Commodities & Energy Sector

Executive Summary Oil-Price Risk Skewed Upward Scenarios For Oil Prices Scenarios For Oil Prices The $10-$15/bbl risk premium in Brent prices will dissipate over the next month. Russia's best outcome is to follow the off-ramp offered by the US. President Biden's call to KSA's King Salman last week will result in higher oil output from the Kingdom, the UAE and Kuwait, in return for deeper US defense commitments. The Biden administration and Iran are in a hurry to get a deal done: The US wants lower oil prices, and Iran needs the revenue. Our Brent forecasts for 2022 and 2023 are revised slightly to $81.50 and $79.75/bbl, respectively, reflecting supply-demand adjustments. Price risks are tilted to the upside: A miss on any of the above assumptions will keep prices above $90/bbl, and push them higher. Bottom Line: Oil demand will remain robust this year and next.  To keep prices from surging from current levels into demand-destruction territory, additional supply is needed.  Most of this will come from KSA, the UAE and the US shale-oil producers.  We expect prices to fall from current prompt levels this year and next.  This will support sovereign budgets and oil producers' free cashflow goals.  We remain long the XOP ETF. Feature The $10-$15/bbl risk premium in Brent crude oil prices will dissipate, as the following supply-side events are ticked off: 1)   Russia gets on the off-ramp offered by the US last week to de-escalate the threat of another invasion of Ukraine by withdrawing its troops from the border;1 2)   OPEC 2.0's core producers – the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Kuwait – increase supply in return for deeper US security commitments; 3)   Iran restores its remaining 1.0 – 1.2mm b/d of production to the market, following the restoration of its nuclear deal with Western powers; and 4)   US shale-oil producers step up production in response to higher WTI prices. Politics, Then Economics The first three assumptions above are political in nature, requiring a bargain be struck among contending interests to resolve. We do not believe Russia's endgame is to jeopardize its future oil and gas exports to the West, particularly to the EU (Chart 1). The US is warning that another invasion of Ukraine will put the use of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline to deliver gas to Germany at risk.2 It also is worthwhile noting NATO is aligned with the US on this stance. Russia derived 40-50% of its budget revenues from oil and gas production, and ~ 67% of its export revenue from oil and gas over the decade ended in 2020.3 Of course, only President Putin can determine whether oil and gas sales can be diversified enough – e.g., via higher shipments to China – to offset whatever penalties the West imposes. But, in a game-theoretic sense, the stakes are very high, and taking the US off-ramp is rational. Chart 1Russia's Critical Exports: Oil + Gas Lower Oil Prices On The Way Lower Oil Prices On The Way We expect the second assumption to play out in the near term, following US President Joe Biden's call to KSA's King Salman last week. The outreach stressed the US commitment to defend KSA and, presumably, its close allies in the Gulf (the UAE and Kuwait).4 KSA already has increased its production to 10.15mm b/d under the OPEC 2.0 agreement to restore 400k b/d beginning in August 2021. We estimate the coalition had fallen behind on this effort by ~ 1mm b/d, as only KSA, the UAE and Kuwait presently have the capacity to lift production and sustain it (Table 1). KSA's reference production level agreed at OPEC 2.0's July 2021 meeting will rise to 11.5mm b/d in June, up 500k b/d from its current level (Table 2). This means KSA could flex into another 850k b/d between now and the end of May; and another 500k b/d after that. The UAE's and Kuwait's reference production levels will rise 330k and 150k b/d in June to 3.5mm b/d and 3.0mm b/d, respectively. Markets will need these incremental volumes as demand continues to recover and non-core OPEC 2.0 production continues to fall (Chart 2). Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) To Dec23 Lower Oil Prices On The Way Lower Oil Prices On The Way Table 2Baseline Increases For Core OPEC 2.0 Lower Oil Prices On The Way Lower Oil Prices On The Way Our third assumption reflects our reading of the signaling by Iran over the past few weeks, which indicate growing confidence a deal with the US to restore the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is in the offing.5 The politics here converge with the economics: the Biden Administration wants to increase oil supply ahead of mid-term elections in the US to keep gasoline prices under control; Iran needs to increase its revenues. Both sides get an immediate need satisfied. However, the risks to KSA and its Gulf allies will increase as Iran's revenues grow, because it will be able to fund proxy-war operations against the Gulf states. This is why deepening the US defense commitment to the region is critical to KSA and its allies. The last assumption reflects our view US E+P companies are being incentivized to lift production by high prompt and deferred prices. We continue to expect these companies – particularly those in the US shales, where the majority of the production increase will occur – to husband their capital resources closely, and to continue to prioritize shareholder interests. As capital availability declines – primarily due to reduced investor interest in investing in hydrocarbon production – these firms will have to focus on reducing operating costs and increasing productivity over the next decade to fund growth. Relative to 2021, we expect US oil production to increase 0.85mm b/d this year and by 0.53mm b/d in 2023 relative to this year, as producers respond to higher prices (Chart 3). Chart 2Increased Core OPEC 2.0 Production Becoming Critical Lower Oil Prices On The Way Lower Oil Prices On The Way Chart 3US Oil Production Will See Another Up Leg US Oil Production Will See Another Up Leg US Oil Production Will See Another Up Leg Supply-Demand Balances Are Tight Global oil demand growth this year is reduced slightly in our balances – going to 4.5mm b/d from 4.8mm b/d, mostly reflecting our assessment of slowing growth as central banks remove monetary accommodation. We lifted next year's growth estimate slightly, to 1.7mm b/d. These estimates still leave our growth expectations above the major data providers, the highest of which is OPEC's 4.2mm b/d estimate. We continue to expect DM demand to level off this year and next, and EM demand to retake its position as the global demand growth engine (Chart 4). The supply side remains tight, with average global crude oil and liquid fuels production estimated at 101.5mm b/d for 2022 and 102.8mm b/d for next year. With demand expected to average 101.5mm b/d this year and 103.2mm b/d next year, markets will remain balanced but tight (Chart 5). This means inventories will continue to be strained, leaving little in the way of a cushion to absorb unexpected supply losses (Chart 6).  Chart 4EM Demand Retakes Growth-Engine Role EM Demand Retakes Growth-Engine Role EM Demand Retakes Growth-Engine Role Chart 5Markets Remain Balanced But Tight... Markets Remain Balanced But Tight... Markets Remain Balanced But Tight... Chart 6...Keeping Pressure On Inventories ...Keeping Pressure On Inventories ...Keeping Pressure On Inventories Markets Remain Balanced But Tight Our supply-demand analysis indicates markets will remain balanced but tight, with inventories under pressure until supply increases. This will predispose markets to higher price volatility, as low inventories force prices to ration supply. This will increase the backwardation in the Brent and WTI curves, which will bolster the convenience yield in both of these markets (Chart 7).6 We expect implied volatility to remain elevated, as a result (Chart 8). Chart 7Backwardation Will Keep Convenience Yield Elevated Lower Oil Prices On The Way Lower Oil Prices On The Way Chart 8High Volatility Will Persist High Volatility Will Persist High Volatility Will Persist Because of these low inventory values, Brent prices for 2022 are higher than our previous estimate. By 2023, the effects of increased supply from KSA, UAE, Kuwait – albeit a marginal increase – and the US kick in to reduce prices. As supply increases, the risk premium currently embedded in Brent prices will decline, pushing them to our forecasted levels for 2022 and 2023 of $81.50/bbl and $79.75/bbl, respectively. For 1H22, we expect Brent prices to average $87.20/bbl, and in 2H22 we're forecasting a price of $75.80/bbl on the back of increased production. Next year, higher output will keep prices close to $80/bbl, with 1H23 Brent averaging $79.85 and 2H23 averaging $79.70/bbl. Word Of Caution Our analysis is predicated on strong assumptions regarding the incentives of oil producers taking a rational view of the need for stability and supply in markets. The bottom panel of Chart 9 provides an indication of how tenuous markets are if our assumptions are mistaken, and core OPEC 2.0 does not increase production, Iranian barrels are not returned to the market, or the US shale supply response is less vigorous than we expect. The highest price trajectory occurs when all of our assumptions prove wrong, which takes Brent prices above $140/bbl by the end of 2023. It goes without saying this is non-trivial. But we'll say it anyway: This is non-trivial. We can reasonably expect feedback loops in such a case – e.g., US and Canadian production kicks into high gear, and once-idled North Sea are brought back into service. However, this takes time, and will cause demand destruction on a global scale. Chart 9Scenarios For Oil Prices Scenarios For Oil Prices Scenarios For Oil Prices   Investment Implications Oil markets will remain tight and volatile until additional supplies are forthcoming. We are expecting core OPEC 2.0 to lift output by 3.2mm b/d this year, and for the US Lower 48 production to average 9.8mm b/d. The US production increase will be led by higher shale-oil output, which we expect to average 7.4mm b/d this year and 7.8mm b/d in 2023. Given the tight markets we expect, we remain long the XOP ETF, and commodity index exposure in the form of the S&P GSCI and the COMT ETF, an optimized version of the S&P GSCI.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com   Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish Marketed volumes of US natural gas are expected to hit a record high of just under 107 Bcf/d next year as prices stabilize close to $4/MMBtu, in the EIA's latest estimate. This is up from just over 104 Bcf/d of marketed production this year, which itself was a 3 Bcf/d increase over 2021 levels. Almost all of this will come from the Lower 48 (97%). We expect US LNG exports to increase on the back of rising production and further investment in export terminals. Most of this will be shipped to Europe, in our estimation, as EU states seek to diversify LNG sources in the wake of the Russia-Ukraine standoff currently underway. LNG imports accounted for roughly one-fifth of all natural gas supplied to the UK and EU-27 in 2020, according to the EIA, which notes, "Growing volumes of flexible LNG supplies, primarily from the United States, contributed to the notable increases in LNG imports to Europe from 2019 to 2021." Wide price differentials can be expected to support the flow of LNG to Europe from the US (Chart 10). Base Metals: Bullish Iron ore prices took a hit after China’s National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) stated its intentions to stabilize iron ore markets, crack down on speculation and false price disclosures after prices in 2022 rallied sharply last week.  Authorities believe price strength is coming from speculation and hoarding, which is adding to inflationary pressures.  However, fundamental factors have been, and likely will keep iron ore prices buoyed.  Based on past steel inventory levels and seasonal patterns, steel production will increase and more than double current inventory levels by end-March. Monetary policy easing, and the push by China’s steel industry to become carbon-neutral over the next five years are additional fundamental factors supporting iron ore prices. Precious Metals: Bullish The January print for US CPI jumped 7.5% year-on-year, beating estimates as headline inflation rose to a 40-year high.  Markets are expecting around five interest increases this year (Chart 11).  BCA’s US Bond Strategy expects rate hikes will be around 100 – 125 bps this year.  Gold prices initially fell on the possibility of increasing rate hikes and a hawkish Fed, but in the second half of last week settled at subsequently higher prices on each day.  Apart from increased inflation demand, this was likely due to markets’ fear of the possibility of an ultra-hawkish Fed, which could tighten US financial conditions and see a rotation out of US equity markets into safe-haven assets or into other markets ex-US, both of which will be bullish for gold. Chart 10 Lower Oil Prices On The Way Lower Oil Prices On The Way Chart 11 US Policy Rate Expectations Going Up US Policy Rate Expectations Going Up         Footnotes 1     Please see Background Press Call by a Senior Administration Official on the President’s Call with Russian President Vladimir Putin, released by the US White House on February 12, 2022. 2     Please see Long-Term EU Gas Volatility Will Increase, which we published on February 3, 2022 for further discussion.  The EU is a huge market for Russia supplies Germany with 65% of its gas.  Approximately 78% of total natural gas exports (pipeline + LNG) from Russia went to the EU in 2020. 3    Please see Russia’s Unsustainable Business Model: Going All In on Oil and Gas, published on January 19, 2021 by the Hague Centre for Strategic Studies (HCSS). 4    Please see Readout of President Joseph R. Biden, Jr.’s Call with King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud of Saudi Arabia, released on February 7, 2022. The readout noted, " issues of mutual concern, including Iranian-enabled attacks by the Houthis against civilian targets in Saudi Arabia." Energy security also was discussed, which we read as code for a deal to increase production in return for a deepening of US defense commitments. This line is followed closely by Gulf media – e.g., It took Biden a year to realize Saudi Arabia’s vital regional role, published by arabnews.com on February 13, 2022, which notes: "If Putin decides to invade Ukraine, the Saudis are the only ones who could help relieve the unsteady oil markets by pumping more crude, being the largest crude exporter in the OPEC oil production group. The White House emphasized that both leaders further reiterated the commitment of the US and Saudi Arabia in ensuring the stability of global energy supplies. 5    Please see Iran 'is in a hurry' to revive nuclear deal if its interests secured -foreign minister, published by reuters.com on February 14, 2022. 6    Please see our November 4, 2021 report entitled Despite Weaker Prices Crude Oil Backwardation Will Persist for additional discussion of convenience yields and volatility.   Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Trades Closed in 2021 Image  

Executive Summary Energy Industry Is Driven By Multi-year Capex Cycles Energy Industry Is Driven By Multi-year Capex Cycles Energy Industry Is Driven By Multi-year Capex Cycles Demand: Crude oil demand is expected to return to trend driven by strong economic growth and the receding pandemic. Supply: Production remains suppressed because of curtailments by OPEC 2.0 members, investment restraint from US producers, and multiple supply disruptions. To meet the increasing oil demand, the US shale oil producers are now perfectly positioned to pick up slack in supply. New Capex Cycle: The industry’s Capex is inherently cyclical – there are early signs of the new “up” leg.  Geopolitics: Sizzling tensions with Iran, Russia, and a possible new market share war with the Saudis may lead to volatility in crude oil prices. Bottom Line: The US Energy sector is in the early innings of the new Capex and production cycle on the back of growing demand for oil and gas, and faltering supply from OPEC 2.0 members. Stay tuned for an upcoming Part II of the report where we will provide investment recommendations for the Energy sub-sectors. Feature This week, we start a “deep dive” into the Energy sector, aiming to make an educated decision regarding Energy sector allocations – is it time to take profits after a strong run, or does the rally still have legs? We are currently overweight Energy, with the position outperforming the S&P 500 by 32% since we initiated it in December 2021. This is a two-part report. In today’s publication, we will overview the industry landscape, and analyze global supply and demand for oil, price forecasts, and geopolitical undercurrents. Next week, we will cover the Energy sector’s macroeconomic backdrop, fundamentals, and valuations. We will use the analysis to provide investment recommendations for the sector, as well as offer a granular view on the prospects of each Energy industry group. Stay tuned! Performance All of a sudden, the Energy sector, a humble chronic underperformer, the weight of which in the S&P 500 has melted from 15% to 5% over the past 15 years, is hot again and is a focal point of investor attention. Indeed, Energy was the best performing sector in 2021 and is the only sector with positive absolute returns YTD, outperforming the S&P 500 by 30%. Despite a strong recent run, Energy is still 18% behind the S&P 500 since January 2020, and 72% since 2008 (Chart 1). Chart 1Energy Has Lagged The S&P 500 Since 2020 Energy Has Lagged The S&P 500 Since 2020 Energy Has Lagged The S&P 500 Since 2020 Table 1 Energy: After Seven Lean Years (Part I) Energy: After Seven Lean Years (Part I) The Early Innings Of A New Capex Cycle The energy industry is inherently cyclical, driven by multi-year Capex cycles. Supply shortages and high oil prices beget years of elevated capital spending, which boosts production to unsustainable levels. Once the market is flooded with oil, prices collapse, and “seven lean years” of underinvestment commence (Chart 2). Case in point: Energy industry Capex has been in a downcycle since 2014 when Saudi Arabia flooded the market with oil to protect its market share and confront Iran. Recent supply shortages have been further exacerbated by a broad push towards “green” energy, fortified by government incentives, regulations, and shareholder activism directed against fossil fuels. Just last year, a hedge fund called Engine No. 1, backed up by BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street, installed three new directors on Exxon’s board with a declared effort to force the company to reduce its carbon footprint. Politicians’ and investors’ aversion to the “dirty sources of energy” translates into a higher cost of capital for oil producers and reluctance to invest despite rising prices. Ironically, “greenification” has led to a higher price of oil and constrained output – producing a profit windfall for the oil and gas producers. Chart 2Energy Industry Is Driven By Multi-year Capex Cycles Energy Industry Is Driven By Multi-year Capex Cycles Energy Industry Is Driven By Multi-year Capex Cycles Further, not only were oil producers overly cautious and concerned about the sustainability of higher oil prices but also, once compelled to go ahead with multi-million-dollar investments, they could not react fast enough – it takes six to eight months to ramp up production. This explains the recent dichotomy between the WTI and the Energy sector return (Chart 3). Chart 3Dichotomy Between WTI And Energy Sector Returns Dichotomy Between WTI And Energy Sector Returns Dichotomy Between WTI And Energy Sector Returns Chart 4Rig Count Is Rising Again Rig Count Is Rising Again Rig Count Is Rising Again Now that the industry is flush with cash and gaining confidence in the sustainability of higher prices, it is cautiously increasing production and adding rigs. Capex is expected to rise by 25% year-over-year in 2022, and by 7% in 2023. Rig count increased by 11% in 2021 (Chart 4). Industry Structure Energy Sector Composition The energy sector consists of four distinct segments, with each segment corresponding to a section of the oil production value chain (Figure 1). The GICS sector classification classifies them as Oil & Gas Exploration and Production (aka E&P or Upstream segment), Oil & Gas Equipment and Services Companies, Storage and Transportation (Midstream), and Refining and Marketing (Downstream). Integrated Oil & Gas companies straddle the entire supply chain. Integrated Oil Companies constitute almost half of the S&P 500 Energy sector, with E&P at just over a quarter (Chart 5). The Energy sector is not as top heavy as some of its “new technology” brethren in the overall market index. Of all the segments, Midstream has the highest margins, as its fees are a function of output as opposed to the price of oil (Chart 6). Energy Services is most challenged as its revenue is a function of E&P Capex and is highly leveraged to the oil price. Figure 1The Energy Industry Supply Chain Energy: After Seven Lean Years (Part I) Energy: After Seven Lean Years (Part I) Chart 5The Sector Is Dominated By E&P And Integrated Oil Companies Energy: After Seven Lean Years (Part I) Energy: After Seven Lean Years (Part I) Chart 6Profitability Varies Across Segments Energy: After Seven Lean Years (Part I) Energy: After Seven Lean Years (Part I) Upstream: E&P Segment This segment is the first step in the production process. E&P companies focus on exploration, discovery, and managing the production of new and established wells. The success of these companies is largely a function of their ability to find new profitable oil and gas deposit sites. Development of new rigs is a sophisticated technological process that requires hundreds of millions of dollars in capital outlays without much guarantee of success. In addition, tight oil (aka shale) wells have steep declines in the early years of their production, requiring continuous drilling of new wells to maintain production rates. The E&P companies also have to constantly look for and develop new extraction sites. This is the riskiest energy segment – the E&P companies must manage the dual uncertainty of the exploration process and of the price of crude, for which they are perfect price-takers. As a result, E&P stocks have the highest beta of all segments to the price of oil. In this business, economies of scale and diversification certainly help profitability – larger companies in the sector tend to have a higher RoE (Chart 7). The largest and most well-known upstream companies are ConocoPhilips (COP), EOG Resources (EOG), and Pioneer Natural Resources (PXD). The E&P ETF is XOP. Chart 7Larger Companies Tend To Have A Higher RoE Energy: After Seven Lean Years (Part I) Energy: After Seven Lean Years (Part I) Energy Equipment And Services (E&S) Segment This segment supplies equipment and services, such as drilling, to the E&P companies. Once a new oil or gas discovery is vetted and gets the go-ahead, upstream companies allocate resources for the development of a new site. To put it simply, upstream companies’ Capex is E&S firms’ revenue. In addition, the E&S companies maintain existing wells, retire depleted ones, and complete unfinished wells (as is happening now). Consequently, this sub-sector is tightly linked to the well-being of exploration companies, and through them, to the crude oil and gas prices. Over the past seven “lean years”, upstream companies’ newly-found Capex discipline, and a push to return cash to shareholders, was quite a blow for the E&S companies. To survive, many had to look for new sources of revenue, such as servicing green energy projects. Recent oil and gas shortages and a rising rig count are a notable change of fortune for these companies. However, the E&P companies are still in a frugal and cautious mindset and are focusing on the completion of drilled-but-uncompleted wells (DUCs), whose number has decreased by 29% in 2021.1 This work is less lucrative for the E&S companies than drilling new wells. Some of the largest players in the industry are Baker Hughes (BKR), Halliburton (HAL), and Schlumberger (SLB). The ETF is XES. Midstream: Storage And Transportation (S&T) Segment S&T companies are involved in the transportation, storage, and trading of unrefined oil after it has been taken out of the ground by the upstream firms. There are several modes of oil transportation: Marine vessels, trucks, and pipes. While the first two modes are straightforward, it is pipelines that put the overall energy industry into political crosshairs. Since pipelines must go through someone’s land, midstream companies often get caught in land rights or related environmental battles. As a result, the industry is heavily regulated, and many projects are blocked and dropped after multi-year delays and millions in legal fees. But all in all, this segment faces less uncertainty than other segments as its sales are a function of production volume as opposed to the price of oil. It also requires more moderate capital outlays than the upstream segment. Kinder Morgan (KMI), ONEOK (OKE), and Williams (WMB) are the key players in this space. Downstream: Refining And Marketing (R&M) Segment Refining and marketing crude oil completes the energy industry value chain. Refining is a complex process that transforms raw crude that has little use into end-user products such as motor fuel, heating oil, or plastics. These products are then marketed for distribution on a wholesale basis to be sold to the consumer, business, and government sectors. Refiners run mostly high fixed cost operations and benefit from higher volumes. These companies are less sensitive to the price of crude as they make money on the crack spread, or the difference between the price of raw and refined oil. In 2021, utilization rates of refiners got back to 90% of pre-pandemic levels. Marathon Petroleum (MPC), Valero Energy (VLO), and Phillips 66 (PSX) are the three R&M companies in the S&P 500 Energy benchmark. Integrated Oil And Gas (Integrated) While most players in the industry typically specialize within their segment, Chevron (CVX), ExxonMobil (XOM), and Occidental Petroleum (OXY) are exceptions. These are vertically integrated companies that operate in every segment of the value chain, from upstream to downstream. These are the largest and most diversified industry players, less dependent on the price of oil or Capex cycle than companies in the other segments. Oil And Gas Consumption For many laymen, like myself, oil and gas stand for driving and cooking. However, the uses of energy products are diverse and touch nearly every sector of the global economy. According to EIA (Figure 2), in 2020, motor gasoline stood for 44%, jet fuel for 6%, and hydrocarbons for 18% of overall oil and gas output. In terms of sectors, 66% went to the Transportation sector, and 28% to the Industrial sector for example as plastics. In 2022, we expect a further pick-up in demand for fuel from the aviation industry, and from car drivers – as COVID-19 gradually morphs from a pandemic into an endemic illness, and demand for travel increases. Figure 2US Petroleum Products Consumption By Source And Sector, 2020 Energy: After Seven Lean Years (Part I) Energy: After Seven Lean Years (Part I) Supply And Demand Oil Demand Recovery To Continue EIA reports that “global oil consumption outpaced oil production for the six consecutive quarters, ending with the fourth quarter of 2021 (4Q21), which has led to persistent withdrawals from global oil inventories and significant increases in crude oil prices”.2 According to BCA Research’s Chief Commodity and Energy Strategist Bob Ryan, demand will continue to return to trend (Chart 8), barring too-high prices or another full-scale COVID-induced lockdown in a key market like China. He also emphasizes that increase in oil demand is being driven by economic growth, and consumers are likely to withstand higher prices, as long they don’t become entrenched at over $90/bbl. We concur. Chart 8Global Oil Demand Expected To Get Back On Track Global Oil Demand Expected To Get Back On Track Global Oil Demand Expected To Get Back On Track Supply From OPEC 2.0 Is Faltering – US Shale To The Rescue! Crude oil production remained suppressed because of curtailments by OPEC 2.0 members, investment restraint from US oil producers, and other supply disruptions. To meet the increasing oil demand, the core OPEC 2.0 member states ex-Russia, i.e., Saudi Arabia, Iraq, the UAE, and Kuwait, need to restore production taken off the market in the wake of the pandemic. According to the Oxford Institute of Energy Studies (OIES), this year OPEC 2.0 "will struggle to return more than 2 mb/d of withheld supplies in 2022, compared to the headline target of 3.76 mb/d."3 In the face of ongoing downgrades in the inability of OPEC 2.0 member states, including Russia, to increase output, the US shale oil producers need to pick up slack in supply. BCA’s Commodity & Energy Strategy (CES) projects that, in 2023, US crude oil production will return to the pre-pandemic high (Chart 9). Chart 9US Oil Production Has To Increase US Oil Production Has To Increase US Oil Production Has To Increase So far the increase in US output has been slow, mostly because it takes six to eight months after an oil price increase to assemble rigs and crews to significantly lift production from current levels.4 Supply And Demand – Mostly Balanced With oil demand normalizing, and US shale producers gearing up to make up shortfalls from OPEC 2.0 producers, markets are likely to remain balanced (Chart 10). The implication is price stability barring geopolitical shocks (which may be many). Chart 10Market Remains Tight But Mostly Balanced Market Remains Tight But Mostly Balanced Market Remains Tight But Mostly Balanced Chart 11Brent Forecasts Center Around /bbl For 2022 Brent Forecasts Center Around $80/bbl For 2022 Brent Forecasts Center Around $80/bbl For 2022 Price Forecasts On the back of faltering oil supply from OPEC 2.0 and steady demand recovery, BCA’s CES forecasts the Brent oil price to average $80/bbl this year, and $81/bbl in 2023. This call is in line with market consensus, with most estimates clustered around the $80-$85/bbl range. EIS forecasts are more conservative – WTI is set to decline from the current price of $90 to $75 in 2022, and $68 in 2023 (Chart 11). To put these prices into context: $46/barrel is a breakeven cost of a well in the Permian Midland, and $64 is an average WTI price used by executives for planning their Capex in 2022.5 Geopolitical Tensions: Uncertainty Will Lead To Oil Price Volatility Supply shortages, due to OPEC 2.0’s inability to raise output, coupled with a time lag in restarting US shale rigs, are exacerbated by geopolitical tensions involving Iran and Russia. According to BCA Research’s Geopolitical Strategist Matt Gertken, we are to expect significant volatility in oil and gas prices due to uncertainty associated with Iran and Russia. The US is seeking to rejoin the 2015 nuclear deal, which would be a stop-gap solution to tensions with Iran. The Biden Administration wishes to avoid an energy shock in 2022 ahead of the midterm elections and may be willing to lift sanctions on Iran to that end. Iran may be willing to agree to the original deal to reduce sanctions, knowing that the deal begins to expire as early as 2025. However, the Iranian government does not have an incentive to halt progress on its nuclear and missile program, and it also fears another US change of ruling party in 2024-25. Therefore, any removal of US sanctions will be a temporary solution: It will boost oil supply in the short run but may not have a lasting impact as regional military threats to oil production will revive sooner than expected. However, Gertken thinks that the likelihood of a deal with Iran is less than 50/50. In that case, sanctions will stay in effect, Iran will achieve breakout uranium enrichment capacity, Israel will dial-up military threats, and the price of oil will see a rising risk premium, with higher odds of a major supply disruption. Russia invading Ukraine will also trigger sanctions and a cut-off of natural gas that flows through Ukraine to Europe, which will lead to a further supply squeeze and a potential shock that would weigh on European and global growth. In that case, from a geopolitical perspective, the Saudis and Americans will increase production to prevent demand destruction. Thus, the most likely outcome is heightened oil price volatility. However, in a way, this outcome is somewhat favorable to US producers as prices would be loosely anchored around the current level. This said, a key opposing geopolitical risk is a drastic move by OPEC, i.e., by the Saudis, who are capable of flooding the market with oil. This move would be aimed both at Iran and the US shale producers, to preempt loss of market share by lowering the price of oil and removing incentives for the other oil producers to ramp up production in response to growing global demand. The Saudis might do this if the US and Iran strike a new deal and the US is about to lift sanctions on Iran. The effect of such a potential move by OPEC will have a much more severe effect on the oil prices than if the US lifts sanctions on Iran. BCA’s Commodity & Energy Strategy argues that it is highly likely that OPEC 2.0 will increase output in response to strong global growth, but that the Saudis will not initiate a full-fledged market-share war as they did in 2014. Bottom Line The US Energy sector is in the early innings of the new Capex and production cycle. Strong and growing demand for oil and gas, and faltering supply from OPEC 2.0, exacerbated by the geopolitical tensions with Iran and Russia, put the US Energy sector into the driver’s seat to ramp up production and pick up slack in global supply.   Irene Tunkel Chief Strategist, US Equity Strategy irene.tunkel@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1     CFRA, Upstream & Downstream Energy Survey, January 2022. 2     https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/ 3    Please see Key Themes for the Global Energy Economy in 2022 published by the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies on January 18, 2022. 4    Today, operators develop their acreage in a “manufacturing-style” process: First, 6-12 horizontal wells are drilled in succession on the same drilling pad, each well radiating out on a different path; then, after all the wells are drilled, the completion equipment is brought to the pad and the wells are fracked and put online in a similar assembly-line fashion. While this process is far more efficient in terms of both time and capital, allowing each active rig to drill more wells per year, it does mean that the average time lag between drilling a well and realizing production from that well takes six to eight months. 5    Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, Survey of Executives of 122 oil and gas firms, December 8-16, 2021.   Recommended Allocation

  Executive Summary Inflation Expectations Likely Too Low Inflation Expectations Likely Too Low Inflation Expectations Likely Too Low Inverted term structures for industrial commodities likely are being interpreted as forecasts of lower prices. This leads investors to assume the real economy will not be a source of persistent inflationary pressure. This is misguided: Backwardations (i.e., inverted forward curves) are evidence of tight markets facing severe upside price pressures, not lower prices ahead. Oil and base metals prices share a stronger relationship with US 5-year/5-year inflation expectations than gold, which is more correlated with short-term inflation expectations. Increases in US permanent unemployment are positively correlated with 5y5y inflation expectations. This suggests markets price in a more accommodative Fed as permanent unemployment increases, and vice versa. US PCEPI realized core inflation is negatively correlated with permanent unemployment levels, suggesting markets are pricing lower inflation as permanent unemployment rises, and vice versa. Bottom Line: Markets generally exhibit well-anchored inflation expectations. We believe these will be undone by profound backwardations in industrial commodities, which point to steadily increasing inflation pressures from the real economy to end-2023. Thereafter, oil and metals demand will continue to grow faster than supply, as the renewable-energy transition picks up steam. We remain long commodity-index exposure, and industrial-commodity producers' equity via ETFs. Feature Backwardated forward curves for industrial commodities – oil and base metals, in particular – are clear evidence these markets are pricing to severe physical supply deficits, which presently are being covered by drawing down inventories.1 These inverted term structures for industrial commodities likely are being interpreted as forecasts of lower prices, which leads investors to assume the real economy will not be a source of more permanent inflationary pressure. This is misguided, in our view: Profound inversions in the term structure of commodities (i.e., backwardations) are evidence of tight markets facing severe upside price pressures. Persistently tight supply-demand balances are keeping the forward curves of industrial commodities backwardated, as inventories are drawn down to cover physical supply deficits. These deficits are dramatically evident in oil markets (Chart 1) and copper markets (Chart 2), both of which are widely followed by investors and corporates alike. Chart 1Tight Oil Markets Tight Oil Markets Tight Oil Markets Chart 2Coppers Physical Deficits Will Persist... Coppers Physical Deficits Will Persist... Coppers Physical Deficits Will Persist...   Higher Commodity Prices, Higher Inflation In Chart 3, we show the difference between the forecast outcome of US 5-year/5-year (US5y5y) CPI inflation expectations drawn from the CPI swap markets as a function of our internal oil-price forecasts and commodity forwards reflecting futures-contract settlements. These curves show the model based on the futures curve understates the expected path of inflation expectations versus our oil-price forecasts. When we used our higher oil price forecasts – based on the scenario where OPEC 2.0 and the US fail to increase oil supply in 2022 and 2023 – US5y5y rates tracked the increase in oil prices. The results of these forecasts show that oil prices, and more broadly, the real economy, feeds directly  into inflation expectations. We modelled the US5y5y rates as a function of additional commodity prices as well – namely, copper and gold (Chart 4). The coefficients for commodity prices associated with the levels equation was always positive, irrespective of the commodity, implying that commodity prices and inflation expectations share a long-run equilibrium. We ran these regressions with nearer term forward inflation expectation rates as well, and found the direction of the relationship held.2 Chart 3Inflation Expectations Likely Too Low Inflation Expectations Likely Too Low Inflation Expectations Likely Too Low Chart 4Consistent Relationships Between Commodities and Inflation Expectations Consistent Relationships Between Commodities and Inflation Expectations Consistent Relationships Between Commodities and Inflation Expectations Gold Hedges Shorter-Term Inflation Expectations Gold prices had a stronger relationship to nearer-term forward inflation expectation rates than WTI and COMEX copper prices, in our modeling. On the other hand, WTI and COMEX copper prices had stronger relationships with longer-term forward inflation expectation rates than gold prices. These results suggest different commodities can be used to hedge different segments of the inflation-expectations term structure, which is a novel outcome to our modeling. This strongly suggests a portfolio of gold, copper and crude oil – using futures, commodity indices or physical assets – can hedge the inflation-expectations term structure. Labor Markets And Inflation Expectations We also modelled realized monthly inflation and US5y5y inflation expectations as a function of permanent job losses, a series maintained by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).  The coefficient associated with permanent job losses was positive (Chart 5). Increases in US permanent job losses are positively correlated with 5y5y inflation expectations. This suggests markets price in a more accommodative Fed in the future as permanent unemployment increases, and vice versa. This positive relationship holds even when WTI and copper prices are added as regressors to the equation. We also find that realized US PCEPI core inflation – the Fed's preferred gauge – is negatively correlated with permanent unemployment levels, suggesting markets are pricing lower inflation as permanent job losses increase (Chart 6). This also is intuitively appealing in the model, as it points toward the markets' assessments of Fed policy functions. Chart 5Labor Markets Also Effect Inflation Expectations Labor Markets Also Effect Inflation Expectations Labor Markets Also Effect Inflation Expectations Chart 6Lower Inflation When Permanent Job Losses Rises Lower Inflation When Permanent Job Losses Rises Lower Inflation When Permanent Job Losses Rises Investment Implications In earlier research, we showed commodity prices generally feed directly into realized inflation and inflation expectations (Chart 7).3 In the current report, we also showed that different commodities are better suited for hedging inflation expectations at different points along the inflation forward curve, which is a novel finding. We continue to expect the global energy transition to keep industrial commodities well bid for at least the next decade, as markets are forced to reconcile increasing demand for hydrocarbons and base metals with flat to declining supplies. On top of this, as we have noted in the past, there is a growing list of exogenous threats to the supply side. Among them are the election of left-of-center governments in important commodity-producing states, which have campaigned on redistributionist agendas; climate activism at the board level at major energy suppliers and in the courtroom, and mounting calls for still-undefined ESG compliance. Chart 7Commodity Indices Move Closely With Inflation Expectations Commodity Indices Move Closely With Inflation Expectations Commodity Indices Move Closely With Inflation Expectations All of these threats – not to mention increasing geopolitical threats globally – add uncertainty to the evolution of commodity markets and increase the costs of producing commodities. As supply curves become more inelastic, higher prices for these commodities will be required to allocate capital and ration demand. We remain long commodity-index exposure, and industrial-commodity producers' equity via ETFs.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com   Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish US liquified natural gas (LNG) exports surged to an average of 11.2 Bcf/d last month, an 8% increase from the 10.4 Bcf/d shipped ex-US in 4Q21, according to the US EIA. Continued strength in Asia and Europe were responsible for the increase. The EIA cited the low level of European inventories for the sharp move higher. We have been expecting European demand to remain strong coming out of winter, as inventories are rebuilt (Chart 8). Exports are expected to average 11.3 Bcf/d this year, or 16% above 2021 levels. Base Metals: Bullish LME aluminum prices hit their highest since 2008, on the back of low inventory levels and supply disruptions (Chart 9). Industrial metals generally are facing tight markets, with nickel hitting a decade high earlier this year. Towards the end of last year, Zinc prices started rising and are now closing in on the decade high seen in October 2021. Low inventories of these metals in different parts of the world are backwardating forward curves and causing prices to rise. For example, according to data from World Bureau of Metal Statistics, Zinc LME stocks were only at 1,650 tons in December in Europe. Reduced supply and refining activity in Europe and China, have contributed to these markets’ tightness. In Europe, high power prices have caused smelters to stop production, while in China, refining activity has fallen due to the country’s zero-COVID tolerance policy.   Precious Metals: Bullish According to the Australian Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources, the semiconductor chip shortage is expected to result in 7.7 million fewer vehicles being made in 2021. According to data from SFA Oxford via Heraeus, in 2021, automotive demand is forecast to constitute 80% of total palladium demand. The underperforming automotive sector, which makes up a significant chunk of palladium demand, led to Palladium being one of the worst performing commodities in 2021. The chip shortage will persist into 2022, pressuring automotive demand for platinum and palladium. Weak auto production will affect platinum to a lesser extent, since demand from automotive manufacturing constitutes just ~30% of total demand. Recently, however, palladium prices rose on geopolitical uncertainty arising from the escalating Russia-Ukraine conflict. Russia constitutes ~ 43% of global palladium production. Chart 8 Commodities Unmoor Inflation Expectations Commodities Unmoor Inflation Expectations Chart 9 Aluminum Hitting Highs Aluminum Hitting Highs     Footnotes 1     Chart on p. 1 (Chart 3 below) shows the impact the backwardation in crude oil has on forecasted US 5-year/5-year inflation expectations in Model Output 2. The backwardation in Model Output 3 lowers the US5y5y estimate, while our forecast for higher prices raises the inflation expectation. We have written at length on this topic, most recently in our reports of on January 27, 2022, Short Squeezes In Copper, Nickel Highlight Tight Metals Markets, on January 6, 2022, Persistent Inflation Pressures From Commodities and on November 4, 2021, in a report entitled Despite Weaker Prices Crude Oil Backwardation Will Persist. These reports are available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2     COMEX copper and WTI oil futures are stronger regressors in explaining US5y5y – i.e., their shared long-term trend (i.e., cointegration) is stronger (statistically speaking) than gold futures. This is particularly evident in the regressions of US5y5y employing realized CPI monthly inflation and US real exchange rates as additional explanatory variables in the equations using the industrial-commodity prices. It is worthwhile noting that the 3-year forward WTI futures contract as a lone regressor for US5y5y inflation expectations continues to produce some of the strongest results in our modelling exercise. Indeed, as a sole regressor, it dominates the other models. 3    Please see More Commodity-Led Inflation On The Way and Persistent Inflation Pressures From Commodities published on December 9, 2021 and on January 6, 2022, respectively.  Both are available at ces.bcaresearch.com.   Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Trades Closed in 2021 Image

BCA Research is proud to announce a new feature to help clients get the most out of our research: an Executive Summary cover page on each of the BCA Research Reports. We created these summaries to help you quickly capture the main points of each report through an at-a-glance read of key insights, chart of the day, investment recommendations and a bottom line. For a deeper analysis, you may refer to the full BCA Research Report. Executive Summary Risk Premium In EU Gas Prices Long-Term EU Gas Volatility Will Increase Long-Term EU Gas Volatility Will Increase ​​ Regardless of whether Russia invades all, part of or none of Ukraine again, its current standoff with the West will force the EU to reconfigure its gas markets to assure reliability of supplies, and remove geopolitical supply disruptions. We expect the EU's renewable energy taxonomy scheduled for release Wednesday will include natgas as a sustainable fuel, which will help build more diversified sources of supply and deeper spot and term markets.  Success here will increase market share of natgas in EU power generation. In the short run (1-2 years), neither the EU nor Russia can afford Gazprom's pipeline supplies to be significantly curtailed. Over the medium term (3-5 years), alternative supplies from US and Qatari LNG exports will be required to deepen EU gas-market liquidity and supply. Longer term (i.e., beyond 2025), EU energy markets will remain volatile as the renewable-energy transition progresses. High and volatile natgas prices will translate into persistent EU inflation – particularly food prices, because of higher fertilizer costs, and base metals' prices.  Shortages in these markets will slow the energy transition, and raise its price tag. Bottom Line: The Russian standoff with the West over Ukraine puts a higher risk premium in EU gas prices.  We remain long commodity-index exposure (S&P GSCI, and COMT ETF), and the XME ETF.  We are getting long the SPDR S&P Oil & Gas Exploration & Production ETF (XOP) at tonight's close. Feature We expect the EU's financial taxonomy for renewable energy scheduled for release Wednesday will include natgas as a sustainable fuel. This will help in building out more diversified sources of supply and deeper spot and term markets. Success here will increase the market share of natgas in the EU's power generation (Chart of the Week). This coincides with natural gas supply uncertainty, arising from geopolitical tensions. On the back of already-low inventory levels, European natural gas markets are forced to handicap the odds of a major curtailment of Russian pipeline gas supplies resulting from another invasion of Ukraine (Chart 2).  This is keeping a significantly increased risk premium embedded in natgas prices: Russian exports to the EU account for 40% of total gas supplies.  Germany is particularly exposed, as  ~65% of its gas comes from Russia (Chart 3). Chart of the WeekEU Natgas Generation Will Rise In Energy Transition Long-Term EU Gas Volatility Will Increase Long-Term EU Gas Volatility Will Increase BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy desk upgraded the odds of Russia invading Ukraine to 75% from 50% in its latest research report.1  Our colleagues, however, keep the probability of Russia invading all of Ukraine low.  Their analysis concludes Russia will only invade a part of Ukraine, so as to argue for lighter sanctions being imposed on it by the West, as opposed to having to incur the full wrath of US and EU sanctions.  The other 25% of the probability space includes a diplomatic settlement between the West and Russia. Chart 2Risk Premium In EU Gas Prices Long-Term EU Gas Volatility Will Increase Long-Term EU Gas Volatility Will Increase While Russia has been trying to diversify its customer base – by increasing natgas exports to China, e.g. – data from the BP Statistical Review of World Energy shows ~ 78% of total natural gas exports (pipeline + LNG) from Russia went to the EU in 2020.2  Chart 3EU Highly Dependent On Russian Gas Long-Term EU Gas Volatility Will Increase Long-Term EU Gas Volatility Will Increase In light of the fact that Russia likely will face watered-down sanctions, and the EU’s gargantuan share of total Russian exports, we do not believe Europe’s largest natural gas exporter will stop all supply to the EU now or in the near future. In case Russia does go through with its invasion, it likely will cut off natural gas supply to Ukraine, implying Europe will loose slightly more than 6% of total natgas imports as opposed to 40% in the event of a halt to all natgas exports to Europe (Chart 4).  Gas consumption of the EU-27 in 2021 was ~ 500 Bcm, according to the Oxford Institute For Energy Studies (OIES).  Some 85% of EU gas consumption was met by imports. Chart 4Imports Cover Most EU Gas Consumption Long-Term EU Gas Volatility Will Increase Long-Term EU Gas Volatility Will Increase Can The EU Mitigate The Loss Of Russian Gas? The EU and the US have entered discussions with other countries to plug the potential 6% reduction in imports from Russia.  While in theory, there is enough spare pipeline capacity to import natural gas from existing and new sources (Chart 5), practical limitations may prevent this from occurring.3 The US is working with the EU to ensure energy supply security in case Russia cuts off natural gas supply. However, as can be seen in Chart 6, Panel 1, the US currently is and likely will continue to export nearly at capacity until end-2023. Panel 2 shows global liquefaction also is nearly at capacity. Chart 5EU Gas Import Capacity Exists, But Filling It Will Be Problematic Long-Term EU Gas Volatility Will Increase Long-Term EU Gas Volatility Will Increase Chart 6US LNG Export Capacity Maxed Out Long-Term EU Gas Volatility Will Increase Long-Term EU Gas Volatility Will Increase While an increase in gas production at the earthquake-prone Groningen field in the Netherlands is theoretically viable, it will induce a public backlash, as was evidenced when the Dutch government announced plans to double output from the field earlier this year. In the short run, facing few sources of alternate gas supply, the EU will need to focus on curtailing demand. Fossil fuels will need to be considered as an alternative for electricity and heating, since nuclear is not used in all EU countries.  The depth of this crisis and the Dutch TTF price rise will be capped by the fact that we expect the EU to lose a relatively small fraction of total imports.  Further, while we expect Dutch TTF prices to be volatile and face upward pressure, any price increases also will be capped by the fact that the colder-than-expected Northern Hemisphere winter has not yet materialized, and the warmer Spring and Summer months will be approaching soon. Medium-, Long-Term EU Gas Supply On the supply side, over the medium- and long-term, the EU will need to deepen and stabilize its gas supply, so that firms and households can rationally forecast and allocate spending and investment.  This would include finding back-up or alternative supplies to Russian imports, which carry with them uncertain geopolitical risk.  If Brussels includes natural gas as a sustainable fuel in its energy taxonomy, over the medium term (3-5 years), alternative supplies from US and Qatari LNG exports will be required to deepen EU gas-market liquidity and supply.  Longer term (i.e., beyond 2025), EU energy markets will remain volatile as the renewable-energy transition progresses.  Natgas will be a critical component of this transition, until utility-scale battery storage is able to support renewable generation and grid stability.  We believe over the remainder of this decade, high and volatile natgas prices will translate into persistent EU inflation, as pricing pressures spill into oil and coal markets at the margin, as happened over the course of last year.  This will work in the other direction as well – e.g., higher coal prices will spill over into gas and oil markets as price pressures incentivize fuel switching at the margin. Food prices will be right in the inflationary cross-hairs, given the fertilizer required to produce the grains and beans consumed globally consists mostly of natgas in urea and ammonia fertilizers (Chart 7).  This will feed into higher food prices (Chart 8). Chart 7High Natgas Prices Will Show Up In High Fertilizer Prices High Natgas Prices Will Show Up In High Fertilizer Prices High Natgas Prices Will Show Up In High Fertilizer Prices Chart 8… And Higher Food Prices Long-Term EU Gas Volatility Will Increase Long-Term EU Gas Volatility Will Increase Base metals' prices also will be upwardly biased as natgas price volatility remains elevated.  Supply shortages in natgas markets will, at the margin, slow the energy transition by reducing reliable energy supplies in the EU, forcing states to compete for back-up and replacement supply in the global LNG markets.  Fuel-switching into oil, gas and coal will transmit EU gas volatility to markets globally. Tight energy and base metals markets also will feed directly into higher inflation and inflation expectations (Chart 9). Chart 9Higher Commodity Prices Will Pressure Inflation Higher Higher Commodity Prices Will Pressure Inflation Higher Higher Commodity Prices Will Pressure Inflation Higher   Investment Implications The standoff between the West and Russia over the latter's amassing of troops on the Ukraine border, plus the marked increase in the tempo of Russian naval operations, will keep the risk premium in EU natgas prices high.  This is not a sustainable equilibrium over the medium- to long-term.  We expect little if any curtailment of Russian natgas exports over the short term; however, prudence suggests EU member states will be forced to find back-up and alternative gas supplies over the medium- to longer-term, as the global renewable-energy transition gains traction. The knock-on effects from the current European geopolitical standoff are keeping EU natgas prices elevated via a higher risk premium to cover possible supply losses.  This will feed into other markets – particularly metals and ags – which will feed directly into inflation and inflation expectations. We remain long commodity index exposure – the S&P GSCI and the COMT ETF – and metals producers via the XME ETF.  At tonight's close, we will be getting long the SPDR S&P Oil & Gas Exploration & Production ETF (XOP).   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish OPEC 2.0's decision to stay with its policy of returning 400k b/d every month appeared to be a foregone conclusion in the markets.  In our January 2022 balances and price forecasts, we anticipated a larger increase, given the producer coalition led by Saudi Arabia and Russia has fallen significantly behind its goal of returning 400k b/d to the market monthly due to declining production among OPEC 2.0 member states ex-Gulf GCC member states, chiefly KSA, UAE and Kuwait (Iraq's exports fell in December and January; production data have not been released).  In the past, KSA has said it will not make up for production shortfalls of OPEC 2.0 member states, and would abide by its production allocation. The upside risk to prices remains, in our estimation, and we continue to expect KSA and its GCC allies to increase output if production from the price-taking cohort led by the US shale-oil producers fails to materialize in over the coming months.  Failure to cover production shortfalls among OPEC 2.0 member states would lift Brent prices by $6/bbl above our baseline forecast, which assumed higher production from the GCC states would be forthcoming at Wednesday's OPEC 2.0 meeting (Chart 10, brown curve). Base Metals: Bullish An environmental committee in Chile's Senate voted out a proposed bill that would, among other things, reportedly make it easier for the government to seize mines developed and operated by private companies.  The proposed legislation still has a long road ahead of it, but copper prices rallied earlier in the week as this news broke.  Even if the odds of the bill's passage are slim, a watered down version of the proposed legislation would markedly change the economic proposition of developing and maintaining copper mines in Chile (Chart 11).  We continue to follow this closely.   Chart 10 Brent Forecast Restored To $80/bbl For 2022 Brent Forecast Restored To $80/bbl For 2022 Chart 11 Bullish For Copper Prices Bullish For Copper Prices     Footnotes 1     Please see All Bets Are Off ... Well, Some (A GeoRisk Update), published by BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy service 27 January 2022.  It is available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2     Please see bp's Statistical Review of World Energy 2021 | 70th edition. 3    Norway, the EU’s second largest gas exporter after Russia stated that its natural gas production is at the limit. Apart from the issue of production, current LNG flows will need to be redirected from Asia and the Americas. Defaulting on long-term contracts to redirect fuel to Europe could mire exporters’ relationships with importing countries. Finally,  infrastructure in the Eastern and Central section of the EU may not be equipped to receive supplies from the West, thus increasing costs and time associated with putting these systems in place.    Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Trades Closed in 2021 Image

BCA Research is proud to announce a new feature to help clients get the most out of our research: an Executive Summary cover page on each of the BCA Research Reports. We created these summaries to help you quickly capture the main points of each report through an at-a-glance read of key insights, chart of the day, investment recommendations and a bottom line. For a deeper analysis, you may refer to the full BCA Research Report. In lieu of next week’s report, I will be presenting the quarterly Counterpoint webcast series ‘Where Is The Groupthink Wrong?' I do hope you can join. Executive Summary Spending on goods is in freefall while spending on services is struggling to regain its pre-pandemic trend.  If spending on goods crashes to below its previous trend, then there will be a substantial shortfall in demand. The good news is that the freefall in goods spending is leading inflation. With spending on goods now crashing back to earth, inflation will also crash back to earth later this year. Underweight the goods-dominated consumer discretionary sector, and underweight semiconductors versus the broader technology sector. Sell Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS) and other overbought inflation hedges such as commodities that have not yet corrected. Overbought base metals are particularly vulnerable. Fractal trading watchlist: We focus on nickel versus silver, add tobacco versus cannabis, and update bitcoin, biotech, CAD/SEK, and EUR/CZK. As Spending On Goods Crashes Back To Earth, So Will Inflation As Spending On Goods Crashes Back To Earth, So Will Inflation As Spending On Goods Crashes Back To Earth, So Will Inflation Bottom Line: As spending on goods crashes back to earth, so will inflation, consumer discretionary stocks, semiconductors, and overbought commodities. Feature The pandemic has unleashed a great experiment in our spending behaviour. After a binge on consumer goods, will there be a massive hangover? We are about to find out. The pandemic binge on consumer goods, peaking in the US at a 26 percent overspend, is unprecedented in modern economic history. Hence, we cannot be certain what happens next, but there are three possibilities: We sustain the binge on goods, at least partly. Spending on goods falls back to its pre-pandemic trend. There is a hangover, in which spending on goods crashes to below its previous trend. The answer to this question will have a huge bearing on growth and inflation in 2022-23. After The Binge Comes The Hangover… The pandemic’s constraints on socialising, movement, and in-person contact caused a slump in spending on many services: recreation, hospitality, travel, in-person shopping, and in-person healthcare. Nevertheless, with incomes propped up by massive stimulus, we displaced our spending to items that could be enjoyed within the pandemic’s confines; namely, goods – on which, we binged (Chart I-1). Chart I-1Spending On Goods Is In Freefall Spending On Goods Is In Freefall Spending On Goods Is In Freefall Gradually, we learned to live with SARS-CoV-2, and spending on services bounced back. At the same time, we made some permanent changes to our lifestyles – for example, hybrid office/home working and more online shopping. Additionally, a significant minority of people changed their behaviour, shunning activities that require close contact with strangers – going to the cinema or to amusement parks, using public transport, or going to the dentist or in-person doctors’ appointments. The result is that spending on services is levelling off well short of its pre-pandemic trend (Charts I-2-Chart I-5). Chart I-2Spending On Recreation Services Is Far Below Its Pre-Pandemic Trend Spending On Recreation Services Is Far Below Its Pre-Pandemic Trend Spending On Recreation Services Is Far Below Its Pre-Pandemic Trend Chart I-3Spending On Public Transport Is Far Below Its Pre-Pandemic Trend Spending On Public Transport Is Far Below Its Pre-Pandemic Trend Spending On Public Transport Is Far Below Its Pre-Pandemic Trend Chart I-4Spending On Dental Services Is Far Below Its Pre-Pandemic Trend Spending On Dental Services Is Far Below Its Pre-Pandemic Trend Spending On Dental Services Is Far Below Its Pre-Pandemic Trend Chart I-5Spending On Physician Services Is Far Below Its Pre-Pandemic Trend Spending On Physician Services Is Far Below Its Pre-Pandemic Trend Spending On Physician Services Is Far Below Its Pre-Pandemic Trend Arithmetically therefore, to keep overall demand on trend, spending on goods must stay above its pre-pandemic trend. Yet spending on goods is crashing back to earth. The simple reason is that durables, by their very definition, are durable. Even nondurables such as clothes and shoes are in fact quite durable. Meaning that are only so many cars, iPhone 13s, gadgets, clothes and shoes that any person can binge on before reaching saturation. Indeed, to the extent that our bingeing has brought forward future purchases, the big risk is a period of underspending on goods. Countering The Counterarguments Let’s address some counterarguments to the hangover thesis. One counterargument is that some goods are a substitute for services: for example, eating-in (food at home) substitutes for eating-out; and recreational goods substitute for recreational services. So, if there is a shortfall in services spending, there will be an automatic substitution into goods spending. The problem is that the substitutes are not mirror-image substitutes. Spending on eating-in tends to be much less than on eating-out. And once you have bought your recreational goods, you don’t keep buying them! A second counterargument is that provided the savings rate does not rise, there will be no shortfall in spending. Yet this is a tautology. The savings rate is simply the residual of income less spending. So, to the extent that there is a structural shortfall in services spending combined with a hangover in goods spending, the savings rate must rise – as it has in the past two months. A third counterargument is that the war chest of savings accumulated during the pandemic will unleash a tsunami of spending. Well, it hasn’t. And, it won’t. Previous episodes of excess savings in 2004, 2008, and 2012 had no impact on the trend in spending (Chart I-6). Chart I-6Previous Episodes Of Excess Savings Had No Impact On Spending Previous Episodes Of Excess Savings Had No Impact On Spending Previous Episodes Of Excess Savings Had No Impact On Spending The explanation comes from a theory known as Mental Accounting Bias. This points out that we segment our money into different ‘mental accounts’. And that the main factor that establishes whether we spend our money is which mental account it resides in. The moment we move money from our ‘income’ account into our ‘wealth’ account, our propensity to spend it collapses. Specifically, we will spend most of the money in our ‘income’ mental account, but we will spend little of the money in our ‘wealth’ mental account. Hence, the moment we move money from our income account into our wealth account, our propensity to spend it collapses. Still, this brings us to a fourth counterargument, which claims that even though the ‘wealth effect’ is small, it isn’t zero. Therefore, the recent boom in household wealth will bolster growth. Yet as we explained in The Wealth Impulse Has Peaked, the impact of your wealth on your spending growth does not come from your wealth change. It comes from your wealth impulse, which is fading fast (Chart I-7). Chart I-7The 'Wealth Impulse' Has Peaked The 'Wealth Impulse' Has Peaked The 'Wealth Impulse' Has Peaked Analogous to the more widely-used credit impulse, the wealth impulse compares your capital gain in any year with your capital gain in the preceding year. It is this change in your capital gain – and not the capital gain per se – that establishes the growth in your ‘wealth effect’ spending. Unfortunately, the wealth impulse has peaked, meaning its impact on spending growth will not be a tailwind. It will be a headwind. As Spending On Goods Crashes Back To Earth, So Will Inflation, Consumer Discretionary Stocks, And Overbought Commodities In the fourth quarter of 2021, US consumer spending dipped to below its pre-pandemic trend and the savings rate increased. Begging the question, how did the US economy manage to grow at a stellar 6.7 percent (annualised) rate? The simple answer is that inventory restocking contributed almost 5 percent to the 6.7 percent growth rate. In fact, removing inventory restocking, US final demand came to a virtual standstill in the second half of 2021, growing at just a 1 percent (annualised) rate. Growth that is dependent on inventory restocking is a concern because inventory restocking averages to zero in the long run, and after a massive positive contribution there tends to come a symmetrical negative contribution. If, as we expect, spending on services fails to catch up to its pre-pandemic trend while spending on goods falls back to its pre-pandemic trend, then there will be a demand shortfall. And if there is a hangover, in which spending on goods crashes to below its previous trend, then the demand shortfall could be substantial. As inflation crashes back to earth, so will overbought commodities. The good news is that the freefall in durable goods spending is leading inflation. In this regard, you might be surprised to learn that the US core (6-month) inflation rate has already been declining for five consecutive months. With spending on goods now crashing back to earth, inflation will also crash back to earth later this year (Chart I-8). Chart I-8As Spending On Goods Crashes Back To Earth, So Will Inflation As Spending On Goods Crashes Back To Earth, So Will Inflation As Spending On Goods Crashes Back To Earth, So Will Inflation Sell Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS) and other overbought inflation hedges such as commodities that have not yet corrected. Given that the level (rather than the inflation) of commodity prices is irrationally tracking the inflation rate, the likely explanation is that investors have piled into commodities as a hedge against inflation. Hence, as inflation crashes back to earth, so will overbought commodities (Chart I-9). Overbought base metals are particularly vulnerable. Chart I-9Overbought Commodities Are Particularly Vulnerable Overbought Commodities Are Particularly Vulnerable Overbought Commodities Are Particularly Vulnerable Fractal Trading Watchlist This week we focus on nickel versus silver, add tobacco versus cannabis, and update bitcoin, biotech, CAD/SEK, and EUR/CZK. To reiterate, overbought base metals are vulnerable, and the 70 percent outperformance of nickel versus silver through the past year has reached the point of fractal fragility that signalled previous major turning-points in 2014, 2016, 2018, and 2020 (Chart I-10). Accordingly, this week’s recommended trade is to go short nickel versus silver, setting the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 20 percent.  Chart I-10Short Nickel Versus Silver Short Nickel Versus Silver Short Nickel Versus Silver A Potential Switching Point From Tobacco Into Cannabis A Potential Switching Point From Tobacco Into Cannabis A Potential Switching Point From Tobacco Into Cannabis Bitcoin's 65-Day Fractal Support Is Holding For Now Bitcoin's 65-Day Fractal Support Is Holding For Now Bitcoin's 65-Day Fractal Support Is Holding For Now Biotech Approaching A Major Buy Biotech Approaching A Major Buy Biotech Approaching A Major Buy CAD/SEK Approaching A Sell CAD/SEK Approaching A Sell CAD/SEK Approaching A Sell EUR/CZK At A Bottom EUR/CZK At A Bottom EUR/CZK At A Bottom Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System After The Pandemic Binge Comes The Pandemic Hangover... After The Pandemic Binge Comes The Pandemic Hangover... After The Pandemic Binge Comes The Pandemic Hangover... After The Pandemic Binge Comes The Pandemic Hangover... 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Europe Ex Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Other Developed Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations      

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