Emerging Markets

Special Report

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

Executive Summary Petrocurrencies Have Lagged Terms Of Trade Petrocurrencies have lagged the surge in crude prices. This has been specific to the currency space since energy stocks have been in an epic bull market.Both cyclical and structural factors explain this conundrum.Cyclically, rising interest rate expectations in the US have dwarfed the terms-of-trade boost that the CAD, NOK, MXN, COP and even BRL typically enjoy (Feature Chart).Structurally, the US is now the biggest oil producer in the world (and a net exporter of natural gas). This has permanently shifted the relationship between the foreign exchange of traditional oil producers and the US dollar.Oil prices are overbought and vulnerable tactically to any resolution in the Russo-Ukrainian conflict. That said, they are likely to remain well bid over a medium-term horizon, ultimately supporting petrocurrencies.Petrocurrencies also offer a significant valuation cushion and carry relative to the US dollar, making them attractive for longer-term investors.Tactically, the currencies of oil producers relative to consumers could mean revert. It also suggests the Japanese yen, which is under pressure from rising energy imports, could find some footing, even as oil prices remain volatile.RECOMMENDATIONINCEPTION LEVELINCEPTION DATERETURNShort NOK/SEK1.112022-03-24-Bottom Line: Given our thesis of lower oil prices in the near term, but firmer prices in the medium term, we will be selling a basket of oil producers relative to oil consumers, with the aim of reversing that trade from lower levels.FeatureOil price volatility is once again dominating global market action. After hitting a low of close to $96/barrel on March 16th, Brent crude is once again at $120 as we go to press. Over the last two years, Brent crude has been as cheap as $16, and as expensive as $140. Energy stocks (and their respective bourses) have been the proximate winner from rising oil prices (Chart 1).Related ReportForeign Exchange StrategyWhat Next For The RMB?In foreign exchange markets, the currencies of commodity-producing countries have surprisingly lagged the improvement in oil prices (Chart 2). Historically, higher oil prices have had a profound impact on the external balance of oil producing versus consuming countries in general and petrocurrencies in particular. Chart 1Energy Stocks Have Tracked Forward Oil Prices  Chart 2Petrocurrencies Have Lagged Oil Prices Based on the observation above, this report addresses three key questions:Are there cyclical factors depressing the performance of petrocurrencies?Are there structural factors that have changed the relationship of these currencies with the US dollar?What is the outlook for oil, and the impact on short term versus longer-term currency strategy?We will begin our discussion with the outlook for oil.Russia, Oil, And PetrocurrenciesA high-level forecast from our Commodity & Energy Strategy colleagues calls for oil prices to average $93 per barrel this year and next.1 The deduction from this forecast is that we could see spot prices head lower from current levels this year but remain firm in 2023. From our perspective, there are a few factors that support this view:Forward prices tend to move in tandem with the spot fixing (Chart 3), but recently have also been a fair predictor of where current prices will settle over the medium term. Forward oil prices are trading at a significant discount to spot, suggesting some measure of mean reversion (Chart 4). Chart 3Forward And Spot Oil Prices Move Together  Chart 4The Oil Curve And Spot Prices There is a significant geopolitical risk premium embedded in oil prices. According to the New York Federal Reserve model, the demand/supply balance would have caused oil prices to fall between February 11 and February 25 this year. They however rose. This geopolitical risk premium has surely increased since then (Chart 5).Chart 5Oil Prices Embed A Significant Geopolitical Risk Premium Russian crude is trading at a sizeable discount compared to other benchmarks. This means that the incentive for substitution has risen significantly. Our Chief Commodity expert, Robert Ryan, noted on BLU today that intake from India is rising. This is helping put a floor on the Russian URAL/Brent discount blend at around $30 (Chart 6). Oil is fungible, and seaborne crude can be rerouted from unwilling buyers to satiate demand in starved markets.A fortnight ago, we noted how the US sanctions on Russia could shift the foreign exchange landscape, especially vis-à-vis the RMB. Specifically, RMB-denominated trade in oil is likely to increase significantly going forward. China has massively increased the number of bilateral swap lines it has with foreign countries, while stabilizing the RMB versus the US dollar.2Finally, smaller open economies such as Canada, Norway and even Mexico are opening the oil spigots (Chart 7). While individually these countries cannot fill any potential gap in Russian production, collectively they could help in the redistribution of oil supplies. Chart 6Russian Oil Is Selling At A Discount  Chart 7Small Oil Producers Will Benefit From High Prices The observations above suggest that the currencies of small oil-producing nations are likely to benefit in the medium term from a redistribution in oil demand. Remarkably, there has been little demand destruction yet from the rise in prices, according to the New York Fed. This suggests that as the global economy reopens, and the demand/supply balance tightens, longer-term oil prices will remain well bid.The key risk in the short term is the geopolitical risk premium embedded in oil prices fades, especially given the potential that Europe, China, and India continue to buy Russian supplies. We have been playing this very volatile theme via a short NOK/SEK position. We are stopped out this week for a modest profit and are reinitiating the trade if NOK/SEK hits 1.11.On The Underperformance Of Petrocurrencies? Chart 8Petrocurrencies Have Lagged Terms Of Trade The more important question is why the currencies of oil producers like the CAD, NOK, MXN or even BRL have not kept pace with oil prices as they historically have. As our feature chart shows (Chart 8), petrocurrencies have severely lagged the improvement in their terms of trade. This has been driven by both cyclical and structural factors.Cyclically, the underlying driver of FX in recent quarters has been the nominal interest rate spread between the US and its G10 counterparts. We have written at length on this topic, and on why we think there is a big mispricing in market behavior in our report – “The Biggest Macro Question By FX Investors Could Potentially Be The Least Relevant.” In a nutshell, two-year yields in the G10 have been lagging US rates, despite other central banks being ahead of the curve in hiking interest rates. This means that rising interest rate expectations in the US have dwarfed the terms of trade boost that the CAD, NOK, MXN, COP and even BRL typically enjoy.Structurally, the US is now the biggest oil producer in the world (Chart 9). This means the CAD/USD and NOK/USD exchange rates are experiencing a tectonic shift on a terms-of-trade basis. In 2010, the US accounted for only about 6% of global crude output. Collectively, Canada, Norway, and Mexico shared about 10% of global oil production. The elephant in the room was OPEC, with a market share just north of 40%. Today, the US produces over 14%, with Russia and Saudi Arabia around 13% each, the US having grabbed market share from many other countries. Chart 9The US Dominates Oil Production  Chart 10The US Dollar Is Becoming Increasingly Correlated To Oil As a result of this shift, the positive correlation between petrocurrencies and oil has gradually eroded. Measured statistically, the dollar had a near-perfect negative correlation with oil around the time US production was about to take off. Since then, that correlation has risen from around -0.9 to around -0.2 (Chart 10).A Few Trade IdeasThe analysis above suggests a few trade ideas are likely to generate alpha over the medium term:Long Oil Producers Versus Oil Consumers: This trade will suffer in the near term as oil prices correct but benefit from a relatively tighter market over a longer horizon. It will also benefit from the positive carry that many oil producers provide (Chart 11). We will go long a currency basket of the CAD, NOK, MXN, BRL, and COP versus the euro at 5% below current levels.Chart 11Real Rates Are High Amongst Petrocurrencies Sell CAD/NOK As A Trade: Norway is at the epicenter of the likely redistribution that will occur with a Russian blockade of crude, while Canada is further away from it. Terms of trade in Norway are doing much better than a relative measure in Canada (Chart 12). The discount between Western Canadian Select crude oil and Brent has also widened, which has historically heralded a lower CAD/NOK exchange rate. Chart 12CAD/NOK And Terms Of Trade Follow The Money: Oil now trades above the cash costs for many oil-producing countries. This means the incentive to boost production, especially when demand recovers, is quite high. This incentivizes players with strong balance sheets to keep the taps open. This could be a particular longer-term boon for the Canadian dollar which is seeing massive portfolio inflows (Chart 13). Chart 13Canadian Oil Export Boom And Portfolio Flows On The Yen (And Euro): Rising oil prices have been a death knell for the yen which is trading in lockstep with spot prices. Ditto for the euro. However, the yen benefits from very cheap valuations and extremely depressed sentiment. Any temporary reversal in oil prices will boost the yen (Chart 14). In our trading book, we were stopped out of a short CHF/JPY position last Friday, and we will look to reinitiate this trade in the coming days.  Chart 14The Yen And Oil Prices  Chester NtoniforForeign Exchange Strategistchestern@bcaresearch.comFootnotes1 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, “Uncertainty Tightens Oil Supply”, dated March 17, 2022.2 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, “What Next For The RMB?”, dated March 11, 2022.Trades & ForecastsStrategic ViewTactical Holdings (0-6 months)Limit OrdersForecast Summary

Executive Summary EM Equity Sentiment Is Not Very Depressed Yet Chinese A-shares have become oversold, and authorities are determined to stabilize the market. Yet, downshifting corporate profits and a selloff in global stocks are risks to A-shares’ absolute performance. Overall, we favor A-shares relative to overall EM and Chinese investable stocks, but not in absolute terms. As to China’s internet companies, even though authorities have recently promised not to introduce new regulatory measures against platform companies, the already-enacted regulations will not be reversed, and common prosperity initiatives will continue to be rolled over in the coming months and years. Nevertheless, in response to their massive underperformance, we are upgrading Chinese investable stocks from underweight to neutral within an EM equity portfolio. Investors should stay defensive on global risk assets and continue underweighting EM equities and credit. Recommendation Inception Date Return Take Profits on Short Chinese Investable Value Stocks / Long Global Value Stocks    Nov 26/20  39% Maintain Long Chinese A-Shares / Short Chinese Investable Stocks Mar 04/21 23.2% A New Trade: Long Chinese A-Shares / Short EM Stocks            Mar 23/22   Upgrade Chinese Investable Stocks with EM from Underweight to Neutral                            Mar 23/22   Bottom Line: The risk-reward profile for Chinese stocks has improved, but does not yet justify a long position in absolute terms. The outlook for A-shares is superior to that of investable TMT and non-TMT stocks. Feature Table 1The Decline In Chinese Stocks From Their Peaks In 2021 To March 22, 2022 The last two weeks have seen massive gyrations in Chinese stocks, especially in the realm of internet companies. Chinese investable internet stocks’ year-long decline went into a tailspin early this month. But, in the last several days these stocks have rebounded sharply. The selloff earlier this year was not limited to internet companies. Chinese investable non-TMT and A-shares have also tanked. Table 1 illustrates the extent to which individual Chinese equity indexes are down from their peaks in 2021 to March 22. Chart 1Our China Relative Equity Trades The relevant question for investors is whether the events of the last several weeks represent a final capitulation in Chinese stocks, creating a buying opportunity, or at least marking an end to the underperformance of Chinese stocks versus global and EM equities. It is hard to know if an ultimate buying opportunity has emerged for Chinese stocks in absolute terms. Unless global stocks have bottomed (which is not our view, see more on this below), it will be difficult for Chinese share prices to rally on a sustainable basis. However, last week was probably a watershed event, at least for some parts of the Chinese equity markets. Thus, we are making several adjustments to our investment strategy for Chinese stocks: 1. Book profits on the short Chinese investable value stocks / long global value stocks position (Chart 1, top panel). This strategy has produced a 39% gain since its recommendation on March 4, 2021. 2. Maintain the long A-shares / short investable stocks strategy recommended on March 4, 2021 (Chart 1, bottom panel). 3. A new trade: long Chinese A-shares (onshore market) / short EM stocks. Consistently, we continue to recommend overweighting Chinese A-shares within an EM equity universe. 4. For EM equity portfolios, upgrade the allocation to the Chinese investable/offshore stock index from underweight to neutral. Chinese A-Shares (Onshore Market) The risk-reward profile for the A-share market has improved because of the following: Authorities care much more about the stability of the onshore equity market, which is dominated by domestic retail and institutional investors, than about offshore listed Chinese stocks, owned primarily by international investors. Securing onshore financial market stability is one of the main objectives of government policy this year. With the A-share price index down by 27% from its peak last year, authorities will deploy all the tools at their disposal to put a floor under share prices, including purchases by the National Team, which is a group of state-linked institutions that buy stocks to preclude larger drawdowns. Foreign investor net purchases of onshore listed stocks have become deeply negative (Chart 2, top panel). Historically, such large foreign liquidation of onshore stocks marked a bottom in A-shares (Chart 2, bottom panel). A-shares have become modestly cheap, as is evidenced by our composite valuation indicator and cyclically adjusted P/E ratio (Chart 3). Chart 2Chinese A-Shares Are Oversold Chart 3Chinese A-Shares: Improved Valuation Chart 4China: Fiscal Stimulus Is At Work Importantly, the government will ramp up stimulus and the economy will recover in H2 this year. The top panel of Chart 4 demonstrates that this year the fiscal spending impulse will rise from 1% to 3.4% of GDP Special bond issuance by local governments has already accelerated in recent months and will produce a revival in traditional infrastructure spending (Chart 4, bottom panel). Finally, onshore stocks are immune to the derating of offshore Chinese stocks due to international investor concerns about potential US sanctions and delisting from US markets. The reason is that foreign investors account for a very small share of onshore stock holdings.  That said, China’s property market and COVID-19 lockdowns remain a risk to the economy and corporate profits. In fact, the improvement in the TSF impulse over the past several months has been solely due to local government (LG) bond issuance. Excluding LG bond issuance, the TSF impulse has not bottomed yet (Chart 5). This means that corporate and household credit origination have been weakening. Without a major reversal in corporate credit and the property market, a strong business cycle recovery is unlikely in China. Chart 5China: Corporate And Household Credit Has Not Improved Bottom Line: On the positive side, A-shares have become oversold, and authorities are determined to stabilize the market. On the negative side, downshifting corporate profits and a selloff in global stocks are risks to A-shares’ absolute performance. Overall, we favor A-shares in relative terms but not in absolute terms. Also, we reiterate the long A- shares / short Chinese investable stocks position initiated on March 4, 2021. A New Trade: Long Chinese A-Shares / Short EM Stocks A-share prices are set to outperform EM stocks in the coming months for the following reasons: First, domestic policy support is forthcoming for Chinese onshore stocks. Fiscal injections and an eventual improvement in credit origination will provide support to Chinese domestic demand in the second half of this year. By contrast, domestic demand in mainstream EM (excluding China, Korea, Taiwan) will remain lackluster and there will be little policy support. Latin American and EMEA countries have raised interest rates substantially and could hike them further due to surging energy and food prices. High borrowing costs will dampen their domestic demand (Chart 6). In ASEAN countries where central banks have not yet tightened policy, real interest rates remain relatively high. Also, we tactically downgraded Indian stocks to underweight last week due to potential economic growth and profit disappointments amid high energy prices and expensive equity valuations. As a whole, mainstream EM broad money growth – both in nominal and real terms – are close to record lows and will drop further (Chart 7). Chart 6Mainstream EM Domestic Demand To Weaken Chart 7Mainstream EM Broad Money Growth Chart 8Mainstream EM: The Fiscal Thrust Is Mildly Negative The fiscal thrust for mainstream EM in 2022 will be marginally negative (Chart 8). Second, at the current juncture, rising US bond yields constitute a greater risk to mainstream EM currencies and equities than to Chinese ones. The renminbi has been firm versus the US dollar, which has been appreciating over the past 15 months. This is due to China’s enormous current account surplus and lack of capital outflows. Chinese individuals and companies are reluctant to invest abroad due to fears of US sanctions amid long-term geopolitical tensions between the US and China. Meanwhile, rising US interest rates pose risks to mainstream EM currencies (Chart 9). The basis is that these mainstream EM countries still meaningfully rely on international investors (though less than in the past). The Fed’s hawkish stance and rising US interest rates will continue supporting the greenback in the near term.  Finally, the relative trend in bond yields favors Chinese onshore stocks versus the EM equity benchmark. Chinese local government bond yields have decoupled from US Treasury yields. Yet, mainstream EM domestic yields are rising along with those of the US (Chart 10). Chart 9US Dollar vs. EM And US TIPS Yields Chart 10Mainstream EM Local Yields Are Rising Rapidly Chart 11Rising Borrowing Costs Are Negative For Share Prices Falling interest rates in China will support onshore equity valuations. By contrast, rising EM local bond yields as well as EM USD corporate bond yields will suppress equity performance in mainstream EM (Chart 11). Bottom Line: We remain overweight Chinese A-shares within an EM universe. Our confidence level in this strategy has increased and, hence, we recommend a new pair trade: long Chinese A-shares / short EM equities. Investable Stocks: TMT And Non-TMT Even though authorities have recently promised not to introduce new regulatory measures against platform companies, the already-enacted regulations will not be reversed, and common prosperity initiatives will continue to be rolled out in the coming months and years. Hence, the derating/multiple compression of TMT stocks might not be over for the same reasons we have been arguing for some time: These companies are facing higher uncertainty about their business model, which entails a higher equity risk premium. Government regulation of corporate profitability like those of monopolies and oligopolies entails low equity multiples. In the government’s view, these companies should perform social duties – redistributing profits from shareholders to Chinese citizens. Beijing’s involvement in their management and the prioritization of national and geopolitical objectives over shareholder interests. Risks of delisting from US stock exchanges remain high despite some recent statements from Chinese authorities. The point is that in the long run, Chinese authorities will not accept foreign/US shareholder control of Chinese platform companies that own and manage big data. Chart 12Chinese TMT Stocks: Where Is The Technical Support? It is impossible to know at what level of share prices these risks will be properly discounted or over-discounted so a new bull market can start. When valuation indicators are not useful, we resort to technical indicators. Based on our technical work, a bear market might stop at one of very long-term moving averages. Accordingly, Chinese TMT stocks might have reached a bottom (Chart 12). As to Chinese investable non-TMT share prices (analogous to value stocks), these have fallen close to their lows of the past 12 years (Chart 13, top panel). They have also massively underperformed global and EM peers (non-TMT/value stocks) (Chart 13, middle and bottom panel). Given the potential for a revival in the Chinese economy in H2 this year, investors should avoid the temptation to become more bearish on Chinese non-TMT/value stocks as their prices fall. Their risk-reward in relative terms to other markets has improved due to the capitulation selloff, and authorities’ increased willingness to stimulate the economy more aggressively going forward. Bottom Line: The year-long bear market in Chinese investable TMT and non-TMT stocks is probably in its late innings in absolute terms. In response to their massive underperformance, we are upgrading Chinese investable stocks from underweight to neutral within an EM equity portfolio. Also, we are taking profits on our recommended position of short Chinese value stocks / long global value stocks. Overall Market Observations The selloff in global and EM equities is not over. As we argued in our March 10 report, global stocks will set a durable bottom only if oil prices drop on a sustainable basis and if the Fed backs off from tightening/US bond yields drop. Neither of these conditions have been met so far. In addition, the Ukraine crisis will intensify. Hence, the path of least resistance for global share prices is lower. The current geopolitical and macro backdrops are similar to the ones that prevailed during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, the oil embargo of 1973 in response to the Yom Kippur War as well as the Gulf War of 1990. Based on the above three profiles, the current selloff in US stocks is not yet over (Chart 14). Chart 13Chinese Non-TMT Stocks: A Lot Of Bad News Being Discounted? Chart 14US Equity Drawdowns During Geopolitical Crises/Commodity Shocks Importantly, rapidly rising US high-yield corporate ex-energy bond yields (shown inverted in the chart) are a precursor for lower US share prices (Chart 15). All this means that non-US equities, including EM, will continue to suffer. In a nutshell, investors’ sentiment on EM equities is not very bearish to warrant a bullish stance from a contrarian perceptive (Chart 16). Chart 15Rising US Corporate Bond Yields Is A Problem For The S&P 500 Chart 16EM Equity Sentiment Is Not Very Depressed Yet   Bottom Line: Investors should stay defensive on global risk assets and continue underweighting EM equities and credit in global equity and credit portfolios, respectively. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes

Executive Summary Investors Think The Fed Will Not Be Able To Raise Rates Much Above 2% The neutral rate of interest is 3%-to-4% in the United States. This is substantially higher than the market estimate of around 2%. It is also higher than the central tendency range for the Fed’s terminal interest rate dot, which remained at 2.3%-to-2.5% following this week’s FOMC meeting. If the neutral rate turns out to be higher than expected, this is arguably good news for stocks over the short-to-medium term because it lowers the risk that the Fed will accidentally induce a recession this year by bringing rates into restrictive territory. Over a longer-term horizon of 2-to-5 years, however, a higher neutral rate is bad news for stocks because it means that investors will eventually need to value equities using a higher discount rate. It also means that the Fed could find itself woefully behind the curve in normalizing monetary policy. Bottom Line: Global equities will rise over the next 12 months as the situation in Ukraine stabilizes, commodity prices recede, and inflation temporarily declines. Stocks will peak in the second half of 2023 in advance of a second, and currently unexpected, round of Fed tightening beginning in late-2023 or 2024.   Dear Client, Instead of our regular report next week, we will be sending you a Special Report written by Matt Gertken, BCA Research’s Chief Geopolitical Strategist, discussing the geopolitical implications of the war in Ukraine. We will be back the following week with the GIS Quarterly Strategy Outlook, where we will explore the major trends that are set to drive financial markets in the rest of 2022 and beyond. As always, I will hold a webcast discussing the outlook the week after, on Thursday, April 7th. Best regards, Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist https://www.linkedin.com/in/peter-berezin-1289b87/ https://twitter.com/BerezinPeter A Two-Stage Fed Tightening Cycle The FOMC raised rates by 25 basis points this week, the first of seven rate hikes that the Federal Reserve has telegraphed in its Summary of Economic Projections for the remainder of 2022. We expect the Fed to follow through on its planned rate hikes this year, but then go on pause in early-2023, as inflation temporarily comes down. However, the Fed will resume raising rates in late-2023 or 2024 once inflation begins to reaccelerate and it becomes clear that monetary policy is still too easy. This second round of monetary tightening is currently not anticipated by market participants. If anything, investors think the Fed is more likely to cut rates than raise rates towards the end of next year (Chart 1). The Fed’s own views are not that different from the markets’: The central tendency range for the Fed’s terminal interest rate dot remained at 2.3%-to-2.5% following this week’s FOMC meeting, with the median dot actually ticking lower to 2.4% from 2.5% (Chart 2). Chart 2The Fed Is Still In The Secular Stagnation Camp A Higher Neutral Rate Our higher-than-consensus view of where US rates will eventually end up reflects our conviction that the neutral rate of interest is somewhere between 3% and 4%. One can think of the neutral rate as the interest rate that equates the amount of investment a country wants to undertake at full employment with the amount of savings that it has at its disposal.1 Anything that reduces savings or increases investment would raise the neutral rate (Chart 3). As we discussed last month, a number of factors are likely to lower desired savings in the US over the next few years: Households will spend down their accumulated pandemic savings. US households are sitting on $2.3 trillion (10% of GDP) in excess savings, the result of both decreased spending on services during the pandemic and the receipt of generous government transfer payments (Chart 4). Household wealth has soared since the start of the pandemic (Chart 5). Conservatively assuming that households spend three cents of every additional dollar in wealth, the resulting wealth effect could boost consumption by nearly 4% of GDP. Chart 5Net Worth Has Soared Since The Pandemic The household deleveraging cycle has ended (Chart 6). Household balance sheets are in good shape. After falling during the initial stages of the pandemic, consumer credit has begun to rebound. Banks are easing lending standards on consumer loans across the board. Baby boomers are retiring. They hold over half of US household wealth, considerably more than younger generations (Chart 7). As baby boomers transition from savers to dissavers, national savings will decline. Chart 6US Household Deleveraging Pressures Have Abated Chart 7Baby Boomers Have Amassed A Lot Of Wealth Government budget deficits will stay elevated. Fiscal deficits subtract from national savings. While the US budget deficit will come down over the next few years, the IMF estimates that the structural budget deficit will still average 4.9% of GDP between 2022 and 2026 compared to 2.0% of GDP between 2014 and 2019 (Chart 8). On the investment front: The deceleration in trend GDP growth, which depressed investment spending, has largely run its course.2 According to the Congressional Budget Office, real potential GDP growth fell from over 3% in the early 1980s to about 1.9% today. The CBO expects potential growth to edge down only slightly to 1.7% over the next few decades (Chart 9). Chart 8Fiscal Policy: Tighter But Not Tight Chart 9Much Of The Deceleration In Potential Growth Has Already Happened After moving broadly sideways for two decades, core capital goods orders – a leading indicator for capital spending – have broken out to the upside (Chart 10). Capex intention surveys remain upbeat (Chart 11). The average age of the nonresidential capital stock currently stands at 16.3 years, the highest since 1965 (Chart 12). Chart 10Positive Signs For Capex (I) Similar to nonresidential investment, the US has been underinvesting in residential real estate (Chart 13). The average age of the housing stock has risen to a 71-year high of 31 years. The homeowner vacancy rate has plunged to the lowest level on record. The number of newly finished homes for sale is half of what it was prior to the pandemic. Chart 11Positive Signs For Capex (II) Chart 12An Aging Capital Stock Chart 13Housing Is In Short Supply The New ESG: Energy Security and Guns The war in Ukraine will put further pressure on the neutral rate, especially outside of the United States. Chart 14European Capex Should Recover After staging a plodding recovery following the euro debt crisis, European capital spending received a sizable boost from the launch of the NextGenerationEU Recovery Fund (Chart 14). Capital spending will rise further in the years ahead as European governments accelerate efforts to make their economies less reliant on Russian energy. Meanwhile, European governments are trying to ease the burden from rising energy costs. France has introduced a rebate on fuel starting on April 1st. It is part of a EUR 20 billion package aimed at cutting heating and electricity bills. Other countries are considering similar measures. European military spending will also rise. Germany has already announced that it will spend EUR 100 billion more on defense. European governments will also need to boost spending to accommodate potentially several million Ukrainian refugees. A Smaller Chinese Current Account Surplus? Chart 15Will China Be A Source Of Excess Savings? The difference between what a country saves and invests equals its current account balance. Historically, China has been a major exporter of savings, which has helped depress interest rates abroad. While China’s current account surplus has declined as a share of its own GDP, it has remained very large as a share of global ex-China GDP, reflecting China’s growing weight in the global economy (Chart 15). Many analysts assume that China will double down on efforts to boost exports in order to offset the drag from falling property investment. However, there is a major geopolitical snag with that thesis: A country that runs a current account surplus must, by definition, accumulate assets from the rest of the world. As the freezing of Russia’s foreign exchange reserves demonstrates, that is a risky proposition for a country such as China. Rather than increasing its current account surplus, China may seek to bolster its economy by raising domestic demand. This could be achieved by either boosting domestic investment on infrastructure and/or consumption. Notably, the IMF’s latest projections foresee China’s current account surplus falling by more than half between 2021 and 2026 as a share of global ex-China GDP. If this were to happen, the neutral rate in China and elsewhere would rise. The Path to Neutral: The Role of Inflation If one accepts the premise that the neutral rate in the US is higher than widely believed, what will the path to this higher rate look like? The answer hinges critically on the trajectory of inflation. If inflation remains stubbornly high, the Fed will be forced to hike rates by more than expected over the next 12 months. In contrast, if inflation comes down rapidly, then the Fed will be able to raise rates at a more leisurely pace. As late as early February, one could have made a strong case that US inflation was set to fall. The demand for goods was beginning to moderate as spending shifted back towards services. On the supply side, the bottlenecks that had impaired goods production were starting to ease. Chart 16 shows that the number of ships anchored off the coast of Los Angeles and Long Beach has been trending lower while the supplier delivery components of both the ISM manufacturing and nonmanufacturing indices had come off their highs. Since then, the outlook for inflation has become a lot murkier. As we discussed last week, the war in Ukraine is putting upward pressure on commodity prices, ranging from energy, to metals, to agriculture. BCA’s geopolitical team, led by Matt Gertken, expects the war to worsen before a truce of sorts is reached in a month or two. Meanwhile, a new Covid wave is gaining momentum. New daily cases are rising across Europe and have exploded higher in parts of Asia (Chart 17). In China, the number of new cases has reached a two-year high. The government has already locked down parts of the country encompassing 37 million people, including Shenzhen, a major high-tech hub adjoining Hong Kong. Chart 17Covid Cases Are On The Rise Again In Some Countries Most new cases in China and elsewhere stem from the BA.2 subvariant of Omicron, which appears to be at least 50% more contagious than Omicron Classic. Given its extreme contagiousness, China may be forced to rely on massive nationwide lockdowns in order to maintain its zero-Covid strategy. While such lockdowns may provide some relief in the form of lower oil prices, the overall effect will be to worsen supply-chain disruptions. Watch For Signs of a Wage-Price Spiral As the experience of the 1960s demonstrates, the relationship between inflation and unemployment is inherently non-linear: The labor market can tighten for a long time with little impact on prices and wages, only for a wage-price spiral to suddenly develop once unemployment falls below a certain threshold (Chart 18). Chart 18A Wage-Price Spiral Was Ignited By Very Low Unemployment Levels In The 1960s Chart 19Wage Growth Has Picked Up, But Mostly At The Bottom End Of The Income Distribution For the time being, a wage-price spiral does not appear imminent. While wage growth has picked up, most of the increase in wages has occurred at the bottom end of the income distribution (Chart 19). Chart 20More Low-Wage Employees Should Return To Work Low-wage workers have not returned to the labor force to the same extent as higher-wage workers (Chart 20). However, now that extended unemployment benefits have lapsed and savings deposits are being drawn down, the incentive to resume work will strengthen. An influx of workers back into the labor market will cap wage growth, at least for this year. Long-Term Inflation Expectations Still Contained A sudden increase in long-term inflation expectations can be a precursor to a wage-price spiral because the expectation of higher prices can induce consumers to shop now before prices rise further, while also incentivizing workers to demand higher wages. Reassuringly, long-term inflation expectations have not risen that much. Expected inflation 5-to-10 years out in the University of Michigan survey registered 3.0% in March, down a notch from 3.1% in February (Chart 21). While the widely followed 5-year, 5-year forward TIPS inflation breakeven rate has climbed to 2.32%, it is still at the bottom of the Fed’s comfort zone of 2.3%-to-2.5% (Chart 22).3 Chart 21Long-Term Inflation Expectations Remain Contained (I) Chart 22Long-Term Inflation Expectations Remain Contained (II) Chart 23The Magnitude Of Damage Depends On How Long The Commodity Price Shock Lasts Moreover, the jump in market-based inflation expectations since the start of the war in Ukraine has been fueled by rising oil prices. The forwards are pointing to a fairly pronounced decline in the price of crude and most other commodity prices over the next 12 months (Chart 23). If that happens, inflation expectations will dip anew. Investment Implications The neutral rate of interest is higher in the United States than widely believed. A higher neutral rate is arguably good for stocks over the short-to-medium term because it lowers the risk that the Fed will accidentally induce a recession this year by bringing rates into restrictive territory. Over a longer-term horizon of 2-to-5 years, however, a higher neutral rate is bad news for stocks because it means that investors will eventually need to value stocks using a higher discount rate. It also means that the Fed could find itself woefully behind the curve in normalizing monetary policy. While the war in Ukraine and yet another Covid wave could continue to unsettle markets for the next month or two, global equities will be higher in 12 months than they are now. With inflation in the US likely to temporarily come down in the second half of the year, bond yields probably will not rise much more this year. However, yields will start moving higher in the second half of next year as it becomes clear that policy rates still have further to rise. The bull market in stocks will end at that point.   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  These savings can either by generated domestically or imported from abroad via a current account deficit. 2  Theoretically, there is a close relationship between trend growth and the equilibrium investment-to-GDP ratio. For example, if real trend growth is 3% and the capital stock-to-GDP ratio is 200%, a country would need to invest 6% of GDP net of depreciation to maintain the existing capital stock-to-GDP ratio. In contrast, if trend growth were to fall to 2%, the country would only need to invest 4% of GDP. 3  The Federal Reserve targets an average inflation rate of 2% for the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) index. The TIPS breakeven is based on the CPI index. Due to compositional differences between the two indices, CPI inflation has historically averaged 30-to-50 basis points higher than PCE inflation. This is why the Fed effectively targets a CPI inflation rate of about 2.3%-to-2.5%. View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores