remains solid, we will go long SEK versus both the euro and the US dollar.   Chester Ntonifor Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Trades & Forecasts Strategic View Cyclical Holdings (6-18 months) Tactical Holdings (0-6 months) Limit Orders Forecast Summary

特別レポート

Highlights The buildup of excessive household debt in Canada over the past two decades has occurred because of outsized demand for housing, not because of the impact of constrained housing supply on house prices. Outsized demand for housing has occurred because interest rates have been persistently too low, pointing to the need for the Bank of Canada to tighten monetary policy in order to prevent even further leveraging. The burden of Canada’s household sector debt may exceed its pre-pandemic level next year given current market expectations for the path of rate hikes. This implies that the prior peak in the Canadian policy rate (1.75%) likely reflects a high-end estimate of the neutral rate of interest in Canada. Regulatory changes have occurred in recognition of Canada’s extreme levels of household debt. Although a massive decline in Canadian house prices would cause a very severe recession, it would not likely precipitate a Lehman-style collapse of the Canadian financial system. Over the next twelve months, investors should position favorably toward CAD-USD. As the Canadian policy rate approaches our estimate of the neutral rate, a short CAD position and an overweight stance towards long-maturity Canadian bonds versus US Treasurys will likely be warranted. Within a global equity portfolio, exposure to relatively high-yielding Canadian banks should not be reduced until hard evidence of a significant slowdown in the housing market emerges. Feature The outlook for monetary policy in advanced economies has shifted rapidly in a hawkish direction over the past few months. While we believe that the Fed and other central banks will end up raising interest rates this year fewer times than investors currently expect, it is clear that monetary policy will tighten in the DM world over the coming 12-18 months. This has raised the question of how high policy rates may rise before monetary policy begins to restrict economic activity. Some investors have specifically focused this question on countries like Canada, which has a highly indebted household sector and has seen house prices rise at a 7% average annual pace for the past 20 years. In this report, we explore the root cause of Canada’s extreme household debt and argue against the constrained housing supply view. Instead, we conclude that persistently low interest rates have fueled excessive housing demand and that the prior peak in the Canadian policy rate (1.75%) probably reflects a high-end estimate of the neutral rate of interest in Canada – in contrast with that of the US. Finally, we note that the regulatory changes that have occurred in recognition of the risk from excessive household debt suggest that a massive decline in Canadian house prices would not likely precipitate a Lehman-style collapse of the Canadian financial system – it would, however, clearly cause a severe recession. Over the next twelve months, investors should position favorably toward CAD-USD. As the Canadian policy rate approaches our estimate of the neutral rate, a short CAD position and an overweight stance towards long-maturity Canadian bonds versus US Treasurys will likely be warranted. Within a global equity portfolio, exposure to relatively high-yielding Canadian banks should not be reduced until hard evidence of a significant slowdown in the housing market emerges. The Root Cause Of Canada’s Extreme Household Debt Chart II-1Canadian Households Are Massively Indebted Relative to disposable income, Canadian household debt has risen substantially over the past two decades. Chart II-1 highlights that Canada’s household debt to disposable income ratio has risen by 180% since 2000, and is currently over 50 percentage points higher than that in the US, even when nonfinancial noncorporate debt is included in the latter.1 Rising Canadian household indebtedness is a problem that is well known to investors, policymakers, regulators, banks, and consumers themselves. Organizations such as the IMF have repeatedly warned that excess household debt poses a potential economic stability risk. In the years prior to the pandemic, policymakers have responded with a series of macroprudential measures designed to limit speculation and foreign ownership in the housing market and to reduce the incremental risk to the economy posed by new borrowers. When asked why Canadian households have leveraged themselves so significantly over the past 20 years, most market commentators in Canada point to insufficient housing supply as the main driver of excessive house prices. Given normal ongoing demand for housing, they argue, persistent supply-side pressure on housing prices will naturally lead to a rising stock of debt relative to income. According to this narrative, the solution to Canada’s housing crisis is centered squarely on incentives to build more homes. Raising interest rates to cool mortgage demand will simply exacerbate the housing affordability problem, while simultaneously discouraging additional residential investment needed to decrease home prices structurally. Chart II-2The Supply Of Non-Apartment Dwellings Has Indeed Declined Over Time... We hold a different perspective. We do agree that there are some limitations on the supply side that likely are unduly boosting prices of certain dwelling types. For example, the Greenbelt that surrounds Ontario’s Golden Horseshoe region - a permanently protected area of land - has likely constrained some housing activity, and Chart II-2 highlights that single detached, semi-detached, and row/townhouses have fallen significantly as a share of overall housing completions. Apartments and other dwellings now account for a clear majority of new housing construction in Canada. However, there is a great deal of evidence positioned against the view that supply-side factors are the primary cause of outsized housing inflation and, by extension, a massive increase in Canadian household debt to GDP: Based on real residential investment, the pace of housing construction in Canada has not fallen relative to GDP or the population. Chart II-3 highlights that, compared with the US, residential investment has trended higher over the past 20 years. Based on Canadian housing completion data, Chart II-4 highlights that the number of completions has generally kept pace with half of the change in Canada’s population, a ratio that is easily consistent with two or more people per household. In addition, the chart highlights that the periods when houses were completed at a below-average rate relative to population growth have not been the same as when Canadian household debt has increased relative to disposable income. Chart II-3...But Overall Real Residential Investment Has Kept Pace With Canada's GDP And Population Chart II-4Housing Supply Has Not Been The Main Driver Of Rising Canadian Indebtedness Chart II-5Prices For All Canadian Property Types Have Surged Over The Past Two Decades If the rise in Canadian household indebtedness has been caused by the increasing scarcity of single-detached, semi-detached, and row/townhouses, then we would expect to see a persistent and growing divergence between overall Canadian house prices and those of apartment/condominiums. Chart II-5 highlights that this is not the case: while apartment/condo prices have at times grown at a slower rate than overall home prices over the past 15 years (as in the period from 2011 to 2016), they have also at times grown at a faster rate. The chart clearly highlights that the Canadian housing market is driven by a common factor, and that average house price gains have not been significantly different across property types over time. Similarly, if a scarcity of housing supply was the main driver of rising house prices and household debt, we would not expect to see a significant increase in the homeownership rate. Chart II-6 highlights that the Canadian homeownership rate did rise substantially from the mid-1990s to 2016 (the last available datapoint). While it is not clear what the sustainable or “equilibrium” homeownership rate is, it is notable that the most recent datapoint was not significantly lower than the peak rate reached in the US following that country’s massive housing bubble. Finally, Chart II-7 reiterates a point we made in our June 2021 Special Report: in several economies (including Canada), interest rates have remained well below levels that macroeconomic theory would traditionally consider to be in equilibrium over the past two decades. This has occurred alongside significant household sector leveraging. Chart II-7Too-Low Interest Rates Have Fueled Rising Household Indebtedness In Canada (And Other DM Economies) Chart II-6The Canadian Homeownership Rate Has Risen Significantly, Pointing To Excess Housing Demand     These factors strongly point to rising household debt levels as being driven by demand-side rather than supply-side factors – demand that has been fueled by persistently low interest rates. How High Can The Bank Of Canada Raise Interest Rates? Over the next 12 months, investors expect the Bank of Canada (BoC) to raise interest rates by 180 basis points, in line with the Fed (Chart II-8). Over the longer term, the BoC believes that interest rates will average between 1.75% and 2.75%. In the US, the 2/10 yield curve has flattened significantly in response to the Fed’s hawkish shift, and neither the explosion in headline consumer price inflation nor the Fed’s about face have significantly raised the market’s longer-term expectations for interest rates (which are even below the Fed’s estimates). In Canada, investors expect essentially the same long-term interest rate outlook, as evidenced by 5-year / 5-year forward government bond yields (Chart II-9). Chart II-8Investors Expect A Similar Magnitude Of Tightening In Canada And The US Over The Next Year... Chart II-9...And A Similar Average Interest Rate Over The Longer Term As in the case in the US, the hawkish shift among major central banks has left investors asking how high the BoC can raise interest rates, and what implications that might have for Canadian assets – especially the CAD and long-maturity Canadian government bonds. In our view, the best way for investors to assess the impact of rising interest rates on the private sector – especially a highly indebted one – is to project the impact that an increase in interest rates will have on the debt service ratio (DSR). The burden of servicing debt, rather than the stock of debt relative to income, is the right way to measure the impact of shifting monetary policy because it considers the combined effect of changes in leverage, income, and interest rates. The primary drawback of debt service ratio analysis is that the question of sustainability must be answered empirically. In countries experiencing an ever-rising debt service ratio, it can be difficult for investors to judge where the breaking point will be. Cross-country comparisons may sometimes be helpful in this respect, but Chart II-10 highlights that BIS estimates for household debt service ratios vary widely even among advanced economies. However, in Canada, the 2017-2019 tightening cycle provides a useful framework. As we anticipated in a 2017 Special Report,2 the rise in Canadian interest rates during that period caused the household debt service ratio to exceed the level reached in 2007, which contributed to a collapse in Canadian house price appreciation to its lowest level since the global financial crisis (Chart II-11). The decline in house prices during this period was also caused by the introduction of new macroprudential measures (particularly the introduction of a minimum qualifying rate for mortgages, more commonly referred to as a mortgage “stress test” rule), but the impact of higher interest rates was likely significant. Chart II-11The Last Tightening Cycle In Canada Contributed Significantly To A Major Slowdown In Canadian House Prices Chart II-10Private Sector Debt Service Ratios Vary Significantly Across DM Countries   Chart II-11 highlights that the Canadian household debt service ratio collapsed during the pandemic, which seems to suggest that the Bank of Canada has ample room to raise interest rates. However, the decline in the DSR occurred not only because of falling interest rates, but also because of the significant excess savings amassed as a result of the pandemic. As in the US, excess savings in Canada were the result of reduced spending on services and the generation of significant excess income from government transfers (see Chart I-20 from Section 1 of this month’s report). These fiscal transfers will eventually disappear, implying that the Canadian household DSR is artificially low. Chart II-12 shows our estimate of the evolution of the overall Canadian household sector DSR based on the following assumptions: Mortgage rates rise in line with market expectations for the change in the policy rate Government transfers fall back to their pre-pandemic trend Disposable income growth ex-transfers grows in line with consensus expectations for nominal GDP growth The overall debt-to-disposable income ratio, using our estimate for total disposable income, remains flat. The chart highlights that the Canadian household sector DSR may exceed its pre-pandemic level next year, and that a 1.75% policy rate is the threshold at which the DSR will hit a new high. The implication of our projection is that the re-acceleration in household sector debt that has occurred during the pandemic, shown in Chart II-13, will again contribute to a significant slowdown in the Canadian housing market as the BoC begins to raise interest rates as in 2018/2019. It also implies that the prior peak in the Canadian policy rate probably reflects a high-end estimate of the neutral rate of interest in Canada. Chart II-12Market Expectations For The Canadian Policy Rate Imply A Record High Debt Burden Chart II-13Canadian Household Loan Growth Has Reaccelerated During The Pandemic   As we discuss below, this is likely to lead to significant implications for CAD-USD and an allocation to long-maturity Canadian government bonds, once investors begin to upwardly revise their expectations for the US neutral rate. Extreme Household Debt And Canadian Financial Stability The question of financial stability is often posed by investors when discussing Canada’s extreme household debt burden. Some investors view the US subprime financial crisis as the likely template for the Canadian economy, given the fact that the US credit bubble also focused on the housing market. Despite our pessimistic assessment of the capacity of the Canadian economy to tolerate higher interest rates (unlike the US today), we do not share the view that the Canadian financial system faces a potential insolvency risk, like the US banking system did in 2008. We see two potential arguments in favor of the instability view. The first is related to the sheer concentration of debt in Canada relative to other countries. Chart II-14 highlights that the median debt-to-income ratio of indebted Canadian households is currently the second highest in the world (after Norway) among the 29 countries that the OECD tracks. This concentration measure has worsened considerably since we published our 2017 Special Report. The combination of a very high average level of debt and extremely high leverage among those who are indebted suggests that Canadian banks may be exposed to significant credit losses in the event of a serious housing market crash. Chart II-14The Degree Of Concentration In Canadian Household Debt Is A Potential Financial Stability Risk Chart II-15A Decline In The CMHC's Footprint In The Mortgage Insurance Market Is Also Concerning The second argument relates to the declining share of mortgages insured by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC). The CMHC is a Crown corporation that provides mortgage-default insurance to Canadian banks. Banks must purchase such insurance when a borrower’s loan-to-value ratio exceeds 80%. The CMHC has seen increased competition from two private mortgage insurers, and Chart II-15 highlights that the number of mortgages with CHMC insurance has been steadily falling over time. In order for the CMHC to be able to reduce systemic risk during a crisis, it must be present enough in the mortgage market to be able to replace private insurers in the event of a shock that causes them to leave the market. In effect, the CMHC should be able to act as a ballast to prevent a sharp tightening in Canadian mortgage lending standards and credit provision, which could occur if banks find themselves unable to purchase mortgage insurance to cover borrowers with relatively small down payments. In this respect, the reduced footprint of the CMHC is concerning. However, these risks have to be weighed against two key structural changes that legitimately lower the systemic risk facing the Canadian banking system (or lower the impact of a major adverse housing event). The first of these changes is the introduction of the minimum qualifying rate for mortgages in Canada (the mortgage stress test), which we regard as one of the most important macroprudential policies that Canada has enacted to reduce the systemic risk of rising household debt. The stress test rules – which apply to all borrowers – force mortgage borrowers to pass the CMHC’s gross debt and total debt service ratio thresholds under the assumption of higher interest rates than borrowers will actually pay: either the contracted mortgage rate plus 2 percentage points, or 5.65% – whichever is higher. Given prevailing mortgage rates in Canada, this effectively means that new borrowers will not exceed the CMHC’s debt service thresholds until the Bank of Canada’s policy rate exceeds 2.5%. That is positive from a financial stability perspective, although it does not rule out the slowdown in household spending that we would expect if the aggregate household debt service ratio hits a new high next year in response to BoC tightening. The second important risk-reducing structural change is a significant improvement in Canadian bank capital levels. Chart II-16 highlights that Tier 1 capital has risen significantly relative to risk-weighted assets for Canadian depository institutions, and is now on par with US levels (in contrast to a typically lower level over the past decade). The IMF stress tested Canadian banks in 2019, when capital levels were lower than they are today. They found that most Canadian banks would run down conservation capital buffers in the adverse economic scenario that they modeled, subjecting them to dividend restrictions for a period of time following the adverse event. However, Canadian banks would not breach their minimum capital requirements in the scenario modeled by the IMF, which involved a 40% decline in house prices and a 2% cumulative decline in Canadian real GDP over a two year period – which is essentially what occurred in the US and Canada in 2008 and 2009 (Chart II-17). Chart II-16Canadian Bank Capital Appears Sufficient To Weather A Storm Chart II-17The IMF's Stress Tests Modeled A Repeat Of The 2008/2009 Crisis To conclude on the question of financial stability, it is clear that the magnitude and concentration of household debt implies that the impact of a serious housing market crash on the Canadian economy would be severe. But the fact that regulatory changes have occurred in recognition of this risk suggests that although a massive decline in Canadian house prices would cause a very severe recession, it would not likely precipitate a Lehman-style collapse of the Canadian financial system. Investment Conclusions Three conclusions emerge from our report. First, when considering the total experience of the past two decades, it is clear that the buildup of excessive household debt in Canada has occurred because of outsized demand for housing, not because of the impact of constrained housing supply on house prices. Outsized demand for housing has occurred because interest rates have been persistently below what traditional monetary policy rules such as the Taylor Rule would prescribe, pointing to the need for the Bank of Canada to tighten monetary policy in order to prevent even further leveraging. While US interest rates were also below what the Taylor Rule would have suggested for several years following the global financial crisis, the US household sector did not leverage itself significantly during that period because of the multi-year impact of the 2008/2009 financial crisis on US household balance sheets (Chart II-18). Canadian households did not suffer the same type of balance sheet impairment, and yet the Bank of Canada wrongly imported hyper-accommodative US monetary policy in an attempt to prevent a significant further increase in the exchange rate (which was still persistently strong for several years following the crisis). Through its actions, the Bank of Canada succeeded in staving off “Dutch Disease”, but at the cost of fueling a substantial housing and credit market bubble. Second, the fact that the Bank of Canada is likely to struggle to raise interest rates above 1.75% implies that a sizeable divergence may emerge between Canadian and US monetary policy over the coming few years if we are correct in our view that the US neutral rate is higher than the Fed currently expects. While such a divergence is not likely to occur over the coming year, Chart II-19 highlights that a 125 basis point policy rate spread – consistent with a nominal neutral rate of 1.75% in Canada and 3% in the US – last occurred in the mid-to-late 1990s, when CAD-USD ultimately declined to 0.65. Chart II-18The Bank Of Canada Staved Off "Dutch Disease", At The Cost Of Fueling A Major Housing And Credit Bubble Chart II-19Some Potentially Large Downside For CAD If US Neutral Rate Expectations Move Higher Over the coming year, we expect Canadian dollar strength rather than weakness: we are generally bearish toward the US dollar on the expectation of above-trend global growth, and our fundamental intermediate-term model suggests that CAD should strengthen. Thus, while it is too early to short the Canadian dollar, we would be inclined to turn bearish in response to rising long-term US interest rate expectations. We would draw similar conclusions for Canadian government bonds: investors should raise exposure to long-dated Canadian government bonds versus similar maturity US Treasurys as the Bank of Canada raises its policy rate toward our estimate of the neutral rate. Chart II-20Relative ROE Justifies A Valuation Premium For Canadian Banks Finally, the improvements that have been made over the past several years to dampen the impact of a housing market crash on the Canadian financial system suggests that exposure to Canadian banks should not be reduced until hard evidence of a significant slowdown in the housing market emerges. Chart II-20 highlights that the valuation premium of Canadian banks appears to be supported by a sizeable ROE advantage relative to global banks. Panel 2 highlights how composite relative valuation indicator for Canadian banks suggests that they have been persistently expensive for some time, but not extremely so. Canadian banks would certainly underperform their global peers should the adverse scenario modeled by the IMF’s 2019 stress test of the banking system to occur, especially if it implied that Canadian banks would be forced to restrict dividends for a time to bolster capital adequacy. However, we would advise investors against shorting relatively high-yielding Canadian banks as Canadian interest rates rise, until they see clear signs of Canada-specific slowdown in housing demand in response to higher rates. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Gabriel Di Lullo Research Associate   Footnotes 1 For an explanation of why we add US nonfinancial noncorporate debt to the numerator of the US household sector debt to disposable income ratio when comparing Canada to the US, please see: “Reconciling Canadian-U.S. measures of household disposable income and household debt: Update”. 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy "Canada: A (Probably) Happy Moment In An Otherwise Sad Story," dated July 14, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com

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 Lots Of Pent-Up Demand The yen is unlikely to meaningfully appreciate until global bond yields stabilize. That said, very cheap valuations and a large net short position provide ample ammunition for an explosive rebound should macroeconomic conditions fall into place. The macro catalyst is likely to come from a domestic growth rebound. Unlike other developed economies, private consumption in Japan has been rather anemic on the back of cascading lockdowns. Inflation in Japan will remain contained in 2022, meaning the Bank of Japan will stay dovish. That said, the Japanese economy is also one of the best candidates for generating non-inflationary growth, a bullish backdrop for the currency. Our 2022 target for the yen is 104. Our sense is that most of the downside risks are well understood by markets, while upside surprises are much underappreciated. Recommendations Inception Level Inception Date Return Short CHF/JPY 125.05 2022-02-17 -   Bottom Line: Real rates are likely to remain quite attractive in Japan. While that has not been a key driver of the currency in the short term, it remains an anchor over a longer horizon. According to our in-house PPP models, an investor who buys the yen today can expect to make 6% a year over the next decade, based on the historical correlation between valuation and subsequent currency returns. Feature Chart 1Anemic Passenger Volumes The Japanese economy grew by 1.7% in 2021. For an economy with a potential growth rate of only 0.5%, this is an impressive feat. Even more remarkable is that this growth occurred within the context of very anemic domestic demand. The external sector in Japan has been benefiting from a global trade boom, while the domestic sector has been under siege from the pandemic. Anecdotally, the situation on the ground remains rather dire. Shinkansen passenger volumes are still down 35% this year after an even bigger collapse last year. According to Nikkei Asia, the waiting list to enter Japan continues to grow, as border restrictions are enforced. Of the 626,000 individuals approved for residence in Japan since January 2020, only 35% have filtered through. More broadly, at the peak, tourist arrivals (a meaningful source of demand) represented 25% of the overall Japanese population. Today, that number remains near zero (Chart 1). Amidst the gloom, pockets of Japanese financial markets are beginning to suggest a turnaround in economic conditions. The yield curve in Japan is steepening, usually a sign that monetary conditions remain very conducive to growth. Historically, that has been a bullish signal for the yen (Chart 2). Meanwhile, despite the surge in global bond yields, Japanese bank stocks are outperforming. The banking sector is usually one of the first to sniff out an improvement in economic fortunes (Chart 3). Chart 2The Yen And The Japanese Yield Curve Chart 3Japanese Banks Are Outperforming Outside financials, with inflation surging around the world, the Japanese economy is one of the best candidates for generating non-inflationary growth. This is bullish for the currency as real rates rise. Our bias is that while it might be too early to go long the yen today, conditions are gradually falling into place for a coiled spring rebound. The Case For Japanese Growth While the manufacturing PMI in Japan hit an 8-year high of 55.4 in January, the services PMI sits at 47.6, the lowest in the G10. The number of daily new COVID-19 cases breached 100,000 this month, the highest since the pandemic began two years ago. Hospitalizations and deaths are also rising acutely. However, there is rising evidence that Japan is beginning to put the worst of the pandemic behind it. 79.5% of the population is fully vaccinated, versus just about 50% six months ago. Booster shots are being ramped up quickly. The effective reproduction rate of the virus has dropped sharply, from 2.29 at the end of last year to 1.19 currently. According to government officials, there will be sufficient progress made on the virus front to begin relaxing border requirements and restrictions by next month. Optimism on the COVID-19 front will be a welcome fillip to much subdued consumer and business sentiment. Consumption outlays in Japan remain well below the pre-pandemic trend, especially towards services (Chart 4). As the economy reopens, and the labor market recovery continues, the war chest of Japanese savings that have been built in recent years should be modestly unwound. The job-to-applicants ratio is inflecting higher and workers’ propensity to consume has been improving (Chart 5). Chart 5A Labor Market Recovery Will Boost Spending Chart 4Lots Of Pent-Up Demand Wage increases remain very modest in Japan. Fumio Kishida, the Japanese prime minister has called for wage increases above 3%. His government also wants to raise the minimum wage from ¥930 to ¥1000, after a 3% increase last year. As the Shuntō (spring wage negotiations) begin, unions are likely to become more vocal in demanding wage increases. However, with a large share of temporary workers in Japan, and company preferences for one-time bonuses versus permanent pay increases, overall wage growth in Japan should remain in the 1-2% range, in line with BoJ forecasts. This puts Japan miles away from a wage inflation price spiral. From a contrarian perspective, it also means that falling unit labor costs are making the currency extremely competitive (Chart 6). Chart 6Japanese Workers Are Both Productive And Competitive Chart 7A Smaller Fiscal Drag In 2022 In a nutshell, Japan has had cascading shocks from the consumption tax hike in 2019 to six waves of COVID-19 over the last two years. These have led to a massive build in pent-up demand, which should be unleashed in the coming quarters. Government outlays will also go a long way towards boosting aggregate demand. A supplementary budget of ¥36tn was put together last year and approved for the fiscal year that ends this April. The even bigger 2022 budget of ¥107.6tn should also help ease the fiscal drag in 2022 (Chart 7). For a low-growth economy like Japan, with ultra-loose monetary settings, the fiscal multiplier tends to be much larger. The Export Machine Continues To Hum A boom in external demand has been a much welcome cushion for Japanese growth. Rising energy prices are hurting the nominal trade balance, but real net exports remain firm. Foreign machinery orders are still rising over 30% year on year, boosting industrial production in Japan (Chart 8). Demand from China has been an important component of foreign sales. As monetary policy is eased in Beijing, domestic demand should start to improve, preventing Japanese exports from collapsing. One of the most cyclical components of Japanese exports is machine tool orders, which remain firm (Chart 9).  Chart 9A Chinese Recovery Will Cushion Export Growth Chart 8Machinery Orders Remain Robust Monetary Policy And Inflation The Bank of Japan is unlikely to adjust monetary settings aggressively, amidst a recovery in demand. It could widen the target band for yield curve control, while bringing short rates back to zero, but this will require a vigorous rebound in demand and inflation. It could also scrap its 0% bank loan scheme but given these are targeted (especially towards renewable industries, and small/medium-sized firms), that is unlikely. Remarkably, the BoJ has not had to increase its holdings of government securities over the last year, as markets have viewed its policy as credible (Chart 10). Doing little is likely the best path of action for the BoJ in 2022. Chart 112% Inflation = Mission Impossible? Chart 10Not Much QE By The BoJ The key variable for the BoJ remains its 2% inflation target, which seems elusive for the time being. Inflation does not tend to accelerate in Japan until the output gap is fully closed. That has yet to occur. Meanwhile, the political push to cut mobile phone prices has been a drag on CPI. Mobile phone charges alone have cut around 1.2%-1.5% from the core core measure of Japanese inflation, according to the BoJ (Chart 11). Moreover, the decline in phone charges has been structural, even though it is usually touted as a one-off. A falling yen would allow some pass-through inflation, but this is unlikely to be sticky. The yen needs to fall 20% every year to generate 2% inflation in Japan (Chart 12). The pass-through is likely to be much higher for price-volatile items such as food and energy, which is likely to create angst among the rapidly ageing population. Chart 122% Inflation = 20% Yen Depreciation Putting it all together, real rates are unlikely to fall very much in Japan. This is very positive for the yen in a world with deeply negative real rates. As demand recovers, and the Japanese economy generates non-inflationary growth, the currency should find a solid footing. The Yen And Portfolio Flows It will be very difficult for the yen to rally if global yields continue to rise aggressively (Chart 13). With yield curve control in Japan, the nominal spread with foreign yields has been narrowing. However, the cost of hedging those foreign yields has also risen dramatically, which has prevented Japanese investors from aggressively flocking to overseas fixed income markets (Chart 14). That said, the weakness in the yen also suggests speculators have been borrowing in JPY to bet on carry strategies. Chart 13Global Yields Need To Stabilize To Cushion The Yen Chart 14No Massive Outflows From Japan Yet The rise in Treasury yields has yet to hit exhaustion from a technical perspective. Our bond strategists expect the 10-year yield to reach 2.25%, which will also enter the zone where we have historically seen some consolidation. The J.P. Morgan survey shows that most of its clients are short duration, but speculators are only modestly short 10-year or 30-year Treasurys (Chart 15). Chart 16USD/JPY And DXY Tend To Move Together Chart 15Modest Upside In Treasury Yields? Once yields stabilize, and the dollar starts to weaken, the positive real rate spread between Japan and the US should attract yen inflows, or at least nudge speculators to start liquidating massive short positions. As a counter-cyclical currency, the yen usually weakens against other developed market currencies, but USD/JPY tends to fall, on broad dollar weakness (Chart 16). Finally, the recent turbulence in markets has seen the yen begin to shine as a safe haven, more so than the US dollar and the Swiss franc (Chart 17). In the near term, this is a catalyst for long yen positions. With US interest rates having risen significantly versus almost all G10 countries in recent quarters, the dollar has become a carry currency. It is difficult for any currency to act as both a safe haven and carry currency, due to opposing driving forces. A rise in volatility will be a boost for the yen. Chart 17The Yen Is The Better Hedge Valuations And A Trade Idea In a report titled “A Short Note On US Dollar Valuations,” we suggested that the yen was the most undervalued G10 currency. According to our in-house PPP models, an investor who buys the yen today can expect to make 6% a year over the next decade, based on the historical correlation between valuation and subsequent currency returns (Chart 18). This will especially be the case if Japanese inflation keeps lagging inflation in the US. As a play on rising volatility, cheaper valuations, and a positive carry, we suggest investors short CHF/JPY today, with a stop at 127, and a target of 115. Historically, these currencies have tended to move together. However, more recently, CHF has risen substantially versus JPY, suggesting some mean reversion is due (Chart 19). Chart 18The Yen Is Very Cheap Chart 19Sell CHF/JPY Housekeeping We are closing our long AUD/NZD trade for a modest profit of 2.5%. We introduced this tactical trade over 6 months ago and are now cognizant of the negative carry as global yields rise. As a reminder we usually hold tactical trades for 6 months, and cyclical trades for 6-18 months.   Chester Ntonifor Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Trades & Forecasts Strategic View Tactical Holdings (0-6 months) Limit Orders Forecast Summary

Executive Summary The ultimate inflation anchor is unit labor costs. If relative price shocks cause employees to demand higher wages from their employers, and if they are granted wage increases above and beyond their productivity advances, inflation will become broad-based and persistent. US unit labor costs have been rising rapidly, which indicates that US inflation is becoming pervasive and entrenched (Chart of the week). The Fed is facing an acute dilemma that it has not encountered in the last 35 years or so: It either needs to slow growth materially to contain inflation or allow inflation to proliferate. The Fed will make a dovish pivot only after financial conditions tighten substantially, i.e., if the S&P 500 falls by 20% or more (from its peak) and credit spreads widen much more from the current levels. Rapid Rises In Unit Labor Costs Entail High Inflation Bottom Line: The Fed and equity markets are on a collision course: The Fed will not make a dovish pivot until markets sell off and markets cannot rally unless the Fed backs off. Feature In a report we published a year ago titled Riding A Tiger, we stated that “the enormous size of US stimulus and overflow of liquidity is creating a thrill akin to riding a tiger… Riding a tiger is fun. The hitch is that no one can safely get off a tiger. Similarly, US authorities are currently enjoying the exuberance from stimulus, but they will not be able to safely and smoothly dismount.” We also contended that “in any system where an explosive money/credit boom persists, the outcome will be one or a combination of the following: inflation, asset bubbles or capital misallocation… Odds are that the US will experience asset bubbles and inflation in the real economy.” Riding a tiger was indeed fun but now it is time for US policymakers to dismount. Yet, exiting the era of super easy monetary and fiscal policies will not be without costs and considerable financial market turbulence. Are the Fed and financial markets heading into a collision in the fog of inflation? Transitory Versus Persistent Inflation Chart 1US Inflation Is Broad Based, As Evidenced By Median And Trimmed-Mean CPIs US inflation has become broad-based.1 Not only is core CPI surging but also trimmed-mean, median and sticky core consumer price inflation have risen substantially (Chart 1).  Median and trimmed-mean price indexes would not be rocketing if inflation was limited to select goods or services. Particularly, the aforementioned measures exclude components with extreme price changes. What might have started as a narrow-based relative price shock has evolved into broad-based genuine inflation. The key to the transition from one-off inflation spikes to persistent genuine inflation is wages, more specifically unit labor costs. Unit labor cost are calculated as nominal wages divided by productivity (the latter is output per hour per employee). As long as unit labor costs are not rising considerably, sharp price increases in several types of goods do not entail genuine inflation and central banks should not tighten aggressively. However, when unit labor costs are escalating, odds are that higher inflation could become entrenched and persistent. The importance of wages stems from the fact that labor compensation makes up the largest share of costs for the majority of industries. Consequently, rising unit labor costs squeeze profit margins. When this transpires, businesses try to pass on rising costs to customers. Provided that robust wage growth propels consumer demand, companies often succeed in raising their prices. Chart 2US Wages Are Rising Rapidly In turn, inflation erodes the purchasing power of wages, and employees demand substantial pay raises. When revenues are strong, employers typically accommodate employees’ claims for higher compensation, and a wage-price spiral emerges. These dynamics are presently unfolding in the US. US wage growth has reached multi-decade highs of 4.5-5.5% (Chart 2). Plus, the high and climbing quit rate points to further wage acceleration (Chart 3). As US productivity cannot rise as fast as the current wage growth of 4.5-5.5% (Chart 4), the ratio of wages to productivity (unit labor costs) is escalating. Unit labor costs are rising faster than they have in the past 38-40 years. Historically, an acceleration in unit labor costs has often heralded higher inflation (Chart 5). Chart 3US Wages Will Continue Accelerating Chart 4Wage Growth Is Outpacing Productivity Gains   Chart 5Rapid Rises In Unit Labor Costs Entail High Inflation The only period when US core inflation fell despite rising unit labor costs was during the second half of the 1990s (Chart 5). During this period, EM currency devaluations from China to Mexico and then to Asia unleashed the deflation tsunami in goods prices. US imports prices from Asia collapsed allowing US inflation to drift lower despite rising unit labor costs. The current backdrop is different: US import prices from Asia, including China, are rising (Chart 6). Importantly, US wage growth is presently below headline and core CPI, i.e., real wages are contracting (Chart 7). Provided US employees have experienced a decline in their purchasing power in the past 12 months, they are keen to secure substantial pay raises in the coming months. Chart 6Unlike The Late 1990s, US Import Prices From Asia Are Rising Chart 7US Real Wages Are Shrinking   Employers facing strong demand cannot afford an employee exodus. Businesses will raise salaries and hike selling prices to preserve their profit margins, thereby giving rise to a wage-price spiral. Bottom Line: The ultimate inflation anchor is unit labor costs. This is why wages, more specifically unit labor costs, are the most important variable to monitor. If relative price shocks lead employees to demand higher wages from their employers, and if they are granted wage increases above and beyond their productivity advances, inflation will become broad-based and persistent. The Fed’s Dilemma When inflation becomes pervasive and entrenched, as it is now in the US, the only way to bring it down is to slow the economy. Unless demand decelerates meaningfully, US inflation will not go away because it has already spilled over into consumer and business expectations. Even though US headline and core CPI will likely drop in the coming months, core inflation will remain well above the Fed’s target of 2% (Chart 1 above). To maintain its credibility, the Fed should hike rates continually despite the potential rollover in headline and core CPI measures. Chart 8High Probability Of US Core Inflation Exceeding 4% In The Next 12 Months My colleague, Jonathan Laberge, Managing Editor of the Bank Credit Analyst, has quantitatively estimated that there is a almost 100% probability that in next 12 months core PCE inflation will be above 3%, and a 70% probability that it will be above 4% (Chart 8). All this means that if the Federal Reserve is serious about bringing core inflation closer to 2%, it will have to slow down the economy meaningfully. In short, the Fed cannot both achieve decent growth and bring inflation down to its 2% target in the next 1-2 years. The Fed seemed omnipotent over the past 35 years because inflation was falling or was very low. That allowed US monetary authorities during financial crises/deflationary shocks to cut rates aggressively and flood the system with liquidity. That playbook worked well in a disinflation context and the US central bank has prevented protracted debt deflation. When inflation – rather than deflation – is the problem, authorities can do little without slowing growth. In short, an inflation redux has made US policymakers’ jobs much more difficult. If the Fed tightens too much, the economy will slump. If policymakers drag their feet and do not raise interest rates rapidly and significantly, inflation will hover well above its target and inflation expectations will escalate with negative ramifications for the economy (more on this below). Bottom Line: The Fed is facing an acute dilemma. The Fed will not publicly acknowledge it, but financial markets are gradually waking up to the new reality that the era of an omnipotent Fed might be over, at least for a period of time. Why Not Allow Inflation To Proliferate? Why should authorities tighten policy and slow growth to reduce inflation? Why can’t the US operate with inflation in a range of 3.5-5%? First, there is no guarantee that core inflation will stabilize at 3.5-5% and not rise further. When higher consumer and business inflation expectations set in, they are not easily dislodged. Second, persistent inflation can damage growth itself. High price volatility increases business uncertainty as producers cannot properly plan their costs and selling prices. Higher uncertainty leads companies to abandon expansion projects and new investments. Consequently, economic growth, employment and ultimately productivity suffer. Lower productivity growth creates fertile ground for inflation to thrive. This can lead to stagflation whereby growth slows but inflation remains high. Finally, from a political perspective, inflation can be more damaging to a government’s popularity than modestly high unemployment. For example, if the unemployment rate is at 6-7%, there would be some unhappy voters, but the majority of the population would be employed and their real purchasing power would be rising. Hence, the majority of voters might be content about the incumbent government’s policies.  In an inflation scenario, however, everyone would be unhappy because inflation erodes the purchasing power of household income and wealth. The point is that moderately high unemployment affects a few families who do not have jobs while inflation affects everyone. US politicians and policymakers have forgotten the perils of inflation because rapidly rising prices have not been a problem for decades. Therefore, they have erred on the side of helicopter money assuming that deflationary pressures and higher unemployment are worse than inflation. They have forgotten that inflation is not only worse for the wider population but that it could cause growth to slump resulting in stagflation: a combination of high inflation and high unemployment. Inflation has already become a political problem in the US. With income growth lagging behind inflation, household purchasing power has declined, which has fueled dissatisfaction with the current government. Biden’s popularity has tanked in the past nine months along with the rise of inflation. If inflation is not quelled by this fall, chances are that the Democrats will lose Congress to the Republicans in the midterm elections. Further, if high inflation persists in the next two years, odds of a Republican candidate winning the 2024 presidential elections will be considerable. Recognizing this, the Biden administration will not oppose the Fed’s hawkish policy for now. While we are sympathetic to the view that the Fed will ultimately not raise rates too aggressively, they have no reason not to hike and cannot afford to appear dovish at the current juncture. Even as headline and core inflation measures start falling (which is very likely in the months ahead), the Fed has no excuse to turn dovish. The rationale is that the US core inflation rate, while dropping from 5.5-6%, will still be well above the central bank’s target of 2%. In our opinion, the Fed will make a dovish pivot only after financial conditions tighten substantially, i.e., if the S&P 500 falls by 20% or more (from its peak) and credit spreads widen much more from current levels. Bottom Line: Until panic selling occurs in the equity and credit markets or the economy is materially weaker, the Fed will hike interest rates at every meeting and will start quantitative tightening soon. Thus, US bond yields and the US dollar have more upside for the time being. Overall, the Fed and equity markets are on a collision course: the Fed will not make a dovish pivot until markets sell off and markets cannot rally unless the Fed backs off. Implications For Financial Markets Chart 9Second Half Of The 1960s: The S&P 500 And US Bond Yields Became Negatively Correlated As long as the Fed maintains its hawkish bias (which is very likely in the coming months), US bond yields will rise and/or the yield curve will flatten, the greenback will be firm, and stocks will struggle. The current environment will be more reminiscent of what occurred in the late 1960s than any other period of the past 40 years. In the second half of the 1960s, when US core CPI spiked, US share prices became negatively correlated with US bond yields (Chart 9). We discussed this topic at great length in a report from a year ago. Hawkish monetary policy amid the inflation overshoot means that the Fed appears to be credible, and this stance is positive for the US dollar. As soon as the Fed makes a dovish pivot however, the US dollar will tank. The basis is that by turning dovish earlier than warranted, odds are that inflation would remain well above its target, i.e., the Fed would fall behind the inflation curve. When a central bank is behind the inflation curve, the currency depreciates. Our US Equity Capitulation Indicator has fallen quite a bit but has not yet reached its 2018, 2016, 2011 and 2010 lows (Chart 10). We believe the macro backdrop is poor enough to justify a pullback on par with those selloffs (17-20% from the peak). In such an environment, EM stocks will outperform DM only if the US dollar weakens (Chart 11). Chart 10More Downside In The S&P 500? Chart 11EM Relative Equity Performance Moves With The US Dollar​​ Chart 12Will The Current Episode Play Out Like Q4 2018? Alternatively, we might be witnessing a replay of Q4 2018 when the S&P 500 sold off hard led by tech stocks, but having underperformed earlier that year EM outperformed (Chart 12). While such a scenario is quite possible, we need to downgrade our view on the US dollar in order to upgrade EM stocks from underweight. We are not ready to do so because we believe the Fed’s hawkish bias will for now support the greenback. On the whole, we continue to recommend underweight allocations to EM equities and credit markets within their respective global portfolios. Absolute-return investors should stay cautious on EM risk assets. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1     Please note this is the view of Emerging Markets Strategy team and does not reflect the view of other BCA services.   Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

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

Executive Summary Bull Markets In Malaysian Stocks Are Fully Dependent On Profit Growth The conditions for a major rally/outperformance in Malaysian equities are absent. Profits have been the primary driver of Malaysian equity prices historically, and the corporate earnings outlook is mediocre. Domestic demand is facing headwinds from tightening fiscal policy as well as from impaired credit channels.  Muted wage growth and deflating house prices are sapping consumer confidence. This will dent domestic demand going forward. This backdrop is bullish for bonds. Malaysian bonds offer value, as real bond yields are among the highest in Emerging Asia. The yield curve is far too steep given the growth and inflation outlook.  The Malaysian ringgit is cheap and has limited downside. Bottom Line: We recommend equity investors implement a neutral stance toward Malaysia in overall EM and Emerging Asian equity portfolios. Absolute return investors should avoid this bourse for now. Fixed-income investors, on the other hand, should stay overweight Malaysia in both EM domestic (local currency) and sovereign credit portfolios. In the rate markets, investors should continue receiving 10-year swap rates or bet on yield curve flattening. Feature Chart 1Malaysian Equity Underperformance May Be Late, But It’s Not Yet Time To Overweight Malaysian stocks are still in search of a stable bottom in absolute terms. Relative to their EM and Emerging Asian counterparts however, a bottom has been forming over the past year (Chart 1). So, could Malaysia’s prolonged underperformance be coming to an end?  Our analysis suggests caution. The underlying reasons behind this market’s substantial and protracted underperformance – dwindling earnings both in absolute terms and relative to its peers – are yet to show any signs of a reversal.  While cheap, the ringgit is also negatively impacted by the meager corporate profits generated by Malaysian firms. Investors would do well to stay neutral on this bourse for now in EM and Emerging Asian equity portfolios. Fixed income investors, however, should continue to stay overweight Malaysia in both EM domestic (local currency) and sovereign credit portfolios. Also, Malaysia’s yield curve is too steep and offers value given the sluggish cyclical growth outlook. It’s All About Profits Chart 2 shows that the bull and bear markets in Malaysian stocks have been all about the rise and fall in earnings per share (EPS). Stock multiples, the other possible driver of the equity prices, have been remarkably flat over the past two decades, with only brief periods of fluctuations around the GFC and COVID-19 pandemic. The same can be said about Malaysia’s relative performance vis-à-vis EM and Emerging Asian stocks. The trajectory of the relative stock performance was set by the relative earnings (Chart 3). Chart 3Malaysia’s Relative Performance Is Also Dictated By Relative Corporate Profits Chart 2Bull Markets In Malaysian Stocks Are Fully Dependent On Profit Growth Thus, it is reasonable to expect that for this bourse to usher in a new bull market in absolute terms, Malaysian firms need to grow their earnings sustainably. And in order to outperform the rest of the EM stocks, Malaysian earnings need to grow at a faster clip than their peers. The question therefore is, are there signs of profit recovery in Malaysian companies in absolute and relative terms? The short answer is no. Bottom-up analysts do not expect any change in the downward trend in Malaysia’s relative profits over the coming 12 months. This outlook is corroborated by our macro analysis, as is outlined below. Sluggish Growth  Malaysian profits are languishing in large part because of subdued topline growth. While profit margins are returning to pre-pandemic levels – thanks to cost cutting – subdued sales are causing the corporate profits to stay low. Chart 4Malaysian Domestic Demand Is Subdued Malaysian gross output as of Q4 last year was barely at pre-pandemic levels. The weak recovery is most evident in the dismal level of capital investments. Gross fixed capital formations – in both real and nominal terms – are still a good 15% below their pre-pandemic levels (Chart 4, top two panels). Apathy among businesses in ramping up productive capacity indicates a lack of confidence in consumer demand going forward. Consumption is indeed weak: Unit sales for passenger vehicles continue to be sluggish, and commercial vehicle sales are not faring any better. Consumer sentiment has ticked down in the latest survey indicating retail sales might decelerate (Chart 4, bottom two panels) Consistently, industrial production in consumer goods-related industries is struggling to surpass previous highs, even though strong export demand has provided a fillip to sales. In more domestic-oriented industries such as construction goods, the weakness is palpable (Chart 5). Meanwhile, unemployment rates have fallen marginally, but are still higher than they were before the pandemic. As a result, wages remain subdued. The resulting weak household income is contributing to depressed consumption. With mediocre household income growth, demand for houses has also slowed meaningfully. This is reflected in dwindling property unit sales. The advent of the pandemic and the resulting loss of household income have further aggravated the situation. In fact, prices of certain types of dwelling units, such as semi-detached houses and high-rise apartments, are deflating outright (Chart 6, top panel). Falling house prices weigh on consumer sentiment and discourage future consumption. Chart 6Contracting House Prices Is Hurting Real Estate Sector And Denting Consumer Confidence Chart 5Weak Domestic Demand Is A Headwind To Industrial Production What’s more, the housing sector does not expect an early recovery in sales and prices either. This is evident in the very depressed level of new construction starts (Chart 6, bottom panel). As such, this sector is likely to remain a drag on Malaysia’s post-pandemic recovery. Fiscal And Credit Headwinds Going forward, the recovery will face other headwinds worth noting. One of them is a restrictive fiscal policy. This is because the “statutory debt” ceiling of the government – at 60% of GDP – has already been reached (Chart 7, top panel). This ceiling for statutory debts was fixed by lawmakers as part of a stimulus bill (COVID-19 Act) passed in 2020; and leaves little room for additional fiscal stimulus. Indeed, the IMF estimates that the ‘fiscal thrust’ this year will be negative at 2% of GDP (Chart 7, bottom panel). The country’s credit channel is also compromised. The reason is that Malaysian banks are still saddled with unresolved NPLs. These NPLs are a legacy of a very rapid expansion of bank loans following the GFC. In just five years (2009 -2014), bank credit doubled in nominal terms to 1500 billion ringgit or from 95% of GDP to 125% (Chart 8, top panel). Such fast deployment of credit was bound to cause significant misallocation of capital. And yet banks were averse to recognize impaired loans in any good measure. In fact, during the years of rapid credit growth, banks were recognizing ever fewer amounts in absolute terms as impaired loans. They were also setting aside ever lower amounts as loan loss provisions (Chart 8, second panel). Chart 7Fiscal Policy Will Stay Constrained As Statutory Debt Has Hit The Ceiling Chart 8Both Demand And Supply Of Bank Credit In Malaysia Remains Compromised While bad debt recognition and provisions have risen modestly over the past year, Malaysia’s reported NPL ratio remained under 1.5% of loans (Chart 8, third panel). Loan loss provisions have been equally meager. This indicates that banks’ balance sheets are far from clean. In reality, Malaysian borrowers never went through any deleveraging process following their last credit binge. The bank credit-to-GDP ratio remains at around the same level as it was in 2015 (125% of GDP). By comparison, during Malaysia’s previous deleveraging phase, bank credit was shed from 150% of GDP to 90% (1998 - 2008). Borrowers already saddled with large amounts of debt are much less likely to borrow more to invest and/or consume. This is therefore going to cap credit demand. Chart 9Banks Are Piling Up On Government Securities By Shunning Loans As for banks, an increase in impaired loans makes them reticent to engage in further lending. Instead, they seek to accumulate safer assets such as government bonds. In fact, this is what Malaysian banks have been doing. They have ramped up their holdings of government securities materially since 2015 at the expense of loans and advances (Chart 9, top panel).   After the pandemic-related slowdown in the economy, banks’ loan books are now probably more encumbered with impaired loans.  As such, banks are even less likely to ramp up their loan books in any major way. That will be yet another headwind to economic recovery (Chart 9, bottom panel).    Value In Fixed Income The headwinds to growth do not entail a bullish outlook for Malaysian equities. The outlook for Malaysian local currency bonds, however, is promising. A tightening fiscal policy amid weak domestic demand and subdued inflation is a bullish cocktail for domestic bonds. There is a good chance that Malaysian bond yields will roll over. At a minimum, they will rise less than most other EM countries or US Treasuries. Notably, Malaysia offers one of the highest real yields (nominal yield adjusted for core inflation) in Emerging Asia (Chart 10, top panel). Given the country’s mediocre growth outlook, odds are high that Malaysian local bonds will outperform their EM / Emerging Asian peers (Chart 10, bottom panel). Chart 10Malaysian Bonds Offer One Of The Best Values In Emerging Aisa Chart 11Steep Yield Curve Indicate Value In Bond Space; But Spell Trouble For Bank Stocks The Malaysian swap curve is also far too steep given the country’s macro backdrop. Going forward, the 10-year/1-year swap curve is set to flatten from its decade-steep level of 130 basis points (Chart 11, top panel). That means investors should continue receiving 10-year swap rates. On a related note, a fall in bond yields will not augur well for Malaysian stocks in general, and bank stocks in particular. The middle panel of Chart 11 shows that bank stocks struggle in absolute terms whenever bond yields decline. Incidentally, at 38% of total, banks are by far the largest sector in the MSCI Malaysia Index. And in recent months bank stocks have been propelling the Malaysian market (Chart 11, bottom panel). Should the bourse begin to miss the tailwind from rising bond yields, Malaysian equity performance will be hobbled.    Finally, investors should stay overweight in Malaysian sovereign credit. The country’s orthodox fiscal policy has accorded a defensive nature to this market. As such, periods of global risk-off witness Malaysian sovereign spreads fall relative to their EM counterparts, as they did in 2015 and again in 2020. In the months ahead, rising US inflation and a slowdown in Chinese property markets could cause another such period. That will lead Malaysian sovereign US dollar bonds to continue outperforming their EM peers. What’s With The Ringgit? Chart 12Malaysia Has Not Been Able To Benefit From A Cheap Currency The Malaysian currency is cheap, both in nominal and real terms (Chart 12, top panel). As such, it will likely be one of the most resilient currencies in EM this year. That said, the ringgit has been cheap for a while now (since 2015), and yet the Malaysian economy does not seem to have benefitted much all these years. The inability to take advantage of a cheap currency points to a fundamental malaise in the Malaysian economy: Loss of manufacturing competitiveness, as explained in our previous report on Malaysia. Perhaps equally worryingly, the country has not been able to attract much in the way of capital inflows. What this implies is that global investors did not find Malaysian assets attractive enough despite the benefits of a significantly cheaper currency (Chart 12, bottom panel). A major reason investors have not found the country attractive is because the return on capital on Malaysian assets has continued to deteriorate relative to the rest of the world. The upshot of the above is that, should Malaysian firms be able to improve their profits going forward, Malaysian stocks’ relative performance would get a boost from both higher relative earnings and a stronger currency. However, given the sluggish business cycle outlook as explained above, a sustainable rally in Malaysian stocks or currency is not imminent. Investment Conclusions Chart 13Malaysian Relative Stock Valuations Are On The Cheaper Side Equities: Malaysian stocks have cheapened. Both in terms of P/E ratio and P/book ratio, they are at the lower end of the spectrum relative to their EM counterparts (Chart 13). Yet, given the mediocre growth outlook, we recommend that dedicated EM and Emerging Asian equity portfolios stay neutral on this market for now. Absolute return investors should stay on the sidelines in view of the worsening risk outlook in global markets, and wait for a better entry point later in the year. For local asset allocators in Malaysia, it is too early to overweight stocks relative to bonds over a cyclical horizon. Even though the equity risk premium in general has been much higher since the advent of the pandemic, stocks have struggled to outperform bonds in a total return basis over the past two years. That will likely be the case for several more months given the country’s growth outlook and rising global risks. Fixed Income: Malaysian domestic bonds will outperform their overall EM / Emerging Asian peers. So will Malaysian sovereign credit. Fixed income investors should overweight them in their respective EM / Emerging Asian portfolios. In the rate markets, investors should continue receiving 10-year swap rates. Finally, Malaysian yield curves are set to flatten. Investors should position for a narrowing of the 10-year/1-year yield curve, which is at a decade-high level of 180 basis points. Rajeeb Pramanik Senior EM Strategist rajeeb.pramanik@bcaresearch.com