Geopolitical Regions

Executive Summary In this first of a regular series of ‘no holds barred’ conversations with a concerned client we tackle the hot topic of inflation. Month-on-month US core inflation has already peaked, 12-month US core inflation is about to peak, and demand destruction will ultimately pull down headline inflation too. Given modest and slowing growth in unit labour costs, there is no imminent risk of a wage-price spiral. Surging inflation expectations are just capturing the frothiness in inflation protected bond prices that massive hedging demand is creating. This recent massive demand for inflation hedges such as inflation protected bonds and commodities will recede and take the frothiness out of their prices. On a 6-12 month horizon, underweight inflation protected bonds and commodities… …overweight conventional bonds and stocks… …and tilt towards healthcare and biotech. The Performance Of Inflation Protected Bonds Versus Conventional Bonds Just Tracks The Oil Price Bottom Line: US core inflation is about to peak, demand destruction will ultimately pull down headline inflation, and there is no imminent risk of a wage-price spiral. On a 6-12 horizon, overweight stocks and conventional bonds versus commodities and inflation protected bonds. Feature Welcome to the first of a regular series of Counterpoint reports that takes the form of a ‘no holds barred’ conversation with a concerned client. Roughly once a month, our open and counterpoint conversations will address a major question or concern for investors. This inaugural conversation tackles the hot topic of inflation. On Peak Inflation Client: Thank you for addressing my worries. Like many people right now, I am concerned about inflation. My first question is, when is inflation going to peak? CPT: The good news is that, in an important sense, inflation has already peaked. Month-on-month core inflation in the US reached a high of 0.9 percent through April-June last year. In the more recent pickup through October-January it reached a ‘lower peak’ of 0.6 percent. And in March it dropped to 0.3 percent. Client: Ok, but inflation usually refers to the 12-month inflation rate – when will that peak? CPT: The 12-month inflation rate is just the sum of the last twelve month-on-month rates. So, when the big numbers of April-June of last year drop off to be replaced by the smaller numbers of April-June of this year, the 12-month inflation rate will fall sharply (Chart I-1). Chart I-1Month-On-Month Core Inflation Has Already Peaked, And 12-Month Core Inflation Is About To Peak Client: Even if the 12-month inflation rate does peak soon, it will still be far too high. When will it return to the 2 percent target? CPT: In the pandemic era, monthly core inflation has been non-linear. Meaning it has been either ‘high-phase’ of 0.5 percent and above, or ‘low-phase’ of 0.3 percent and below. In March it returned to low-phase. If it stays in low-phase, then as an arithmetic identity, the 12-month core inflation rate will be close to its target twelve months from now. Client: So far, you have just talked about core inflation which excludes energy and food prices. What about headline inflation? Specifically, isn’t the Ukraine crisis a massive supply shock for Russian and Ukrainian sourced energy and food? Demand destruction will ultimately pull down headline inflation too. CPT: Yes, headline inflation may take longer to come down than core inflation. But supply shocks ultimately resolve themselves through demand destruction. Client: Could you elaborate on that? CPT: Sure. With fuel and food prices surging, many people are asking: do I really need to make that journey? Do I really need to keep the heating on? Can I buy a cheaper loaf of bread? So, they will cut back, and to the extent that they can’t cut back on energy and food, demand for other more discretionary items will come down, and eventually weigh on prices. Client: At the same time, the pandemic is still raging – look at what’s happening in Shanghai right now. Won’t further disruptions to supply chains just add further fuel to inflation? CPT: Yes, but to repeat, inflation that is entirely due to a supply shock ultimately resolves itself through demand destruction. On The Source Of The Inflation Crisis Client: I am puzzled. If supply shock generated inflation resolves itself, then what has caused the post-pandemic inflation to be anything but ‘transitory’? CPT: The simple answer is the pandemic’s draconian lockdowns combined with massive handouts of government cash unleashed a massive demand shock. But it wasn’t a shock in the magnitude of demand, it was a shock in the distribution of demand (Chart I-2). Chart I-2The Pandemic's Draconian Lockdowns Combined With Massive Government Stimulus Unleashed A Massive Shock In The Distribution Of Demand Client: Could you explain that? CPT: Well, we were all locked at home and flush with government supplied cash, and we couldn’t spend the cash on services. So, we spent it on what we could spend it on – namely, durable goods. This created a massive shock in the distribution of demand, out of services whose supply could easily adjust downwards, and into goods whose supply could not easily adjust upwards. Client: Can you give me some specific examples? CPT: Sure. Airlines could cut back their flights, but auto manufacturers couldn’t make more cars. So, airfares didn’t collapse but used car prices went vertical! The result being the surge in inflation. Client: Do you have any more evidence? Inflation is highest in those economies where the cash handouts and furlough schemes were the most generous, like the US and the UK. CPT: Yes, the three separate surges in month-on-month core inflation all occurred after surges in durable goods demand (Chart I-3). Additionally, inflation is highest in those economies where the cash handouts and furlough schemes were the most generous – like the US and the UK. Chart I-3The Three Surges In Month-On-Month Core Inflation All Occurred After Surges In Durable Goods Demand Client: If we get more waves of Covid, what’s to stop all this happening again? CPT: Nothing, so we should be vigilant. That said, we now have coping strategies for Covid that do not necessitate massive handouts of government cash. Also, we have already binged on durable goods, making it much harder to repeat that trick. On Wages And Inflation Expectations Client: I am still worried that if workers can negotiate much higher wages in response to higher prices, then it would threaten a wage-price spiral. CPT: Agreed, but it is technically incorrect to focus on wage inflation. The correct metric to focus on is unit labour cost inflation – which is wage growth in excess of productivity growth. In the US, this was 3.5 percent through 2021, slowing to just a 0.9 percent annual rate in the fourth quarter. So, it is not flashing danger, at least yet. Client: Ok, but what about the surge in inflation expectations. Isn’t that flashing danger? CPT: We should treat inflation expectations with a huge dose of salt, as they simply track the oil price, and therefore provide a nonsensical prediction of future inflation! (Chart I-4) Chart I-4The Tight Relationship Between The Oil Price And Inflation Expectations Is Intuitive, Appealing... And Nonsense Client: What can explain this nonsense? CPT: Simply that when the oil price is high, investors flood into inflation hedges such as inflation protected bonds. So, the surge in inflation expectations is just capturing the frothiness in inflation protected bond prices that this massive hedging demand is creating. We can see similar frothiness in some commodity prices. The recent massive demand for inflation hedges such as inflation protected bonds and commodities will recede and take the frothiness out of their prices. Client: How so? CPT: Well to the extent that commodity prices drive headline inflation, the apples-for-apples relationship should be between commodity price inflation and headline inflation, and this is what we generally see (Chart I-5). But recently, this relationship has broken down and instead we see a tighter relationship between headline inflation and commodity price levels (Chart I-6 and Chart I-7). The likely causality here is that, just as for inflation protected bonds, massive inflation hedging demand has created frothiness in some commodity prices. Chart I-5Commodity Price Inflation Usually Drives Headline Inflation, But Recently The Relationship Broke Down Chart I-6Recently, We See A Weak Relationship Between Commodity Price Inflation And Headline Inflation... Chart I-7...But A Tight Relationship Between Headline Inflation And Commodity Price Levels On The Investment Implications Client: To sum up your view then, month-on-month US core inflation has already peaked, 12-month US core inflation is about to peak, and demand destruction will ultimately pull down headline inflation. Given modest and slowing growth in unit labour costs, there is no imminent risk of a wage-price spiral, and surging inflation expectations are just capturing the frothiness in inflation protected bond prices that massive hedging demand is creating. What does this view mean for investment strategy? On a 6-12 horizon, overweight stocks and conventional bonds versus commodities and inflation protected bonds. CPT: Well given that inflation is peaking, one obvious implication is that the massive demand for inflation hedges will recede and take the frothiness out of their prices. On a 6-12 month horizon this means underweighting inflation protected bonds and commodities (Chart I-8). Chart I-8The Performance Of Inflation Protected Bonds Versus Conventional Bonds Just Tracks The Oil Price Client: What about the surge in bond yields – when will that reverse? CPT: Empirically, we have seen that bond yields turn just ahead of the turn in the 12-month core inflation rate. Hence, on a 6-12 month horizon this means overweighting bonds. Client: Finally, what does all this mean for stock markets? CPT: The weakness of stock markets this year has been entirely due to falling valuations, rather than falling profits. If the headwind to valuations from rising bond yields turns into a tailwind from falling bond yields, it will boost stocks – especially long-duration stocks with relatively defensive profits. On a 6-12 month horizon this means overweighting stocks, and our favourite sectors are healthcare and biotech. Client: Thank you very much for this open and counterpoint conversation. Fractal Trading Watchlist Due to the Easter holidays, there are no new trades this week. However, the full updated watchlist of 20 investments that are experiencing or approaching turning points is available on our website: cpt.bcaresearch.com Chart 1The Strong Trend In The 18-Month-Out US Interest Rate Future Is Fragile Chart 2The Strong Trend In The 3 Year T-Bond Is Fragile Chart 3AUD/KRW Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 4Canada Versus Japan Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 5Canada's TSX-60's Outperformance Might Be Over Chart 6US Healthcare Providers Vs. Software At Risk of Reversal Chart 7Bitcoin's 65-Day Fractal Support Is Holding For Now Chart 8A Potential Switching Point From Tobacco Into Cannabis Chart 9Biotech Is A Major Buy Chart 10CAD/SEK Reversal Has Started Chart 11Financials Versus Industrials To Reverse Chart 12Norway's Outperformance Could End Chart 13Greece's Brief Outperformance To End Chart 14BRL/NZD At A Resistance Point Chart 15The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Healthcare Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 16The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Biotech Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 17Cotton's Outperformance Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 18US Homebuilders' Underperformance Is At A Potential Turning Point Chart 19Fractal Trading Watch List Chart 20Fractal Trading Watch List   Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Executive Summary Macron Still Favored, But Le Pen Cannot Be Ruled Out Macron is still favored to win the French election but Le Pen’s odds are 45%. Le Pen would halt France’s neoliberal structural reforms, paralyze EU policymaking, and help Russia’s leverage in Ukraine. But she would lack legislative support and would not fatally wound the EU or NATO. European political risk will remain high in Germany, Italy, and Spain. Favor UK equities on a relative basis. Financial markets are complacent about Russian geopolitical risk again. Steer clear of eastern European assets. Do not bottom feed in Chinese stocks. China faces social unrest. North Korean geopolitical risk is back. Australia’s election is an opportunity, not a risk. Stay bullish on Latin America. Prefer Brazil over India. Stay negative on Turkey and Pakistan.   Trade Recommendation Inception Date Return TACTICALLY LONG US 10-YEAR TREASURY 2022-04-14   Bottom Line: Go long the US 10-year Treasury on geopolitical risk and near-term peak in inflation. Feature Last year we declared that European political risk had reached a bottom and had nowhere to go but up. Great power rivalry with Russia primarily drove this view but we also argued that our structural theme of populism and nationalism would feed into it. Related Report  Geopolitical StrategyThe Geopolitical Consequences Of The Ukraine War In other words, the triumph of the center-left political establishment in the aftermath of Covid-19 would be temporary. The narrow French presidential race highlights this trend. President Emmanuel Macron is still favored but Marine Le Pen, his far-right, anti-establishment opponent, could pull off an upset victory on April 24. The one thing investors can be sure of is that France’s ability to pursue neoliberal structural reforms will be limited even if Macron wins, since he will lack the mandate he received in 2017. Our GeoRisk Indicators this month suggest that global political trends are feeding into today’s stagflationary macroeconomic context. Market Complacent About Russia Again Global financial markets are becoming complacent about European security once again. Markets have begun to price a slightly lower geopolitical risk for Russia after it withdrew military forces from around Kyiv in an open admission that it failed to overthrow the government. However, western sanctions are rising, not falling, and Russia’s retreat from Kyiv means it will need to be more aggressive in the south and east (Chart 1). Chart 1Russia: GeoRisk Indicator Russia has not achieved its core aim of a militarily neutral Ukraine – so it will escalate the military effort to achieve its aim. Any military failure in the east and south would humiliate the Putin regime and make it more unpredictable and dangerous. The West has doubled down on providing Ukraine with arms and hitting Russia with sanctions (e.g. imposing a ban on Russian coal). Germany prevented an overnight ban on Russian oil and natural gas imports but the EU is diversifying away from Russian energy rapidly. Sanctions that eat away at Russia’s export revenues will force it to take a more aggressive posture now, to achieve a favorable ceasefire before funding runs out. Sweden and Finland are reviewing whether to join NATO, with recommendations due by June. Russia will rattle sabers to underscore its red line against NATO enlargement and will continue to threaten “serious military-political repercussions” if these states try to join. We would guess they would remain neutral as a decision to join NATO could lead to a larger war. Bottom Line: Global equities will remain volatile due to a second phase of the war and potential Russian threats against Ukraine’s backers. European equities and currency, especially in emerging Europe, will suffer a persistent risk premium until a ceasefire is concluded. What If Le Pen Wins In France? By contrast with the war in Ukraine, the French election is a short-term source of political risk. A surprise Le Pen victory would shake up the European political establishment but investors should bear in mind that it would not revolutionize the continent or the world, as Le Pen’s powers would be limited. Unlike President Trump in 2017, she would not take office with her party gaining full control of the legislature. Le Pen rallied into the first round of the election on April 10, garnering 23% of the vote, up from 21% in 2017. This is not a huge increase in support but her odds of winning this time are much better than in 2017 because the country has suffered a series of material shocks to its stability. Voters are less enthusiastic about President Macron and his centrist political platform. Macron, the favorite of the political establishment, received 28% of the first-round vote, up from 24% in 2017. Thus he cannot be said to have disappointed expectations, though he is vulnerable. The euro remains weak against the dollar and unlikely to rally until Russian geopolitical risk and French political risk are decided. The market is not fully pricing French risk as things stand (Chart 2). Chart 2France: GeoRisk Indicator The first-round election results show mixed trends. The political establishment suffered but so did the right-wing parties (Table 1). The main explanation is that left-wing, anti-establishment candidate Jean-Luc Mélenchon beat expectations while the center-right Republicans collapsed. Macron is leading Le Pen by only five percentage points in the second-round opinion polling as we go to press (Chart 3). Macron has maintained this gap throughout the race so far and both candidates are very well known to voters. But Le Pen demonstrated significant momentum in the first round and momentum should never be underestimated. Table 1Results Of France’s First-Round Election​​​​​​ Chart 3French Election: Macron Maintains Lead​​​​​​ Are the polls accurate? Anti-establishment candidates outperformed their polling by 7 percentage points in the first round. Macron, the right-wing candidates, and the pro-establishment candidates all underperformed their March and April polls (Chart 4). Hence investors should expect polls to underrate Le Pen in the second round. Chart 4French Polls Fairly Accurate Versus First-Round Results Given the above points, it is critical to determine which candidate will gather the most support from voters whose first preference got knocked out in the first round. The strength of anti-establishment feeling means that the incumbent is vulnerable while ideological camps may not be as predictable as usual. Mélenchon has asked his voters not to give a single vote to Le Pen but he has not endorsed Macron. About 21% of his supporters say they will vote for Le Pen. Only a little more of them said they would vote for Macron, at 27% (Chart 5). Chart 5To Whom Will Voters Drift? Diagram 1, courtesy of our European Investment Strategy, illustrates that Macron is favored in both scenarios but Le Pen comes within striking distance under certain conservative assumptions about vote switching. Diagram 1Extrapolating France’s First-Round Election To The Second Round Macron’s approval rating has improved since the pandemic. This is unlike the situation in other liberal democracies (Chart 6). Chart 6Macron Handled Pandemic Reasonably Well The pandemic is fading and the economy reviving. Unemployment has fallen from 8.9% to 7.4% over the course of the pandemic. Real wage growth, at 5.8%, is higher than the 3.3% that prevailed when Macron took office in 2017 (Chart 7). Chart 7Real Wages A Boon For Macron But these positives do not rule out a Le Pen surprise. The nation has suffered not one but a series of historic shocks – the pandemic, inflation, and the war in Ukraine. Inflation is rising at 5.1%, pushing the “Misery Index” (inflation plus unemployment) to 12%, higher than when Macron took office, even if lower than the EU average (Chart 8). Chart 8Misery Index The Key Threat To Macron   Le Pen has moderated her populist message and rebranded her party in recent years to better align with the median French voter. She claims that she will not pursue a withdrawal from the European Union or the Euro Area currency union. This puts her on the right side of the one issue that disqualified her from the presidency in the past. Yet French trust in the EU is declining markedly, which suggests that Le Pen is in step with the median voter on wanting greater French autonomy (Chart 9). Le Pen’s well-known sympathy toward Vladimir Putin and Russia is a liability in the context of Russian aggression in Ukraine. Only 35% of French people had a positive opinion of Russia back in 2019, whereas 50% had a favorable view of NATO, and the gap has likely grown as a result of the invasion (Chart 10). However, the historic bout of inflation suggests that economic policy could be the most salient issue for voters rather than foreign policy. Chart 9Le Pen Only Electable Because She Accepted Europe​​​​​ Chart 10Le Pen’s NATO Stance Not Disqualifying ​​​​​ Le Pen’s economic platform is fiscally liberal and protectionist, which will appeal to voters upset over the rising cost of living and pressures of globalization. She wants to cut the income tax and value-added tax, while reversing Macron’s attempt at raising the retirement age and reforming the pension system. France’s tax rates on income, and on gasoline and diesel, are higher than the OECD average. In other words, Macron is running on painful structural reform while Le Pen is running on fiscal largesse. This is another reason to take seriously the risk of a Le Pen victory. What should investors expect if Le Pen pulls off an upset? France’s attempt at neoliberal structural reforms would grind to a halt. While Le Pen may not be able to pass domestic legislation, she would be able to halt the implementation of Macron’s reforms. Productivity and the fiscal outlook would suffer. Le Pen’s ability to change domestic policy will be limited by the National Assembly, which is due for elections from June 12-19. Her party, the National Rally (formerly the Front National), has never won more than 20% of local elections and performed poorly in the 2017 legislative vote. Investors should wait to see the results of the legislative election before drawing any conclusions about Le Pen’s ability to change domestic policy. France’s foreign policy would diverge from Europe’s. If Le Pen takes the presidency, she will put France at odds with Brussels, Berlin, and Washington, in much the same way that President Trump did. She would paralyze European policymaking. Yet Le Pen alone cannot take France out of the EU. The French public’s negative view of the EU is not the same as a majority desire to leave the bloc – and support for the euro currency stands at 69%. Le Pen does not have the support for “Frexit,” French exit from the EU. Moreover European states face immense pressures to work together in the context of global Great Power Rivalry. Independently they are small compared to the US, Russia, and China. Hence the EU will continue to consolidate as a geopolitical entity over the long run. Russia, however, would benefit from Le Pen’s presidency in the context of Ukraine ceasefire talks. EU sanctions efforts would freeze in place. Le Pen could try to take France out of NATO, though she would face extreme opposition from the military and political establishment. If she succeeded on her own executive authority, the result would be a division among NATO’s ranks in the face of Russia. This cannot be ruled out: if the US and Russia are fighting a new Cold War, then it is not unfathomable that France would revert to its Cold War posture of strategic independence. However, while France withdrew from NATO’s integrated military command from 1966-2009, it never withdrew fully from the alliance and was always still implicated in mutual defense. In today’s context, NATO’s deterrent capability would not be much diminished but Le Pen’s administration would be isolated. Russia would be unable to give any material support to France’s economy or national defense. Bottom Line: Macron is still favored for re-election but investors should upgrade Le Pen’s chances to a subjective 45%. If she wins, the euro will suffer a temporary pullback and French government bond spreads will widen over German bunds. The medium-term view on French equities and bonds will depend on her political capability, which depends on the outcome of the legislative election from June 12-19. She will likely be stymied at home and only capable of tinkering with foreign policy. But if she has legislative support, her agenda is fiscally stimulative and would produce a short-term sugar high for French corporate earnings. However, it would be negative for long-term productivity. UK, Italy, Spain: Who Else Faces Populism? Chart 11Rest Of Europe: GeoRisk Indicators Between Russian geopolitical risk and French political risk, other European countries are likely to see their own geopolitical risk premium rise (Chart 11). But these countries have their own domestic political dynamics that contribute to the reemergence of European political risk. Germany’s domestic political risk is relatively low but it faces continued geopolitical risk in the form of Russia tensions, China’s faltering economy, and potentially French populism (Chart 11, top panel). In Italy, the national unity coalition that took shape under Prime Minister Mario Draghi was an expedient undertaken in the face of the pandemic. As the pandemic fades, a backlash will take shape among the large group of voters who oppose the EU and Italian political establishment. The Italian establishment has distributed the EU recovery funds and secured the Italian presidency as a check on future populist governments. But it may not be able to do more than that before the next general election in June 2023, which means that populism will reemerge and increase the political risk premium in Italian assets going forward (Chart 11, second panel). Spain is still a “divided nation” susceptible to a rise in political risk ahead of the general election due by December 10, 2023. However, the conservative People’s Party, the chief opposition party, has suffered from renewed infighting, which gives temporary relief to the ruling Socialist Worker’s Party of Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez. The Russia-Ukraine issue caused some minor divisions within the government but they are not yet leading to any major political crisis, as nationwide pro-Ukraine sentiment is largely unified. The Andalusia regional election, which is expected this November, will be a check point for the People’s Party’s new leadership and a test run for next year’s general election. Andalusia is the most populous autonomous community in Spain, consisting about 17% of the seats in the congress (the lower house). The risk for Sanchez and the Socialists is that the opposition has a strong popular base and this fact combined with the stagflationary backdrop will keep political polarization high and undermine the government’s staying power (Chart 11, third panel). While Prime Minister Boris Johnson has survived the scandal over attending social events during Covid lockdowns, as we expected, nevertheless the Labour Party is starting to make a comeback that will gain momentum ahead of the 2024 general election. Labour is unlikely to embrace fiscal austerity or attempt to reverse Brexit anytime soon. Hence the UK’s inflationary backdrop will persist (Chart 11, fourth panel). Bottom Line: European political risk has bottomed and will rise in the coming months and years, although the EU and Eurozone will survive. We still favor UK equities over developed market equities (excluding the US) because they are heavily tilted toward consumer staples and energy sectors. Stay long GBP-CZK. Favor European defense stocks over tech. Prefer Spanish stocks over Italian. China: Social Unrest More Likely China’s historic confluence of internal and external risks continues – and hence it is too soon for global investors to try to bottom-feed on Chinese investable equities (Chart 12). A tactical opportunity might emerge for non-US investors in 2023 but now is not the right time to buy. Chart 12China: GeoRisk Indicator In domestic politics, the reversion to autocracy under Xi is exacerbating the economic slowdown. True, Beijing is stimulating the economy by means of its traditional monetary and fiscal tools. The latest data show that the total social financing impulse is reviving, primarily on the back of local government bonds (Chart 13). Yet overall social financing is weaker because private sector sentiment remains downbeat. The government is pursuing excessively stringent social restrictions in the face of the pandemic. Beijing is doubling down on “Covid Zero” policy by locking down massive cities such as Shanghai. The restrictions will fail to prevent the virus from spreading. They are likely to engender social unrest, which we flagged as our top “Black Swan” risk this year and is looking more likely. Lockdowns will also obstruct production and global supply chains, pushing up global goods inflation. Meanwhile the property sector continues to slump on the back of weak domestic demand, large debt levels, excess capacity, regulatory scrutiny, and negative sentiment. Consumer borrowing appetite and general animal spirits are weak in the face of the pandemic and repressive political environment (Chart 14). Chart 13China's Stimulus Has Clearly Arrived​​​​​​ Chart 14Yet Chinese Animal Spirits Still Suffering​​​​​​ Hence China will be exporting slow growth and inflation – stagflation – to the rest of the world until after the party congress. At that point President Xi will feel politically secure enough to “let 100 flowers bloom” and try to improve economic sentiment at home and abroad. This will be a temporary phenomenon (as were the original 100 flowers under Chairman Mao) but it will be notable for 2023. In foreign politics, Russia’s attack on Ukraine has accelerated the process of Russo-Chinese alliance formation. This partnership will hasten US containment strategy toward China and impose a much faster economic transition on China as it pursues self-sufficiency. The result will be a revival of US-China tensions. The implications are negative for the rest of Asia Pacific: Taiwanese geopolitical risk will continue rising for reasons we have outlined in previous reports. In addition, Taiwanese equities are finally starting to fall off from the pandemic-induced semiconductor rally (Chart 15). The US and others are also pursuing semiconductor supply security, which will reduce Taiwan’s comparative advantage. Chart 15Taiwan: GeoRisk Indicator South Korea faces paralysis and rising tensions with North Korea. The presidential election on May 9 brought the conservatives back into the Blue House. The conservative People Power Party’s candidate, Yoon Suk-yeol, eked out a narrow victory that leaves him without much political capital. His hands are also tied by the National Assembly, at least for the next two years. He will attempt to reorient South Korean foreign policy toward the US alliance and away from China. He will walk away from the “Moonshine” policy of engagement with North Korea, which yielded no fruit over the past five years. North Korea has responded by threatening a nuclear missile test, restarting intercontinental ballistic missile tests for the first time since 2017, and adopting a more aggressive nuclear deterrence policy in which any South Korean attack will ostensibly be punished by a massive nuclear strike. Tensions on the peninsula are set to rise (Chart 16). Three US aircraft carrier groups are around Japan today, despite the war in Europe (where two are placed), suggesting high threat levels. Chart 16South Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Australia’s elections present opportunity rather than risk. Prime Minister Scott Morrison formally scheduled them for May 21. The Australian Labor Party is leading in public opinion and will perform well. The election threatens a change of parties but not a drastic change in national policy – populist parties are weak. No major improvement in China relations should be expected. Any temporary improvement, as with the Biden administration, will be subject to reversal due to China’s long-term challenge to the liberal international order. Cyclically the Australian dollar and equities stand to benefit from the global commodity upcycle as well as relative geopolitical security due to American security guarantees (Chart 17). Chart 17Australia: GeoRisk Indicator Bottom Line: China’s reversion to autocracy will keep global sentiment negative on Chinese equities until 2023 at earliest. Stay short the renminbi and Taiwanese dollar. Favor the Japanese yen over the Korean won. Favor South Korean over Taiwanese equities. Look favorably on the Australian dollar. Turkey, South Africa, And … Canada Turkish geopolitical risk will remain elevated in the context of a rampant Russia, NATO’s revival and tensions with Russia, the threat of commerce destruction and accidents in the Black Sea region, domestic economic mismanagement, foreign military adventures, and the threat posed to the aging Erdogan regime by the political opposition in the wake of the pandemic and the lead-up to the 2023 elections (Chart 18). Chart 18Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator While we are tactically bullish on South African equities and currency, we expect South African political risk to rise steadily into the 2024 general election. Almost a year has passed since the civil unrest episode of 2021. Covid-19 lockdowns have been lifted and the national state of disaster has ended, which has helped quell social tensions. This is evident in the decline of our South Africa GeoRisk indicator from 2021 highs (Chart 19). While fiscal austerity is under way in South Africa, we have argued that fiscal policy will reverse course in time for the 2024 election. In this year’s fiscal budget, the budget deficit is projected to narrow from -6% to -4.2% over the next two years. Government has increased tax revenue collection through structural reforms that are rooting out corruption and wasteful expenditure. But the ANC will have to tap into government spending to shore up lost support come 2024. Thus South Africa benefits tactically from commodity prices but cyclically the currency is vulnerable. Chart 19South Africa: GeoRisk Indicator Canadian political risk will rise but that should not deter investors from favoring Canadian assets that are not exposed to the property bubble. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has had a net negative approval rating since early 2021 and his government is losing political capital due to inflation, social unrest, and rising difficulties with housing affordability (Chart 20). While he does not face an election until 2025, the Conservative Party is developing more effective messaging. Chart 20Canada: GeoRisk Indicator India Will Stay Neutral But Lean Toward The West Chart 21Sino-Pak Alliance’s Geopolitical Power Is Thrice That Of India US President Joe Biden has openly expressed his administration’s displeasure regarding India’s response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. This has led many to question the strength of Indo-US relations and the direction of India’s geopolitical alignments. To complicate matters, China’s overtures towards India have turned positive lately, leading clients to ask if a realignment in Indo-China relations is nigh. To accurately assess India’s long-term geopolitical propensities, it is important to draw a distinction between ‘cyclical’ and ‘structural’ dynamics that are at play today. Such a distinction yields crystal-clear answers about India’s strategic geopolitical leanings. In specific: Indo-US Relations Will Strengthen On A Strategic Horizon: As the US’s and China’s grand strategies collide, minor and major geopolitical earthquakes are bound to take place in South Asia and the Indo-Pacific. Against this backdrop, India will strategically align with the US to strengthen its hand in the region (Chart 21). While the Russo-Ukrainian war is a major global geopolitical event, for India this is a side-show at best. True, India will retain aspects of its historic good relations with Russia. Yet countering China’s encirclement of India is a far more fundamental concern for India. Since Russia has broken with Europe, and China cannot reject Russia’s alliance, India will gradually align with the US and its allies. India And China Will End Up As A Conflicting Dyad: Strategic conflict between the two Asian powers is likely because China’s naval development and its Eurasian strategy threaten India’s national security and geopolitical imperatives, while India’s alliances are adding to China’s distrust of India. Thus any improvement in Sino-Indian diplomatic relations will be short-lived. The US will constantly provide leeway for India in its attempts to court India as a key player in the containment strategy against China. The US and its allies are the premier maritime powers and upholders of the liberal world order – India serves its national interest better by joining them rather than joining China in a risky attempt to confront the US navy and revolutionize the world order. Indo-Russian Relations Are Bound To Fade In The Long Run: India will lean towards the US over the next few years for reasons of security and economics. But India’s movement into America’s sphere of influence will be slow – and that is by design. India is testing waters with America through networks like the Quadrilateral Dialogue. It sees its historic relationship with Russia as a matter of necessity in the short run and a useful diversification strategy in the long run. True, India will maintain a trading relationship with Russia for defense goods and cheap oil. But this trade will be transactional and is not reason enough for India to join Russia and China in opposing US global leadership. While these factors will mean that Indo-Russian relations are amicable over a cyclical horizon, this relationship is bound to fade over a strategic horizon as China and Russia grow closer and the US pursues its grand strategy of countering China and Russia. Bottom Line: India may appear to be neutral about the Russo-Ukrainian war but India will shed its historical stance of neutrality and veer towards America’s sphere of influence on a strategic timeframe. India is fully aware of its strategic importance to both the American camp and the Russo-Chinese camp. It thus has the luxury of making its leanings explicit after extracting most from both sides. Long Brazil / Short India Brazil’s equity markets have been on a tear. MSCI Brazil has outperformed MSCI EM by 49% in 2022 YTD. Brazil’s markets have done well because Brazil is a commodity exporter and the war in Ukraine has little bearing on faraway Latin America. This rally will have legs although Brazil’s political risks will likely pick back up in advance of the election (Chart 22). The reduction in Brazil’s geopolitical risk so far this year has been driven mainly by the fact that the currency has bounced on the surge in commodity prices. In addition, former President Lula da Silva is the current favorite to win the 2022 presidential elections – Lula is a known quantity and not repugnant to global financial institutions (Chart 23). Chart 22Brazil's Markets Have Benefitted From Rising Commodity Prices Chart 23Brazil: Watch Out For Political Impact Of Commodity Prices Whilst there is no denying that the first-round effects of the Ukraine war have been positive for Brazil, there is a need to watch out for the second-round effects of the war as Latin America’s largest economy heads towards elections. Surging prices will affect two key constituencies in Brazil: consumers and farmers. Consumer price inflation in Brazil has been ascendant and adding to Brazil’s median voter’s economic miseries. Rising inflation will thus undermine President Jair Bolsonaro’s re-election prospects further. The fact that energy prices are a potent polling issue is evinced by the fact that Bolsonaro recently sacked the chief executive of Petrobras (i.e. Brazil’s largest listed company) over rising fuel costs. Furthermore, Brazil is a leading exporter of farm produce and hence also a large importer of fertilizers. Fertilizer prices have surged since the war broke out. This is problematic for Brazil since Russia and Belarus account for a lion’s share of Brazil’s fertilizer imports. Much like inflation in general, the surge in fertilizer prices will affect the elections because some of the regions that support Bolsonaro also happen to be regions whose reliance on agriculture is meaningful (Map 1). They will suffer from higher input prices. Map 1States That Supported Bolso, Could Be Affected By Fertilizer Price Surge Chart 24Long Brazil Financials / Short India Given that Bolsonaro continues to lag Lula on popularity ratings – and given the adverse effect that higher commodity prices will have on Brazil’s voters – we expect Bolsonaro to resort to fiscal populism or attacks on Brazil’s institutions in a last-ditch effort to cling to power. He could even be emboldened by the fact that Sérgio Moro, the former judge and corruption fighter, decided to pull out of the presidential race. This could provide a fillip to Bolso’s popularity. Bottom Line: Brazil currently offers a buying opportunity owing to attractive valuations and high commodity prices. But investors should stay wary of latent political risks in Brazil, which could manifest themselves as presidential elections draw closer. We urge investors to take-on only selective tactical exposure in Brazil for now. Equities appear cheap but political and macro risks abound. To play the rally yet stave off political risk, we suggest a tactical pair trade: Long Brazil Financials / Short India (Chart 24). Whilst we remain constructive on India on a strategic horizon, for the next 12 months we worry about near-term macro and geopolitical headwinds as well as India’s rich valuations. Don’t Buy Into Pakistan’s Government Change Chart 25Pakistan’s Military Is Unusually Influential The newest phase in Pakistan’s endless cycle of political instability has begun. Prime Minister Imran Khan has been ousted. A new coalition government and a new prime minister, Shehbaz Sharif, have assumed power. Prime Minister Sharif’s appointment may make it appear like risks imposed by Pakistan have abated. After all, Sharif is seen as a good administrator and has signaled an interest in mending ties with India. But despite the appearance of a regime change, geopolitical risks imposed by Pakistan remain intact for three sets of reasons: Military Is Still In Charge: Pakistan’s military has been and remains the primary power center in the country (Chart 25). Former Prime Minister Khan’s rise to power was possible owing to the military’s support and he fell for the same reason. Since the military influences the civil administration as well as foreign policy, a lasting improvement in Indo-Pak relations is highly unlikely. Risk Of “Rally Round The Flag” Diversion: General elections are due in Pakistan by October 2023. Sharif is acutely aware of the stiff competition he will face at these elections. His competitors exist outside as well as inside his government. One such contender is Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), which is a key coalition partner of the new government that assumed power. Imran Khan himself is still popular and will plot to return to power. Against such a backdrop the newly elected PM is highly unlikely to pursue an improvement in Indo-Pak relations. Such a strategy will adversely affect his popularity and may also upset the military. Hence we highlight the risk of the February 2021 Indo-Pak ceasefire being violated in the run up to Pakistan’s general elections. India’s government has no reason to prevent tensions, given its own political calculations and the benefits of nationalism. Internal Social Instability Poor: Pakistan is young but the country can be likened to a social tinderbox. Many poor youths, a weak economy, and inadequate political valves to release social tensions make for an explosive combination. Pakistan remains a source of geopolitical risk for the South Asian region. Some clients have inquired as to whether the change of government in Pakistan implies closer relations with the United States. The US has less need for Pakistan now that it has withdrawn from Afghanistan. It is focused on countering Russia and China. As such the US has great need of courting India and less need of courting Pakistan. Pakistan will remain China’s ally and will struggle to retain significant US assistance. Bottom Line: We remain strategic sellers of Pakistani equities. Pakistan must contend with high internal social instability, a weak democracy, a weak economy and an unusually influential military. As long as the military remains excessively influential in Pakistan, its foreign policy stance towards India will stay hostile. Yet the military will remain influential because Pakistan exists in a permanent geopolitical competition with India. And until Pakistan’s economy improves structurally and endemically, its alliance with China will stay strong. Investment Takeaways Cyclically go long US 10-year Treasuries. Geopolitical risks are historically high and rising but complacency is returning to markets. Meanwhile inflation is nearing a cyclical peak. Favor US stocks over global. It is too soon to go long euro or European assets, especially emerging Europe. Favor UK equities over developed markets (excluding the US). Stay long GBP-CZK. Favor European defense stocks over European tech. Stay short the Chinese renminbi and Taiwanese dollar. Favor the Japanese yen over the Korean won. Favor South Korean over Taiwanese equities.   Matt Gertken Chief Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Ritika Mankar, CFA Editor/Strategist ritika.mankar@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri Associate Editor Jesse.Kuri@bcaresearch.com Yushu Ma Research Analyst yushu.ma@bcaresearch.com Guy Russell Senior Analyst GuyR@bcaresearch.com Alice Brocheux Research Associate alice.brocheux@bcaresearch.com   Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Regional Geopolitical Risk Matrix Section III: Geopolitical Calendar

Executive Summary The Ukraine war reinforces our key view that commodity producers will use their geopolitical leverage this year. The market is growing complacent again about Russian risks. Iran is part of the same dynamic. If US-Iran talks fail, as we expect, the Middle East will destabilize and add another energy supply risk on top of the Russian risk. The Ukraine war also interacts with our other two key views for 2022: China’s reversion to autocracy and the US’s policy insularity. Both add policy uncertainty and weigh on risk sentiment. The war also reinforces our strategic themes for the 2020s: Great Power Rivalry, Hypo-Globalization, and Populism/Nationalism. Stagflation Cometh Trade Recommendation Inception Date Return Cyclically Long Global Defensives Versus Cyclicals 2022-01-20 10.8% Bottom Line: Tactically stay long global defensives and large caps. Cyclically stay long gold, US equities, aerospace/defense, and cyber security. Feature In our annual outlook, “The Gathering Storm,” we argued that the post-pandemic world economy would destabilize due to intensifying rivalry among the leading nations. We argued that China’s reversion to autocracy, US domestic divisions, and Russia’s commodity leverage would produce a toxic brew for global investors in 2022. By January 27 it was clear to us that Russia would invade Ukraine, so the storm was arriving sooner than we thought, and we doubled down on our defensive and risk-averse market positioning. We derived these three key views from new cyclical trends and the way they interact with our underlying strategic themes – Great Power Rivalry, Hypo-Globalization, and Populism/Nationalism (Table 1). These themes are mutually reinforcing, rooted in solid evidence over many years, and will not change easily. Table 1Three Geopolitical Strategic Themes Related Report  Geopolitical Strategy2022 Key Views: The Gathering Storm The Ukraine war reinforces them: Russia took military action to increase its security relative to the US and NATO; the West imposed sanctions that reduce globalization with Russia and potentially other states; Russian aggression stemmed from nationalism and caused a spike in global prices that will spur more nationalism and populism going forward. In this report we examine how these trends will develop in the second quarter and beyond. We see stagflation taking shape and recommend investors prepare for it by continuing to favor defensive sectors, commodities, and value plays. Checking Up On Our Russia View For 2022 Our third key view for 2022 – that oil producers like Russia and Iran possessed immense geopolitical leverage and would most likely use it – is clearly the dominant geopolitical trend of the year, as manifested in the Russian invasion of Ukraine.1 Russia first invaded Ukraine in 2014 and curtailed operations after commodity prices crashed. It launched a new and larger invasion in 2022 when a new commodity cycle began (Chart 1). Facing tactical setbacks, Russia has begun withdrawing forces from around the Ukrainian capital Kyiv. But it will redouble its efforts to conquer the eastern Donbas region and the southern coastline. The coast is the most strategic territory at stake (Map 1). Chart 1Russia's Commodity-Enabled Aggression Map 1Russian Invasion Of Ukraine, 2022 The most decisive limitation on Russia’s military effort would come from a collapse of commodity exports or prices, which has not happened yet. Europe continues to buy Russian oil and natural gas, although it is debating a ban on the $4.4 billion worth of coal that it imports. With high energy prices making up for a drop in export volumes, Russian armed forces can still attempt a summer and fall campaign (Chart 2). The aim would be to conquer remaining portions of Donetsk and Luhansk, the “land bridge” to Crimea, and potentially the stretch of land between the Dnieper river and eastern Moldova, where Russian troops are already stationed. Chart 2Russia’s War Financing Ukraine’s military neutrality is the core Russian objective. Ukraine is offering neutrality in exchange for security guarantees in the current ceasefire talks. Hence a durable ceasefire is possible if the details of neutrality are agreed – Ukraine forswears joining NATO and hosting foreign military infrastructure while accepting limitations on military exercises and defense systems. The security guarantees that Ukraine demands are mostly symbolic, as the western powers that would be credible guarantors are already unwilling to use military force against Russia (e.g. the US, UK, NATO members). However, Russia’s withdrawal from Kyiv will embolden the Ukrainians, so we do not expect a durable ceasefire in the second quarter. Global investors will be mistaken if they ignore Ukraine in the second quarter, at least until core problems are resolved. What matters most is whether the war expands beyond Ukraine: The likelihood of a broader war is low but not negligible. So far the Russian regime is behaving somewhat rationally: Moscow attacked a non-NATO member to prevent it from joining NATO; it limited the size of the military commitment; and it is now accepting reality and withdrawing from Kyiv while negotiating on Ukrainian neutrality. But a major problem emerges if Russia’s military fails in the Donbas while Ukraine reneges on offers of neutrality. Any ceasefire could fall apart and the war could re-escalate. Russia could redouble its attacks on the country or conduct a limited attack outside of Ukraine to trigger a crisis in the western alliance. Moreover, if sanctions keep rising until Russia’s economy collapses, Moscow could become less rational. Finland and Sweden have seen a shift of public opinion in favor of joining NATO. Any intention to do so would trigger a belligerent reaction from Russia. These governments are well aware of the precarious balance that must be maintained to prevent war, so war is unlikely. But if their stance changes then Russia will threaten to attack. Russia would threaten to bomb these states since it cannot now credibly threaten invasion by land (Charts 3A & 3B). Chart 3ANordic States Joining NATO Would Trigger Larger War​​​​​ Chart 3BNordic States Joining NATO Would Trigger Larger War​​​​​​ The Black Sea is vulnerable to “Black Swan” events or military spillovers. Russia is re-concentrating its military efforts in the Donbas and land bridge to Crimea. Russia could expand its offensive to Odessa and the Moldovan border. Or Russia could attempt to create a new norm of naval dominance in the Black Sea. Or ships from third countries could hit mines or become casualties of war. For these and other reasons, investors should not take on additional risk in their portfolios on the basis that a durable ceasefire will be concluded quickly. Russia’s position is far too vulnerable to encourage risk-taking. Moscow could escalate tensions to try to save face. It is also critical to ensure that Russia and Europe maintain their energy trade: Neither side has an interest in total energy cutoff. Russia needs the revenue to finance its war and needs to discourage Europe from fulfilling its pledges to transition rapidly to other sources and substitutes. Europe needs the energy to avoid recession, maintain some tie with Russia, and enable its energy diversification strategy. So far natural gas flows are continuing (Chart 4). Chart 4Natural Gas Flows Continuing (So Far)​​​​​​ Chart 5Global Oil Supply/Demand Balance​​​​​​ However, risks to energy trade are rising. Russia is threatening to cut off energy exports if not paid in rubles, while the EU is beginning to entertain sanctions on energy. Russia can reduce oil or gas flows incrementally to keep prices high and prevent Europe from rebuilding stockpiles for fall and winter. Partial energy cutoff is possible. Europe’s diversification makes Russia’s predicament dire. Substantial sanction relief is highly unlikely, as western powers will want to prevent Russia from rebuilding its economy and military. Russia could try to impose significant pain on Europe to try to force a more favorable diplomatic solution. A third factor that matters is whether the US will expand its sanction enforcement to demand strict compliance from other nations, at pain of secondary sanctions: Secondary sanctions are likely in the case of China and other nations that stand at odds with the US and help Russia circumvent sanctions. In China’s case, the US is already interested in imposing sanctions on the financial or technology sector as part of its long-term containment strategy. While the Biden administration’s preference is to control the pace of escalation with China, and thus not to slap sanctions immediately, nevertheless substantial sanctions cannot be ruled out in the second quarter. Secondary sanctions will be limited in the case of US allies and partners, such as EU members, Turkey, and India. Countries that do business with Russia but are critical to US strategy will be given waivers or special treatment. Russia is not the only commodity producer that enjoys outsized geopolitical leverage amid a global commodity squeeze. Iran is the next most critical producer. Iran is also critical for the stability of the Middle East. In particular, the consequential US-Iran talks over whether to rejoin the 2015 nuclear deal are likely to come to a decision in the second quarter. Chart 6Failure Of US-Iran Talks Jeopardizes Middle East Oil Supply If the US and Iran agree to a strategic détente, then regional tensions will briefly subside, reducing global oil disruption risks and supply pressures. Iran could bring 1.3 million barrels per day of oil back online, adding to President Biden’s 1 million per day release of strategic petroleum reserves. The combination would amount to 2.3% of global demand and more than cover the projected quarterly average supply deficit, which ranges from 400k to 900k barrels per day for the rest of 2022 (Chart 5). If the US and Iran fail to agree, then the Middle East will suffer another round of instability, adding a Middle Eastern energy shock on top of the Russian shock. Not only would Iran’s 1.3 million barrels per day be jeopardized but so would Iraq’s 4.4 million, Saudi Arabia’s 10.3 million, the UAE’s 3.0 million, or the Strait of Hormuz’s combined 24 million per day (Chart 6). This gives Iran leverage to pursue nuclear weaponization prior to any change in US government that would strengthen Israel’s ability to stop Iran. We would not bet on an agreement – but we cannot rule it out. The Biden administration can reduce sanctions via executive action to prevent a greater oil shock, while the Iranians can accept sanction relief in exchange for easily reversible moves toward compliance with the 2015 nuclear deal. But this would be a short-term, stop-gap measure, not a long-term strategic détente. Conflict between Iran and its neighbors will revive sooner than expected after the deal is agreed, as Iran’s nuclear ambitions will persist. OPEC states are already producing more oil rapidly, suggesting no quick fix if the US-Iran deal falls apart. While core OPEC states have 3.5 million barrels per day in spare capacity to bring to bear, a serious escalation of tensions with Iran would jeopardize this solution. Finally, if commodity producers have geopolitical leverage, then commodity consumers are lacking in leverage. This is clear from Europe’s inability to prevent Russia’s attack or ban Russian energy. It is clear from the US’s apparent unwillingness to give up on a short-term deal with Iran. It is clear from China’s inability to provide sufficient monetary and fiscal stimulus as it struggles with Covid-19. Turkey, Egypt, and Pakistan are geopolitically significant importers of Russian and Ukrainian grain that are likely to face food insecurity and social unrest. We will address this issue below under our Populism/Nationalism theme. Bottom Line: Investors should not be complacent. Russia’s military standing in Ukraine is weak, but its ability to finance the war has not yet collapsed, which means that it will escalate the conflict to save face. What About Our Other Key Views For 2022? Our other two key views for 2022 are even more relevant in the wake of the Ukraine re-invasion. China’s reversion to autocracy is a factor in China’s domestic and foreign policy: Domestically China needs economic and social stability in the advance of the twentieth national party congress, when President Xi Jinping hopes to clinch 10 more years in power. In pursuit of this goal China is easing monetary and fiscal policy. However, with depressed animal spirits, a weakening property sector, and high debt levels, monetary policy is proving insufficient. Fiscal policy will have to step up. But even here, inflation is likely to impose a limitation on how much stimulus the authorities can utilize (Chart 7). Chart 7China Stimulus Impaired By Inflation​​​​​​ Chart 8Chinese Supply Kinks To Persist Due To Covid-19 China is also trying but failing to maintain a “Covid Zero” policy. The more contagious Omicron variant of the virus is breaking out and slipping beyond the authorities’ ability to suppress cases of the virus to zero. Shanghai is on lockdown and other cities will follow suit. China will attempt to redouble its containment efforts before it will accept the reality that the virus cannot be contained. Chinese production and shipping will become delayed and obstructed as a result, putting another round of upward pressure on global prices (Chart 8). Stringent pandemic restrictions could trigger social unrest. China is ripe for social unrest, which is why it launched the “Common Prosperity” program last year to convince citizens that quality of life will improve. But this program is a long-term program that will not bring immediate relief. On the contrary, the economy is still suffering and the virus will spread more widely, as well as draconian social restrictions. The result is that the lead up to the national party congress will not be as smooth as the Xi administration had hoped. Global investors will remain pessimistic toward Chinese stocks. In foreign affairs, China’s reversion to autocracy is reinforced by Russia’s clash with the West and the need to coordinate more closely. Xi hosted Putin in Beijing on February 4, prior to the invasion, and the two declared that their strategic partnership ushers in a “new era” of “multipolarity” and that their cooperation has “no limits,” which really means that military cooperation is not forbidden. China agreed to purchase an additional 10 billion cubic meters of Russian natural gas over 30-years. While this amount would only replace 3% of Russian natural gas exports to Europe, it would mark a 26% increase in Russian exports to China. More importantly it acts as a symbol of Chinese willingness to substitute for Europe over time. There is a long way to go for China to replace Europe as a customer (Chart 9). But China knows it needs to convert its US dollar foreign exchange reserves, vulnerable to US sanctions, into hard investments in supply security within the Eurasian continent. Chart 9Long Way To Go For China NatGas Imports To Replace EU China is helping Russia circumvent sanctions. China’s chief interest is to minimize the shock to its domestic economy. This means keeping Russian energy and commodities flowing. China could also offer military equipment for Russia. The US has expressly warned China against taking such an action. China could mitigate the blowback by stipulating that the assistance cannot be used in Ukraine. This would be unenforceable but would provide diplomatic cover. While China is uncomfortable with the disturbance of the Ukraine war – it does not want foreign affairs to cause even larger supply shocks. At the same time, China does not want Russia to lose the war or Putin’s regime to fall from power. If Russia loses, Taiwan and its western allies would be emboldened, while Russia could pursue a détente with the West, leaving China isolated. Since China faces US containment policy regardless of what happens in Russia, it is better for China to have Putin making an example out of Ukraine and keeping the Americans and Europeans preoccupied. Chart 10China Strives To Preserve EU Trade Ties China must also preserve ties with Europe. Diplomacy will likely succeed in the short run since Europe has no interest or desire to expand sanctions to China. The Biden administration will defer to Europe on the pace of sanctions – it is not willing or able to force Europe to break with China suddenly. Eventually Europe and China may sever relations but not yet – China has a powerful incentive to preserve them (Chart 10). China will also court India and other powers in an attempt to hedge its bets on Russia while weakening any American containment. Beyond the party congress, China will be focused on securing the economic recovery and implementing the common prosperity agenda. The first step is to maintain easy monetary and fiscal policy. The second step is to “let 100 flowers bloom,” i.e. relaxing social and regulatory controls to try to revive entrepreneurship and animal spirits, which are heavily depressed. Xi will have the ability to do this after re-consolidating power. The third step will be to try to stabilize economic relations with Europe and others (conceivably even the US temporarily, though no serious détente is likely). The remaining key view for 2022 is that the Biden administration’s domestic focus will be defensive and will invite foreign policy challenges. The Ukraine war vindicates this view but the question now is whether Biden has or will change tack: The Biden administration is focused on the midterm elections and the huge risk to the Democratic Party’s standing. Biden has not received a boost in opinion polls from the war. He is polling even worse when it comes to handling of the economy (Chart 11). While he should be able to repackage his budget reconciliation bill as an energy security bill, his thin majorities in both houses make passage difficult. Chart 11Biden And Democrats Face Shellacking In Midterm Election Biden’s weak standing – with or without a midterm shellacking – raises the prospect that Republicans could take back the White House in 2024, which discourages foreign nations from making any significant concessions to the United States in their negotiations. They must assume that partisanship will continue to contaminate foreign policy and lead to abrupt policy reversals. In foreign policy, the US remains reactive in the face of Russian aggression. If Russia signs a ceasefire, the US will not sabotage it to prolong Russian difficulties. Moreover Biden continues to exempt Europe and other allies and partners from enforcing the US’s most severe sanctions for fear of a larger energy shock. Europe’s avoidance of an energy ban is critical and any change in US policy to try to force the EU to cut off Russian energy is unlikely. China will not agree to structural reform or deep concessions in its trade negotiations, knowing that former President Trump could come back. The Biden administration’s own trade policy toward China is limited in scope, as the US Trade Representative Katherine Tai admitted when she said that the US could no longer aim to change China’s behavior via trade talks. Biden’s only proactive foreign policy initiative, Iran, will not bring him public kudos if it is achieved. But American inconstancy is one of the reasons that Iran may walk away from the 2015 nuclear deal. Why should Iran’s hawkish leaders be expected to constrain their nuclear program and expose their economy to future US sanctions if they can circumvent US sanctions anyway, and Republicans have a fair chance of coming back into power as early as January 2025? Biden’s unprecedented release of strategic petroleum reserves will not be able to prevent gasoline prices from staying high given the underlying supply pressures at home and abroad. This is especially true if the Iran talks fail as we expect. Even if inflation abates before the election, it is unlikely to abate enough to save his party from a shellacking. That in turn will weaken the global impression of his administration’s staying power. Hence Biden will focus on maintaining US alliances, which means allowing Europe, India, and others to proceed at a more pragmatic and dovish pace in their relations with Russia and China. Bottom Line: China’s reversion to autocracy and America’s policy insularity suggest that global investors face considerable policy uncertainty this year even aside from the war in Europe. Checking Up On Our Strategic Themes For The 2020s Russia’s invasion strongly confirmed our three strategic themes of Great Power Rivalry, Hypo-Globalization, and Populism/Nationalism. These themes are mutually reinforcing: insecurity among the leading nation-states encourages regionalization rather than globalization, while populism and nationalism encourage nations to pursue economic and security interests at the expense of their neighbors. First, the Ukraine war confirms and exacerbates Great Power Rivalry: Chart 12China And Russia Both Need To Balance Against US Preponderance Russia’s action vindicates the “realist” school of international relations (in which we count ourselves) by forcing the world to wake up to the fact that nations still care primarily about national security defined in material ways, such as armies, resources, and territories. The paradox of realism is that if at least one of the great nations pursues its national self-interest and engages in competition for security, then all other nations will be forced to do the same. If a nation neglects its national security interests in pursuit of global economic engagement and cooperation, then it will suffer, since other nations will take advantage of it to enhance their security. Hence, as a result of Ukraine, nations will give a higher weight to national security relative to economic efficiency. The result will be an acceleration of decisions to use fiscal funds and guide the private economy in pursuit of national interests – i.e. the Return of Big Government. Since actions to increase deterrence will provoke counteractions for the same reason, overall insecurity will rise. For example, the US and China will take extra precautions in case of future sanctions and war. But these precautions will reduce trust and cooperation and increase the probability of war over the long run. For the same reason, China cannot reject Russia’s strategic overture – it cannot afford to alienate and isolate Russia. China and Russia have a shared interest in countering the United States because it is the only nation that could conceivably impose a global empire over all nations (Chart 12). The US could deprive Beijing and Moscow of the regional spheres of influence that they each need to improve their national security. This is true not only in Ukraine and Taiwan but in other peripheral areas such as Belarus, the Caucasus, Central Asia, and Southeast Asia. China has much to gain from Russia. Russia is offering China privileged overland access to Russian, Central Asian, and Middle Eastern resources and markets. This resource base is vital to China’s strategic needs, given its import dependency and vulnerability to US maritime power (Chart 13). Chart 13China’s Maritime Vulnerability Forces Eurasian Strategy, Russian Alliance Investors should understand Great Power Rivalry in a multipolar rather than bipolar sense. As Russia breaks from the West, investors are quick to move rapidly to the bipolar Cold War analogy because that is what they are familiar with. But the world today has multiple poles of political power, as it did for centuries prior to the twentieth. While the US is the preponderant power, it is not hegemonic. It faces not one but two revisionist challengers – Russia and China. Meanwhile Europe and India are independent poles of power that are not exclusively aligned with the US or China. For example, China and the EU need to maintain economic ties with each other for the sake of stability, and neither the US nor Russia can prevent them from doing so. The same goes for India and Russia. China will embrace Russia and Europe at the same time, while hardening its economy against US punitive measures. India will preserve ties with Russia and China, while avoiding conflict with the US and its allies (the maritime powers), whom it needs for its long-term strategic security in the Indian Ocean basin. Ultimately bipolarity may be the end-game – e.g. if China takes aggressive action to revise the global order like Russia has done – but the persistence of Sino-European ties and Russo-Indian ties suggest we are not there yet. Second, the Ukraine war reinforces Hypo-Globalization: Since the pandemic we have argued that trade would revive on the global economic snapback but that globalization – the deepening of trade integration – would ultimately fall short of its pre-2020 and pre-2008 trajectory. Instead we would inhabit a new world of “hypo-globalization,” in which trade flows fell short of potential. So far the data support this view (Chart 14). Chart 14Globalization Falling Short Of Potential The Ukraine war has strengthened this thesis not only by concretely reducing Russia’s trajectory of trade with the West – reversing decades of integration since the fall of the Soviet Union – but also by increasing the need for nations to guard against a future Chinese confrontation with the Western world. Trust between China and the West will further erode. China will need to guard against any future sanctions, and thus diversify away from the US dollar and assets, while the US will need to do a better job of deterring China against aggression in Asia, and will thus have to diversify away from Chinese manufacturing and critical resources like rare earths. While China and Europe need each other now, the US and China are firmly set on a long-term path of security competition in East Asia. Eventually either the US or China will take a more aggressive stance and Europe will be forced to react. Since Europe will still need US support against a decaying and aggressive Russia, it will likely be dragged into assisting the US against China. Third, the Ukraine war reflects and amplifies Populism/Nationalism: Populism and nationalism are not the same thing but they both stem from the slowing trend of global income growth, the rise of inequality, the corruption of the elite political establishments, and now the rise in inflation. Nations have to devote more resources to pacifying an angry populace, or distracting that populace through foreign adventures, or both. The Ukraine war reflects the rise in nationalism. First, the collapse of the Soviet Union ushered in a period in which Moscow lost control of its periphery, while the diverse peoples could pursue national self-determination and statehood. The independence and success of the Baltic states depended on economic and military cooperation with the West, which eroded Russian national security and provoked a nationalist backlash in the form of President Putin’s regime. Ukraine became the epicenter of this conflict. Ukraine’s successful military resistance is likely to provoke a dangerous backlash from Moscow until either policy changes or the regime changes. American nationalism has flared repeatedly since the fall of the Soviet Union, namely in the Iraq war. The American state has suffered economically and politically for that imperial overreach. But American nationalism is still a potent force and could trigger a more aggressive shift in US foreign policy in 2024 or beyond. European states have kept nationalism in check and tried to subsume their various nationalist sentiments into a liberal and internationalist project, the European Union. The wave of nationalist forces in the wake of the European debt crisis has subsided, with the exception of the United Kingdom, where it flowered in Brexit. The French election in the second quarter will likely continue this trend with the re-election of President Emmanuel Macron, but even if he should suffer a surprise upset to nationalist Marine Le Pen, Europe’s centripetal forces will prevent her from taking France out of the EU or euro or NATO (Chart 15). Over the coming decade, nationalist forces will revive and will present a new challenge to Europe’s ruling elites – but global great power competition strongly supports the EU’s continued evolution into a single geopolitical entity, since the independent states are extremely vulnerable to Russia, China, and even the US unless they unite and strengthen their superstructure. Chart 15Macron Favored, Le Pen Would Be Ineffective In fact the true base of global nationalism is migrating to Asia. Chinese and Indian nationalism are very potent forces under President Xi Jinping and Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Xi is on the verge of clinching another ten years in power while Modi is still favored for re-election in 2024, so there is no reason to anticipate a change anytime soon. The effects are various but what is most important for investors is to recognize that as China’s potential GDP has fallen over the past decade, the Communist Party has begun to utilize nationalism as a new source of legitimacy, and this is expressed through a more assertive foreign policy. President Xi is the emblem of this shift and it will not change, even if China pursues a lower profile over certain periods to avoid provoking the US and its allies into a more effective coalition to contain China. Chart 16Food Insecurity Will Promote Global Unrest, Populism The surge in global prices will destabilize regimes that lack food security and contribute to new bouts of populism and nationalism. Turkey is the most vulnerable due to a confluence of political, economic, and military risks that will unsettle the state. But Egypt is vulnerable to an Arab Spring 2.0 that would have negative security implications for Israel and add powder to the Middle Eastern powder keg. Pakistan is already witnessing political turmoil. Investors may overlook any Indonesian unrest due to its attractiveness in a world where Russia and China are scaring away western investment (Chart 16). All three of these strategic themes are mutually reinforcing – and they tend to be inflationary over the long run. Great powers that redouble the pursuit of national interest – through defense spending and energy security investments – while simultaneously being forced to expand their social safety nets to appease popular discontent, will drive up budget deficits, consume a lot of natural resources, and purchase a lot of capital equipment. They will also more frequently engage in economic or military conflicts that constrain supply (Chart 17). Chart 17War And Preparation For War Are Inflationary Bottom Line: The Ukraine war is a powerful confirmation of our three strategic themes. It is also a confirmation that these themes have inflationary macroeconomic implications. Investment Takeaways Chart 18Global Investors Still Flee To US For Safety Now that great power rivalry is intensifying immediately and rapidly, and yet China’s and Europe’s economies are encountering greater difficulties, we expect stagflation to arrive sooner rather than later. High headline and core inflation, the Ukraine war, tacit Chinese support for Russia, persistent Chinese supply kinks, US and EU sanctions, US midterm elections, and a potential US-Iran diplomatic breakdown will all weigh on risk sentiment in the second quarter. In Ukraine, Russia’s position is too weak to give comfort for investors, who should continue to favor defensive over cyclical equities and US stocks over global stocks. Russia’s break with the West, and the West’s use of sanctions to prevent Russia from accessing its foreign exchange reserves, has raised new questions about the global currency reserve system and the dollar’s status within that system. Over the coming years China will redouble the efforts it began in the wake of the Great Recession to reduce its dependency on US dollar assets within its reserve basket, while also recycling new current account surpluses into non-dollar assets. However, the evidence does not suggest that King Dollar will suffer a structural breakdown. First, the world lacks alternative safe-haven assets to US Treasuries – and net foreign purchases of US bonds rose in the face of the Ukraine war (Chart 18). Second, the return of war to Europe will weaken the perceived long-term security of European currency and government bonds relative to US counterparts. Even if the Ukraine war is contained in the short run, as we expect, Russia is in structural decline and will remain a disruptive player for some time. We are not at all bearish on the euro or European bonds but we do not see the Ukraine war as increasing their value proposition, to put it lightly. The same logic extends to Japanese bonds, since China, like Russia, is an autocratic and revisionist state that threatens to shake up the security order in its neighborhood. Japan is relatively secure as a nation and we are bullish on the yen, but China’s de facto alliance with Russia weakens Japan’s security outlook over the very long run, especially relative to the United States. Thus, on a cyclical basis the dollar can depreciate, but on a structural basis the US dollar will remain the dominant reserve currency. The US is not only the wealthiest and most secure country in the world but also the largest oil producer. Meanwhile Chinese potential growth, domestic political stability, and foreign relations are all worsening. The US-Iran talks are the most critical geopolitical dynamic in the second quarter aside from Russia’s clash with the West. The fate of the 2015 nuclear deal will be decided soon and will determine whether an even bigger energy shock begins to emanate from the Middle East. We would not bet on a new US-Iran deal but we cannot rule it out. Any deal would be a short-term, stop-gap deal but would prevent an immediate destabilization of the Middle East this year. As such it would reduce the risk of stagflation. Since we expect the deal to fail, we expect a new energy shock to emerge. We see stagflation as more likely than the BCA House View. It will be difficult to lift productivity in an environment of geopolitical and political uncertainty combined with slowing global growth, rising interest rates, and a worsening commodity shock (Chart 19). We will gladly revise this stance if Biden clinches an Iran deal, China relaxes its Covid Zero policy and stabilizes domestic demand, Russia and Europe maintain energy trade, and commodity prices fall to more sustainable levels for global demand. Chart 19Stagflation Cometh Strategically we remain long gold, overweight US equities, overweight UK equities, long British pound and Japanese yen, long aerospace/defense stocks and cyber security stocks. We remain short Chinese renminbi and Taiwanese dollar and short emerging European assets. Our short Chinese renminbi trade and our short Taiwanese versus Korean equity trade are our worst-performing recommendations. However, the above analysis should highlight – and the Ukraine war should underscore – that these two economies face a fundamentally negative geopolitical dynamic. Both Chinese and Taiwanese stocks have been underperforming global peers since 2021 and our short TWD-USD trade is in the money. While we do not expect war to break out in Taiwan this year, we do expect various crisis events to occur, particularly in the lead up to the crucial Taiwanese and American 2022 midterms and 2024 presidential election. We also expect China to depreciate the renminbi when inflation peaks and commodity prices subside. Cyclically we remain long North American and Latin American oil producers and short Middle Eastern producers, based on our pessimistic read of the Iran situation. The Americas are fundamentally better protected from geopolitical risks than other regions, although they continue to suffer from domestic political risks on a country-by-country basis. Cyclically we continue to take a defensive positioning, overweighting defensive sectors and large cap equities.   Matt Gertken Chief Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      That the Russian threat fell under our third key view for 2022 implies that we did not get our priorities straight. However, consider the timing: shortly after publishing our annual outlook on December 15, the Russians issued an ultimatum to the western powers demanding that NATO stop expanding toward Russia. Diplomats from Russia and the West met on January 12-13 but Russia’s demands were not met. We upgraded the odds that Russia would invade Ukraine from 50% to 75% on January 27. Shuttle diplomacy ensued but failed. Russia invaded on February 24. Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Regional Geopolitical Risk Matrix "Batting Average": Geopolitical Strategy Trades () Section II: Special (EDIT this Header) Section III: Geopolitical Calendar

Executive Summary Long Small Cap Energy Versus Large Cap President Biden has not received a boost in opinion polls from the Ukraine war. If he has not by now then it is increasingly unlikely that he will do so. Yet Biden performs worse in polls for his handling of economic policy than foreign policy, despite falling unemployment and rising real wages. The economy should help stabilize his approval rating but not in time to prevent Democrats from losing the Senate as well as the House this fall.  Biden’s decision to tap the strategic petroleum reserve exemplifies our 2022 trend of executive action. However, the oil outlook still depends on Biden’s Iran talks and OPEC’s reaction. Recommendation Inception Level Inception Date Return Long Small Vs. Large Cap Energy 0.56 26-Jan-22 14.9% Bottom Line: The return of gridlock is bad for stocks in 2022 but good in 2023. Feature Investors need answers to three questions about US policy at the moment: 1.   Will President Biden’s reaction to the Ukraine war exacerbate the hit to the global and US economy? 2.   Will Biden’s domestic agenda revive? If so, how will it impact corporate earnings expectations? 3.   Will Biden’s foreign and domestic policies cause any changes to the midterm election outlook and hence US policy in 2023-24? In recent reports we have answered these questions as follows. Related Report  US Political StrategySecond Quarter Outlook: Gridlock Looms First, Biden will continue to pursue a defensive or reactive foreign policy, meaning that he will not force Europe or other allies to adopt Russia sanctions beyond their near-term economic and political capabilities. If Europe wants to boycott Russian energy then that is fine but it is Europe’s decision. In fact, Europe is pursuing gradual rather than immediate diversification. Russia needs the funds. So Europe is unlikely to experience a sharp energy cutoff that plunges its economy into recession. Nevertheless, the risk is substantial enough that we remain long DXY and defensive US sectors on a tactical time frame. Second, Biden’s congressional agenda is getting back on track, with the war providing Democrats with a basis for redesigning and rebranding their budget reconciliation bill. Therefore we did not downgrade our 65% subjective odds that Congress will pass a bill. The bill will be close to deficit neutral and focused especially on energy policy. The Senate version of the bill is not yet available but we will examine the likeliest policy options in a forthcoming special report with our US Equity Strategy. Third – our focus for this report – current political changes do not substantially alter the midterm election odds, which suggest Republicans will retake Congress. Gridlock will return – and is the norm in US policy. In an inflationary context gridlock may well be positive for equities in 2023 since it will curb fiscal spending. However, uncertainty is negative for equities this year. We remain tactically defensive. We recommend renewable energy, cyber stocks, defense stocks, and infrastructure stocks as cyclical plays. Biden’s Approval Stabilizing At Low Level Foreign policy shocks are likely to hurt the ruling party – especially if the nature of the shock exacts a toll on the voter’s pocketbook. We showed evidence to this effect just before Russia re-invaded Ukraine. We concluded that Biden would experience a bounce in opinion polls as the nation rallied around him in the face of the Russian menace but the likely rise in gasoline prices would end up hurting the Democratic Party in the midterm elections.  Yet 40 days after Russia’s attack Biden’s general job approval is still at the lowest of his presidency, in the 41-42% range, while his disapproval is still high, in the 52-53% range. So far the war has not given him an appreciable boost, outside of his own party (where the boost has still been small). The results are even worse when it comes to his handling of the economy. Here his approval is 39% and disapproval 54%. In foreign policy, Biden’s approval stands at 40% and disapproval at 52% (Chart 1). Presidential approval has a big influence on the midterm election – as does perception of the two parties. Republicans have taken the lead in the generic congressional ballot, at 43.7% support versus 42.2% for Democrats. The war has blunted the Republican rally but nothing more. The economy is the likeliest source of good news for Biden and the Democrats over the coming six months but even here there is not a basis for optimism among Democrats, as we will see in the next section.  Chart 1No ‘War Bounce’ For Biden Jobs And Wages Not Boosting Biden Either Our Political Capital Index shows that the Biden administration now has weak or moderate political capital in every category except economic conditions and financial markets (Appendix). Yet economic conditions are still mixed. While they will likely improve before November, they do not look to improve enough to change the election outlook: Both Republicans and Democrats are viewing the economy more negatively. Republican economic sentiment declined by 16% in March, while Democrat economic sentiment declined by 6%. The partisan gap widened, which means Republicans will remain motivated to vote (Chart 2). Manufacturing activity is slowing down (though not shrinking). The reading slipped lower than its level in November 2020, when Biden took office. This drop is the first sign of the negative effect of inflation and geopolitical risk on the economy. New manufacturing orders declined while inventories increased. The new-orders-to-inventories ratio, which should be a leading indicator of economic activity, fell by 15.7% compared to its February reading. It is now the weakest since May 2020 (Chart 3). Chart 2Economic Sentiment Declines For Both Parties The budget deficit is “normalizing” and weighing on demand. The fiscal thrust – or change in the budget deficit – turned negative as the stimulus of 2020 waned. The intensity of the drag is now lessening, both on the federal and state level, but it would require a massive new crisis for the US to outdo the stimulus of 2020, so the drag will persist for the foreseeable future (Chart 4). Any last-minute reconciliation bill from congressional Democrats would reduce the drag further, but not generate positive thrust, and not in time to affect the election. To pass the bill, Democrats need to reduce the deficit impact in the face of inflation and paper-thin congressional majorities. Chart 3First Sign Of Inflation, Geopolitics Hitting Manufacturing Chart 4US Fiscal Drag In Wake Of 2020 Stimulus Most worrisome for President Biden, his approval rating has suffered despite a tight labor market and real wage growth. The headline unemployment rate declined to 3.6% in March, down 3.1 percentage points since November 2020. The ISM manufacturing employment index stands at the highest point since March of 2021, and 17% higher than in November 2020 (Chart 5). Inflation is apparently eating away the benefits of low unemployment. Real wages grew by 3.3% on an annual basis in February, up from 2.5% in January. This wage growth is higher than that of November 2020, at 2.2%. Biden’s approval rating is probably in the process of stabilizing, if we assume that unemployment stays low and real wages keep growing. But it is stabilizing at a low level and not perking up as a result of the Russian menace. The likeliest culprit for Biden’s troubles is inflation. Fortunately for the Democrats inflation is likely to fall in the coming months. However, voters are likely to respond to year-on-year rather than month-on-month inflation. And voters make up their minds early in midterm election years. Plus, if inflation does not subside, or if Biden is perceived as making a foreign policy mistake, then his approval rating will not stabilize. Bottom Line: Biden’s approval rating is not perking up despite a foreign threat. His approval on economic policy is even worse than on foreign policy, despite low unemployment and real wage growth higher than when he took office. A drop in inflation would improve his fortunes but taken together the evidence suggests that the war has not helped, and may have hurt, the Democrats’ chances this fall. Chart 5Will Jobs And Real Wages Stabilize Presidential Approval? Biden Taps Strategic Oil Reserve But Implications Depend On Iran One of our key views for 2022 (reiterated in our Q2 outlook) is the Biden administration’s transition from congressional to executive action. Biden’s decision to tap the strategic petroleum reserve (SPR) on March 31 exemplifies this trend. Gasoline prices have spiked to $4.20 per gallon, which is more than double the level in November 2020 (Chart 6). Biden’s SPR order aims to mitigate the rise in prices. Biden ordered the release of 1 million barrels per day of crude oil over the next 180 days (six months). This would constitute the largest release since the SPR came into being in 1975 (Chart 7).1 Chart 6Prices At The Pump Trigger Red Alert In White House Chart 7Biden Taps Strategic Petroleum Reserve The Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) originated in the wake of the Arab oil embargo to protect the US from supply shocks. Faced with “severe petroleum supply interruptions” the president can authorize a maximum drawdown of 396 million barrels over 90 days, which begin reaching the market roughly 13 days after the decision. The current inventory is 570 million barrels of sweet and sour crude, which could last 92 days of crude imports and 72 days of crude and petroleum product imports (Chart 8). Unlike during the 1970s, today the US is the world’s largest oil and refined products producer. It is a net exporter as well. However, it is still vulnerable to external shocks. It imports 6.3 million barrels per day and has already cut off 283 thousand barrels per day of imports from Russia (Chart 9). Global price shocks still affect the US prices at the pump, as Chart 6 above shows in the relationship between domestic gasoline prices and Brent crude. Chart 8SPR Can Be Tapped For Six-To-Nine Months Easily Chart 9US Energy Independent But Still Vulnerable To Shocks The Ukraine crisis is just the sort of geopolitical crisis that the SPR was invented to address – but the magnitude of Biden’s action is larger than normal. The SPR was tapped for 21 million barrels in 1990-91, during the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and for 30 million barrels in 2011, when Libyan production fell to zero amid the revolution. However, because of US net exporter status, Biden has much more room for maneuver. The SPR would be tapped for 180 million barrels if Biden’s current plan is fully implemented. The SPR can be released at a rate of 4.4 million barrels per day for about 90 days, though after that the drawdown rate begins to decline for technical reasons (e.g. contaminants). Biden’s 180 days would end in early October, a month before the midterm election. If the SPR has at least 282 million barrels left (90 days of US net crude imports in 2021), the president can continue to release oil from it. The minimum storage level is 282 million barrels of crude. Thus at the end of Biden’s current order, he would have 390 million barrels left and would still be able to release 1 million barrels per day for 108 days.  There are various interpretations of Biden’s decision to tap the SPR today: Currently the Russians and Europeans are in a standoff over energy flows. Russia is demanding payment in rubles and Europe is rejecting Russia’s demands while threatening to ban Russian coal imports. Since crude oil is generally interchangeable, an EU-Russia breakdown in crude trade would not prevent Russian barrels from reaching global markets eventually (Chart 10). In short Biden did not tap the SPR in anticipation of a breakdown. Biden could have tapped the SPR because of difficulties convincing the core OPEC states to increase production. Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Kuwait are rapidly increasing production already, though their 90-day spare capacity enables them to bring out as much as 3.5 million additional barrels per day. But on March 31 they ruled out any massive near-term adjustments. Their relations with the US under the Biden administration have been strained, namely as Biden is still trying to rejoin the 2015 Iranian nuclear deal. If the US and Iran rejoin the 2015 deal, the US would lift sanctions and Iran could quickly bring about 1.3 million barrels per day back to global markets. Biden’s SPR release is roughly equal to this amount, which means it could be insurance for a failure to do a deal (Chart 11). Chart 10Russian Oil Exports To Europe And World An Iran deal on top of the SPR release would add 2.3 million barrels per day in positive supply surprises, while reducing the short-term risk of a military conflict in the Persian Gulf. This would have a significant short-term negative impact on oil prices this year. Chart 11Biden Struggles For Help From OPEC What is clear is that our Geopolitical Strategy’s base case of a failure of US-Iran talks would imply a significantly higher risk of oil disruptions in the Middle East over the short and long run. In that case the OPEC states would need to change their position and increase production or else a new supply shock would be added on top of the Russian shock. Biden’s SPR release would make up for production bottled up in Iran but regional supply disruptions would intensify and Iran would threaten the Strait of Hormuz. Biden’s executive action to tap the SPR removes one option from the table. The ultimate impact of this move depends on whether Biden also uses executive action to do a deal with Iran. We cannot rule it out, because Biden has the authority to lift sanctions unilaterally, but we would not bet on it. Bottom Line: Market fundamentals suggest that Brent prices will fall from their current $105 per barrel toward their likely average of $93 per barrel this year and in 2023. Quant Model Points To Republican Senate Last week we highlighted that our Senate election model flipped from predicting the status quo to predicting a Republican victory, in line with our subjective view of the situation. The latest model findings, using data from the state coincident economic indicators released on April 5, suggests that Republicans have a 51.6% chance of gaining control of the Senate (Chart 12). Democrats only need to lose a single seat to slip from 50 to 49 seats and thus yield the majority. The model suggests they will lose two seats, in Arizona and Georgia. The result is a Republican majority of 52-48 seats. Chart 12Senate Election Model Flips To Republicans Our presidential election model still shows Democrats holding onto the White House in 2024 with 308 electoral college votes but their chances are declining. Specifically Democrats’ odds of retaining the White House have fallen from 54.9% to 54.7% now that the March data is taken into account (Chart 13). North Carolina is still considered a toss-up state, with a 45% probability that Democrats win it, but that means that a single percentage point drop puts it firmly in the Republican camp, along with Arizona and Georgia. Democrats’ odds are falling in Florida, Pennsylvania, and Nevada especially, although they are improving in Wisconsin and Minnesota. Chart 13Presidential Election Model Still Slightly Favors Democrats Florida presents an interesting difference between the two models: the Senate model gives Florida to the Republicans, while the presidential model gives it to the Democrats. This requires some explanation: The incumbent advantage plays a role. Biden did not win Florida in 2020 but that does not stop the model from ascribing Democrats a good chance of winning Florida given that they are the incumbent party. Incumbency would be punished if Democrats held the White House for eight years due to the variable that accounts for the public sentiment that it is “time for change.” The Senate model works differently. The model only helps the party that controls a state Senate seat by means of the partisan leaning of the state in recent elections. This is helpful for Republicans in the model’s 2022 prediction. Meanwhile the model only punishes an incumbent party if it has held control of the US Senate for three or more terms, which is not the case today. Our sample periods across the two election models are the same (1984-2020), but in this period, Democrats only held Senate seats for three out of nine changes. There have been nine different senators from Florida since 1989, three of which have been Democrats. The last Democratic senator was Bill Nelson but he was beaten by Republican Rick Scott in 2018. The other Senate seat has been held by a Republican since around 2004, most recently Marco Rubio, who is up for re-election in 2022. So the model will “lean” more Republican based on total outcomes and how recently recurring they were. Finally, a caveat: we should be careful about explicitly comparing the two election models. Although they are both Probit models, the variables are not all the same. Some are shared but their interaction with one another and the election outcome (dependent variable) should not be assumed to be exactly the same. There can be little doubt in the model’s outlook for the Florida Senate race. Senator Marco Rubio is a young incumbent, has strong name recognition, and is up for re-election in a favorable year for Republicans. As of February he was leading his top Democratic opponent Val Demings by 12 percentage points in opinion polls. Confirming the state’s Republican leaning, Governor Ron DeSantis was leading his Democratic opponent Charlie Crist by 21 percentage points in February polls, with over 50% favoring DeSantis. (Other than former President Trump, DeSantis is currently the favored Republican nominee for 2024.) Moreover the presidential model is catching up to the Senate model, with the odds of a Democratic win in Florida dropping from 59% to 55% over the past month alone. If the odds fall beneath 50% then the model naturally awards all of Florida’s 29 electoral votes to the Republicans. This would leave Democrats hanging by a thread at 279 votes. What is clear is that the 2024 election is a long way off. Democrats benefit from an incumbent advantage as a political party, aside from whether President Biden runs again. Yet the quantitative model suggests that the US will experience another hotly contested presidential election. Bottom Line: Republicans are now tipped to take the Senate in our quantitative model as well as our subjective judgment. Meanwhile Democrats are still favored to win the 2024 election but only slightly, and their odds are falling. These views support the market consensus but in general US investors will remain risk averse ahead of the midterm election.  Investment Takeaways Stay tactically long the US dollar and defensive stocks like in the health care sector. Russia is threatening to cut off energy exports to Europe, which is considering a ban on Russian coal. Until this dispute is resolved, risk appetite will suffer, the euro will be limited, and the dollar will stay strong. Stay long renewable energy, cyber security stocks, infrastructure stocks, defense stocks, oil and gas distribution, and small cap energy stocks (Chart 14). Chart 14Investment Takeaways Matt Gertken Senior Vice President Chief US Political Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri Associate Editor jesse.kuri@bcaresearch.com Guy Russell Senior Analyst guyr@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1     See White House, “FACT SHEET: President Biden’s Plan to Respond to Putin’s Price Hike at the Pump,” March 31, 2022, whitehouse.gov; Department of Energy, “Strategic Petroleum Reserve: Providing Energy Security For America,” March 28, 2022, energy.gov; and Heather L. Greenley, “The Strategic Petroleum Reserve: Background, Authorities, and Considerations,” Congressional Research Service, R46355, May 13, 2020, crsreports.congress.gov.   Appendix Strategic View Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months)   Table A2Political Risk Matrix Table A3US Political Capital Index Chart A1Presidential Election Model Chart A2Senate Election Model Table A4APolitical Capital: White House And Congress Table A4BPolitical Capital: Household And Business Sentiment Table A4CPolitical Capital: The Economy And Markets  

Special Report

Highlights There is no evidence of a decline in US corporate credit or bank lending spreads over the past few decades, meaning that any excess savings effect structurally depressing interest rates is occurring in the Treasury market. We note the possible mechanisms of action for excess savings to lower government bond yields, by lowering the current policy rate, expectations for the policy rate in the future, or the term premium on long-maturity bonds. To investigate the impact that excess savings may be having on bond yields, we define historical periods of abnormal yields based on the gap between long-maturity Treasury yields and the potential rate of economic growth. This reflects our view that potential growth is the equilibrium interest rate under normal economic conditions. Since 1960, there have been three major episodes when the difference between bond yields and economic growth was large and persistent, but the first two seem to be easily explained by the stance of US monetary policy rather than by a savings/investment imbalance. The excess savings story better fits the facts after 2000. We do find evidence that a global savings glut lowered bond yields during the early-2000s, and it may have even modestly contributed to the excessive household credit demand that ultimately caused the global financial crisis. But as a deviation from equilibrium, the effect of the global savings glut was relatively insignificant compared to what has prevailed over the past decade. Excess savings did certainly play a role in lowering long-term investor expectations for the Federal funds rate during the last economic cycle, but it did so for cyclical reasons that spanned several years rather than as a result of demographic effects or other structural factors unrelated to the business cycle. That is an important distinction, as long-term investor expectations for the Fed funds rate remained low in the second half of the last economic expansion despite a reduction in savings and significantly stronger growth. The historical impact of FOMC meetings on the structural decline in long-maturity US Treasury yields strongly implies that fixed-income investors have been guided by the Fed to expect a lower average Fed funds rate. It is our view that the Fed has a backward-looking neutral rate outlook, informed by an incomplete understanding of the economic circumstances of the latter half of the last expansion. A low neutral rate narrative has become entrenched in the minds of investors and the Fed itself, and we regard this as the primary factor anchoring yields at the long-end of the maturity spectrum. This phenomenon is only likely to dissipate once short-term interest rates rise and a recession does not materialize. While the nearer-term outlook more likely favors a neutral or at best modestly short duration stance within a fixed-income portfolio, investors should remain structurally short duration in response to a potentially rapid shift in long-term interest rate expectations from the Fed and fixed-income investors over the coming few years. Feature Chart II-110-Year US Treasury Yields Are The Lowest Relative To Headline Inflation In Over 60 Years For many investors, one of the most striking features of the pandemic, especially over the past year, is how low US long-maturity government bond yields have remained in the face of the highest headline consumer price inflation in four decades (Chart II-1). To many investors, this has provided even further evidence of a structural “excess savings” effect that has kept interest rates well below the prevailing rate of economic activity. The theory of secular stagnation, revived by Larry Summers in late 2013, is a related concept, but many investors believe that interest rates will remain low even in a world in which the US economy is growing at or even above its trend. The fundamental basis for this view is the idea that over the longer term, the real rate of interest is determined by the balance (or imbalance) between desired savings and investment, and that advanced economies have and will continue to experience excess savings – defined as a chronically high level of desired savings relative to the investment opportunities available. According to this view, in order for the actual level of savings to equal investment, interest rates must fall. Chart II-2Do Excess Savings Explain This Gap? (Spoiler: No) This report challenges the view that excess savings are mostly responsible for the current level of long-term bond yields in the US. We agree that excess savings have played a role in explaining changes in long-term bond yields at different points over the past 20 years; we also agree that it is normal for interest rates in advanced economies to trend down over time in response to a demographically-driven decline in potential growth. But our goal is not to explain the downtrend in interest rates over time. Instead, we aim to explain the gap between the level of long-term bond yields today and the prevailing rate of economic activity, or consensus forecasts of the trend rate of growth (Chart II-2). We do not believe that this gap is economically justified, nor do we believe that it is driven by excess savings. We conclude that the Fed’s backward-looking neutral rate outlook is the primary factor anchoring US Treasury yields at the long-end of the maturity spectrum. This is only likely to change once short-term interest rates rise and a recession does not materialize; it suggests that investors should remain structurally short duration in response to a potentially rapid shift in long-term interest rate expectations from the Fed and fixed-income investors over the coming few years. Excess Savings And Interest Rates: Defining A “Mechanism Of Action” Households, businesses, and governments can directly purchase debt securities in capital markets, but they do not typically provide loans directly to borrowers. Direct lending usually occurs through the banking system, which means that excess savings would only lower interest rates in the economy through one of the following ways: By lowering the Fed funds rate By lowering long-maturity government bond yields relative to the Fed funds rate, by reducing either the term premium or investors’ expectations for the average Fed funds rate in the future By lowering corporate bond yields relative to duration-matched government bond yields By lowering lending rates on bank loans relative to banks’ cost of borrowing Charts II-3-II-5 highlight that there is no evidence of a structural decline in corporate credit spreads or bank lending rates relative to the Fed funds rate, so we can rule out this effect as a mechanism of action for excess savings to have structurally lowered interest rates. Chart II-6 highlights that interest paid on bank deposits lags the Fed funds rate, so we can also rule out the idea that excess deposits force the Fed to keep the effective Fed funds rate low. Chart II-3No Evidence Of A Structural Decline In Corporate Credit Spreads… Chart II-4…Or Auto Loan Rate Spreads… Chart II-5…Or Personal Loan Rate Spreads… Chart II-6...Or Bank Deposit Rate Spreads This means that if excess savings are depressing interest rates in the US, that the effect is truly occurring in the Treasury market. As noted, this could occur by lowering the current policy rate, expectations for the policy rate in the future, or the term premium on long-maturity bonds. Related Report  The Bank Credit AnalystR-star, And The Structural Risk To Stocks All of these effects are certainly possible. Keynes’ paradox of thrift highlights that excess savings can manifest itself as a chronic shortfall in aggregate demand, which would persistently lower the Fed funds rate as the Fed responds to a long period of high unemployment. This could also lower the term premium on long-maturity bond yields in a scenario in which the Fed repeatedly engages in asset purchases to help stabilize aggregate demand. As well, domestic excess savings could lower the term premium on long-maturity bond yields, as aging savers directly purchase government securities as part of their retirement portfolios. Finally, foreign capital inflows could also cause this effect, especially if they originate from countries with chronic current account surpluses that use an increase in US dollar reserves to purchase long-maturity US government securities. Table II-1 summarizes these possible mechanisms of action for excess savings to lower US government bond yields. With these mechanisms in mind, we review the past 60 years to identify periods of “abnormal” bond yields, with the goal of understanding whether excess savings appear to explain major gaps. Table II-1Possible Mechanisms Of Action For Excess Savings To Lower Long-Term Government Bond Yields Identifying Periods Of “Abnormal” Long-Maturity Bond Yields Chart II-7There Have Been Three Distinct Periods Of Abnormal Long-Maturity Bond Yields Chart II-7 shows the difference between nominal 10-year US Treasury yields and nominal potential GDP growth. Panel 2 shows an alternative version of this series using the ten-year median annualized quarterly growth rate of nominal GDP in lieu of estimates of potential growth, which highlights a generally similar relationship. This approach to defining “abnormal” long-maturity bond yields reflects our view that the potential rate of economic growth is the equilibrium interest rate under normal economic conditions. To see why, given that GDP also effectively represents gross domestic income, an interest rate that is persistently below the potential growth rate of the economy would create a strong incentive to borrow on the part of households and especially firms. Chart II-7 makes it clear that the relationship has been mean-reverting over time, but that there have been three major episodes when the difference between bond yields and economic growth was large and persistent. The first episode occurred from 1960 to the late 1970s, and saw government bond yields average well below the prevailing rate of economic growth. We do not see this period as having been caused by an excess of desired savings relative to investment. As we discussed in our November Special Report,1 this gap represented a period of persistently easy monetary policy which contributed to excessive aggregate demand and a structural rise in inflation. The second major episode is also easily explained, as it occurred in response to the first. Following a decade of high inflation, Fed chair Paul Volcker raised interest rates aggressively beginning in 1979 to combat inflationary expectations, which led to a two-decade period of generally tight monetary policy. Like the first period, this was not caused by an imbalance between desired savings and investment. The third episode has prevailed since the late-1990s, and has seen a negative yield/growth gap on average – albeit one that has been smaller than what occurred in the 1960s and 1970s. From 2000 to 2007, the gap was generally negative, although it turned positive by the end of the economic cycle. It was modestly negative on average from 2008 to 2010, and only became persistently negative starting in 2011. The gap fell to a new low during the COVID-19 pandemic, and remains wider today than at any point during the last economic recovery. It is these post-2000 periods of a persistently negative yield/growth gap that should be closely investigated for evidence of an excess savings effect. The Global Savings Glut As noted, prior to 2000, the yield/growth gap in the US seems clearly explained by the Fed’s monetary policy stance, not by an excess savings effect. So the question is whether there is any evidence of excess savings having caused this negative gap since 2000. In our view, the answer is yes, but the effect was relatively small compared to what prevails today. We do find evidence of a global savings glut during the early-2000s. Chart II-8 highlights that the private and external sector savings/investment balances in China and emerging markets more generally were persistently positive during the 2000s. Chart II-9 highlights that multiple estimates of the term premium declined around that time – especially during Greenspan’s “conundrum” period of between 2004 and 2005. Chart II-8There Was A Global Savings Glut Prior To The Global Financial Crisis Chart II-9The Global Savings Glut Does Seem To Have Lowered The Term Premium On US 10-Year TreasurysChart II-10 breaks down the components of the 10-year yield into the 5-year yield and the 5-year/5-year forward yield, and highlights that the negative correlation between the two components lasted for only one year. Overall, the 10-year Treasury yield was lower than potential growth for roughly two years as a result of the global savings glut effect.       Chart II-10Still, The Global Savings Glut Effect Did Not Last Long And Was Not Especially Large In Magnitude This was a significant event, and it may even have modestly contributed to the excessive household credit demand that ultimately caused the global financial crisis. But as a deviation from equilibrium, it was relatively insignificant compared to what has prevailed over the past decade. Excess Savings And US Household Deleveraging Chart II-11Most Of The Post-2007 Decline In 10-Year Yields Is Attributable To Lower Long-Term Fed Funds Rate Expectations Chart II-11 highlights that, relative to June 2007 levels, the vast majority of the cumulative decline in the 10-year Treasury yield has occurred because of a decline in implied long-term expectations for the Fed funds rate, rather than a major decline in the term premium. The chart also shows that almost all the decline in implied long-term interest rate expectations since 2007 occurred during the 2008/2009 recession. This normally occurs during a recession as investors price in a low average Fed funds rate at the short end of the curve; the anomaly is that these expectations remained permanently low even as the economy recovered and as the Fed raised interest rates from 2015 to 2018. To us, Chart II-11 also underscores that the Fed’s asset purchases are not the main culprit behind low long-maturity bond yields today, given that the decline in long-term expectations for the Fed funds rate persisted even as the Fed stopped purchasing assets in 2014. It is not difficult to see why investors lowered their long-term Fed funds rate expectations in the immediate aftermath of the global financial crisis, even as economic recovery took hold. Chart II-12 highlights that the “balance sheet” nature of the 2008/2009 recession unleashed the longest period of US household deleveraging in the post-WWII period, and Chart II-13 highlights that this occurred despite extremely low interest rates – and in contrast to other countries like Canada that did not experience the same loss in household net worth. Chart II-12Household Deleveraging Did Lower The Neutral Rate For Several Years Following The Global Financial Crisis Chart II-13The US Balance Sheet Recession Structurally Impaired Credit Demand For Several Years After 2008     Given that interest rates represent the price of borrowing, it is entirely unsurprising that a US balance sheet recession led to a persistent period in which credit growth was essentially unresponsive to interest rates, as households struggled to rebuild wealth lost during the recession and were unable to, or uninterested in, releveraging. This is another way of saying that the neutral rate of interest fell during that period, which we agree did occur. It is also accurate to characterize the US as having experienced a sharp increase in desired savings over that period, as highlighted by the explosion in the US private sector financial balance in the initial years of the last economic recovery (Chart II-14). Chart II-14Excess Savings Surged After 2008, But Eventually Normalized. Long-Term Rate Expectations Ignored The Normalization. So excess savings did certainly play a role in lowering long-term investor expectations for the Federal funds rate during the last economic cycle, but it did so because of cyclical reasons that spanned several years rather than because of demographic effects or other structural factors unrelated to the business cycle. That is an important distinction, because while Chart II-14 shows that this excess savings effect eventually waned in importance, long-term investor expectations for the Fed funds rate remained low in the second half of the last economic expansion. Chart II-15Growth Was Historically Weak Last Cycle, But Only Because Of The First Few Years Of The Expansion Chart II-15 highlights that the cumulative annualized growth in real per capita GDP during the last economic cycle was significantly below that of the average of previous expansions, but this was only the case because of the very slow growth period between 2008 and 2014. Per capita growth during the latter half of the expansion was comparable to that of previous expansions, and this occurred while the Fed was raising interest rates. And yet, investors only modestly raised their long-term interest rate expectations during that period. In our view, it is this fact that holds the key to understanding why investors’ long-term rate expectations are still low today. An Alternative Explanation For Today’s Extremely Low Long-Maturity Bond Yields Chart II-16Fixed-Income Investors Have Been Guided By The Fed To Expect A Low Average Fed Funds Rate Chart II-16 highlights that, since 1990, all of the structural decline in US 10-year Treasury yields has occurred within a three-day window on either side of FOMC meetings. This strongly suggests that fixed-income investors have been guided by the Fed to expect a low average Fed funds rate, which is consistent with how similar 5-year/5-year forward US Treasury yields are in relation to published FOMC and market participant estimates of the average longer-run Fed funds rate (as shown in Chart II-2). This raises the important question of why the Fed did not revise up its expectation for the neutral rate during or following the second half of the last economic expansion, when growth was much stronger than during the first half. In our view, one of the clearest articulations of the Federal Reserve’s understanding of the neutral rate of interest was presented in a 2015 speech by Lael Brainard at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research. Brainard noted the following: “The neutral rate of interest is not directly observable, but we can back out an estimate of the neutral rate by relying on the observation that output should grow faster relative to potential growth the lower the federal funds rate is relative to the nominal neutral rate. In today’s circumstances, the fact that the US economy is growing at a pace only modestly above potential while core inflation remains restrained suggests that the nominal neutral rate may not be far above the nominal federal funds rate, even now. In fact, various econometric estimates of the level of the neutral rate, or similar concepts, are consistent with the low levels suggested by this simple heuristic approach.”2 Chart II-17The Fed, Wrongly, Sees The 2019 Experience As Having Confirmed A Low Neutral Rate... Given how the Fed determines the neutral rate is, two factors explain why the Fed’s estimates of the neutral rate have not increased (and, in fact, fell modestly in March). First, core inflation remained below 2% from 2015-2019, despite the fact that the economy was clearly growing at an above-trend pace during this period in the face of Fed rate hikes. We have noted in previous reports the role that the 2014 collapse in oil prices had on household inflation expectations. The latter were already vulnerable to a disinflationary shock, given how negative the output gap had been in the first half of the expansion.3 We do not think that the decline in inflation expectations that occurred following the 2014 collapse in oil prices reflects a low neutral rate, but rather we believe that the Fed saw this as a conundrum that supported the expectation of a low average Fed funds rate. The second event explaining the Fed’s persistently low long-term rate expectations is the fact that the Fed was forced to cut interest rates in 2019, which we believe it saw as confirmation that the stance of monetary policy had become either meaningfully less easy or openly tight. From the Fed’s point of view, this perspective was also supported by recessionary indicators, such as the inversion of the 2-10 yield curve (Chart II-17), and popular (but now discontinued) econometric estimates of the real neutral rate of interest, such as those calculated by the Laubach-Williams model (panel 3). Chart II-18...Without Appreciating The Damaging Impact The China-US Trade War Had On Global Activity However, this view entirely ignores the fact that the US and global economies were negatively impacted in 2018 and 2019 by a politically-motivated nonmonetary shock to aggregate demand: the China-US trade war, which also impacted or targeted several major advanced economies. Chart II-18 highlights that global trade uncertainty exploded during this period, which severely damaged business confidence around the world and caused a slowdown in global industrial production. Tighter Chinese policy also likely contributed to the slowdown in global activity, but the bottom line is that factors other than US monetary policy contributed to economic weakness during this period, and that it is incorrect to infer from the 2018/2019 experience that interest rates rose to or exceeded the neutral rate of interest. In short, it is our view that the Fed has simply become backward-looking in how it perceives the neutral rate of interest; it has not yet observed a period when the Fed funds rate has risen to its estimate of neutral but is unambiguously still easy. Fixed-income investors, having demonstrably anchored their own assessments to those of the Fed over the past 30 years, have had no basis to come to a meaningfully different conclusion. We believe that the Fed’s backward-looking low neutral rate outlook has now become entrenched in the minds of investors and the Fed itself, and is the primary factor anchoring yields at the long-end of the maturity spectrum. This will probably only change once short-term interest rates rise and a recession does not materialize. As a final point, we clearly acknowledge that private savings increased massively during the pandemic. Investors who are inclined to see excess savings as the primary driver of low bond yields will point to this fact. But this was a forced increase in savings, rather than a desired one. The rise in household sector savings occurred mostly because of a substantial reduction in services spending, as pandemic restrictions and forced changes in behavior prevented the consumption of many services. The household savings rate has already returned to its pre-pandemic level in the US, and 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yields have risen to a higher point than they were prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. US households are likely to deploy a portion of their enormous stock of excess savings, as the pandemic continues to recede in importance, which is one of the main reasons to expect that the US economy will not succumb to a recession over the coming 12-18 months – and why investors and the Fed may soon be presented with evidence that warrants an increase in their long-term interest rate expectations. Investment Conclusions There are two important investment implications of the view that the Fed’s backward-looking neutral rate projection is the primary factor anchoring yields at the long end of the maturity spectrum. As we noted in Section 1 of our report, the first implication is that investors will likely be faced with a recession scare as the 2-10 yield curve durably inverts and as rate sensitive sectors of the economy, such as housing, inevitably slow in response to the extremely sharp rise in mortgage rates that has occurred over the past three months. We believe that it is ultimately the level of interest rates that matters for economic activity, rather than the change in interest rates. Large changes over short periods of time, however, create a degree of uncertainty about the trajectory of rates that temporarily impacts economic activity. This underscores that investors should not maintain an aggressively overweight stance toward global equities in a multi-asset portfolio, as it is likely that concerns about corporate profits will increase significantly at some point this year. The second investment implication is that US long-maturity bond yields could increase to much higher levels over the coming 12-24 months than many investors expect, in a scenario in which pandemic-driven price pressure dissipates, real wages recover, and no major politically-driven nonmonetary policy shocks emerge. We acknowledge that long-term interest rate expectations are unlikely to change until hard evidence of the economy’s capacity to tolerate interest rates above the Fed’s implied current estimate of the neutral rate emerges. This is a case, however, when we believe that investors should heed the now-famous words of Rüdiger Dornbusch: “In economics, things take longer to happen than you think they will, and then they happen faster than you thought they could.” As such, while the nearer-term outlook more likely favors a neutral or at best modestly short duration stance within a fixed-income portfolio, investors should remain structurally short duration in response to a potentially rapid shift in long-term interest rate expectations from the Fed and fixed-income investors over the coming few years. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst   Footnotes 1 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "Gauging The Risk Of Stagflation," dated October 29, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2 Lael Brainard, Normalizing Monetary Policy When The Neutral Rate Is Low, December 2015 3 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "The Modern-Day Phillips Curve, Future Inflation, And What To Do About It," dated December 18, 2020, available at bca.bcaresearch.com

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)

Due to travel commitments, there will be no Counterpoint report next week. Instead, we will send you a timely update and analysis of the Ukraine Crisis written by my colleague Matt Gertken, BCA Chief Geopolitical Strategist. Executive Summary The tight connection between the oil price and inflation expectations is intuitive, appealing… and wrong. The inflation market is tiny, and its principle function is not to predict inflation per se, but to serve as a hedging investment in an inflation scare, such as that which follows an oil price spike. Hence, we should treat inflation expectations and the real bond yield that is derived from them with extreme care – especially after an oil price spike, which will give the illusion that the real bond yield is lower than it really is. In the near term, the Ukraine crisis has added to already elevated fears about inflation, which will pressure both bonds and stocks. However, looking beyond the next few months, the Ukraine crisis triggered supply shock will cause demand destruction, while central banks also choke demand, and the recent massive displacement of demand into goods, and its associated inflationary impulse, reverses. The 12-month asset allocation conclusion is to overweight stocks and bonds, and to underweight TIPS and commodities. Fractal trading watchlist: The sell-off in some T-bonds is approaching capitulation. The Tight Relationship Between The Oil Price And Inflation Expectations Is Intuitive, Appealing... And Wrong Bottom Line: In the near term, an inflationary impulse will dominate, but on a 12-month horizon, a disinflationary impulse will dominate. Feature In his seminal work Thinking Fast And Slow, Nobel Laureate psychologist Daniel Kahneman presented the bat-and-ball puzzle. A bat and ball cost $1.10. The bat costs one dollar more than the ball. How much does the ball cost? “A number came to your mind. The number, of course, is 10: 10 cents. The distinctive mark of this easy puzzle is that it evokes an answer that is intuitive, appealing, and wrong. Do the math, and you will see. If the ball costs 10 cents, then the total cost will be $1.20 (10 cents for the ball and $1.10 for the bat), not $1.10. The correct answer is 5 cents. It is safe to assume that the intuitive answer also came to the mind of those who ended up with the correct number – they somehow managed to resist the intuition.” Kahneman’s crucial finding is that many people are prone to place too much faith in an intuitive answer, an intuitive answer that they could have rejected with a small investment of effort. The Connection Between The Oil Price and Inflation Expectations Is Intuitive, Appealing… And Wrong Today, the financial markets are presenting their very own bat-and-ball puzzle. The surging price of crude oil is driving up the market expectation for inflation over the next ten years (Chart I-1). This tight relationship is intuitive and appealing, because we associate a high oil price with a high inflation rate. But the intuitive and appealing relationship is wrong, and it requires just a small investment of effort to prove the fallacy. Chart I-1The Tight Relationship Between The Oil Price And Inflation Expectations Is Intuitive, Appealing... And Wrong Inflation over the next ten years equals the price in ten years’ time divided by the current price. So, to the extent that there is any relationship between the current price and expected inflation, dividing by a higher price today means a lower prospective inflation rate. Empirically, the last fifty years of evidence confirms this very clear inverse relationship (Chart I-2). Chart I-2A High Oil Price Means Lower Subsequent Inflation This raises an obvious question: while many people accept the intuitive (wrong) relationship between the oil price and expected inflation, how can the market make such a glaring error? The answer is that the inflation market is relatively tiny, and that its principle function is not to predict inflation per se, but to serve as a hedging investment in an inflation scare. Compared to the $25 trillion T-bond market, the Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS) market is worth just $1.5 trillion, slightly more than the market capitalisation of Tesla. Just as we do not expect Tesla to represent the view of the entire stock market, we should not expect TIPS to represent the view of the entire bond market. A high oil price means lower subsequent inflation. A recent paper by The Oxford Institute For Energy Studies explains: “the tight relationship between the oil price and inflation expectations defies not only the thesis of economics, but the norms of statistics as well, with a correlation that has reached 90 percent over the last ten years and a corresponding r-squared of 82 percent (Chart I-3 and Chart I-4). The root cause of this phenomenon should probably be searched for in the behaviour of another large group of market participants, the systematic portfolio allocators, and factor investors.”1  Chart I-3Inflation Expectations Are Just A Mathematical Function Of The Oil Price... Chart I-4...Therefore 'The Real Bond Yield' Is Just A Mathematical Function Of The Oil Price So, here’s the explanation for the intuitive, appealing, but wrong connection between the oil price and inflation expectations. In the inflation scare that a surging oil price unleashes, the two main asset-classes – bonds and equities – are vulnerable to sharp losses, leaving TIPS as one of the very few assets that can provide a genuine hedge against inflation. But given that bonds and equities dwarf the $1.5 trillion TIPS (and other inflation) markets, the inflation hedger quickly becomes the dominant force in this tiny market. This large volume of hedging demand chasing limited supply drives down the real yields on TIPS to artificial lows, both in absolute terms and relative to T-bond yields. And as the difference between nominal and real yields defines the ‘market’s expected inflation’, it explains the surge in expected inflation. Be Careful How You Use ‘The Real Bond Yield’ It is an unfortunate reality that we often close the stable door after the horse has bolted, meaning that we react after, rather than before, the event. In financial market terms, this means that we demand inflation protection after, rather than before, it happens, and end up overpaying for it. A high oil price unleashes a massive hedging demand for the tiny TIPS market, driving down the real TIPS yield versus the nominal T-bond yield. To repeat, a high oil price unleashes a massive hedging demand for the tiny TIPS market, driving down the real TIPS yield versus the nominal T-bond yield. The upshot is that the performance of TIPS versus T-bonds is nothing more than a play on the oil price (Chart I-5). Chart I-5The Performance Of TIPS Versus T-Bonds Is Just A Play On The Oil Price A bigger message is that we should interpret the oft-quoted ‘real bond yield’ with extreme care. The real bond yield is nothing more than the nominal bond yield less a mathematical function of the oil price. So, when the oil price is high, it will give the illusion that the real bond yield is low. The danger is that if we value equities against the real bond yield when the oil price is high – such as through 2011-14 or now – equities will appear cheaper than they really are (Chart I-6). Chart I-6When The Oil Price Is High, 'The Real Bond Yield' Will Appear Lower Than It Really Is In The Case Against A ‘Super Bubble’ (And The Case For) we explained the much better way to value equities is versus the product of the nominal bond price and current profits. This valuation approach perfectly explains the US stock market’s evolution both over the long term (Chart I-7) and the short term. Specifically, over the past year, the dominant driver of the US stock market has been the 30-year T-bond price (Chart I-8). Chart I-7The US Stock Market = Profits Times The 30-Year T-Bond Price (Long-Term Chart) Chart I-8The US Stock Market = Profits Times The 30-Year T-Bond Price (Short-Term Chart) 12-Month Asset Allocation Conclusion The current inflation scare comes not from an aggregate demand shock, but from a massive displacement of demand (into goods) followed by the more recent supply shock for energy and food triggered by the Ukraine crisis. In response, central banks are trying to douse the inflation in the only way they can – by choking aggregate demand. Hence, there is a dangerous mismatch between the malady and the remedy. In the near term, the Ukraine crisis has added to already elevated fears about inflation – and this will pressure both bonds and stocks. However, looking beyond the next few months, the near-term inflationary impulse will unleash a disinflationary response from three sources. First, a supply shock means higher prices without stronger demand, which causes an inevitable demand destruction that then pulls down prices. Second, central banks are explicitly trying to pull down prices – or at least price inflation – by choking demand. And third, the massive displacement of demand into goods, and its associated inflationary impulse, is reversing. On a 12-month horizon, the disinflationary impulse will outweigh the inflationary impulse. Therefore, on a 12-month horizon, the disinflationary impulse will outweigh the inflationary impulse. The asset allocation conclusion is to overweight stocks and bonds, and to underweight TIPS and commodities. Is The Bond Sell-Off Close To Capitulation? Finally, several clients have asked if the recent sell-off in bonds is close to capitulation, based on the fragility of its fractal structures. The answer is yes, but only for the shorter maturity T-bonds. Specifically, the 5-year T-bond has reached the point of fragility on its composite 130-day/260-day fractal structure that marked the bottom of the sell-off in 2018, as well as the top of the rally in 2020 (Chart I-9). Chart I-9The Sell-Off In Shorter-Dated T-Bonds Is Close To Capitulation Accordingly, this week’s trade recommendation is to buy the 5-year T-bond, setting the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 4 percent, and with a maximum holding period of 1 year. Please note that our full fractal trading watchlist is now available on our website:  cpt.bcaresearch.com     Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 https://www.oxfordenergy.org/wpcms/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Is-the-Oil-Price-Inflation-Relationship-Transitory.pdf Chart 1The Strong Trend In The 18-Month-Out US Interest Rate Future Is Fragile Chart 2The Strong Trend In The 3 Year T-Bond Is Fragile Chart 3AUD/KRW Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 4Canada Versus Japan Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 5Canada's TSX-60's Outperformance Might Be Over Chart 6US Healthcare Vs. Software Approaching A Reversal Chart 7The Euro’s Underperformance Could Be Approaching a Resistance Level Chart 8A Potential Switching Point From Tobacco Into Cannabis Chart 9Bitcoin's 65-Day Fractal Support Is Holding For Now Chart 10Biotech Approaching A Major Buy Chart 11CAD/SEK Reversal Has Started Chart 12Financials Versus Industrials Is Reversing Chart 13Norway's Outperformance Could End Chart 14Greece's Brief Outperformance Has Ended Chart 15BRL/NZD At A Resistance Point Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Special Report

Executive Summary Major EM’s Defense Spends Will Be Comparable To That Of Developed Countries​​​​ Tectonic geopolitical trends are taking shape in Emerging Markets (EMs) today that will leave an indelible imprint on the next decade. First, EMs have gone on a relatively unnoticed public debt binge at a time when the economic prospects of the median EM citizen have deteriorated. This raises the spectre of sudden fiscal populism, aggressive foreign policy or social unrest in EMs. China, Brazil and Saudi Arabia appear most vulnerable to these risks. Second, the defense bill of major EMs could be comparable to that of the top developed countries of the world in a decade from now. Investors must brace for EMs to play a central role in the defense market and in wars, in the coming years. To profit from ascendant geopolitical risks in China, we reiterate shorting TWD-USD and the CNY against an equal-weighted basket of Euro and USD. To extract most from the theme of EM militarization, we suggest a Long on European Aerospace & Defense relative to European Tech stocks.   Trade Recommendation Inception Date Return LONG EUROPEAN AEROSPACE & DEFENSE / EUROPEAN TECH EQUITIES (STRATEGIC) 2022-03-18   Bottom Line: Even as EMs are set to emerge as protagonists on the world stage, investors must prepare for these countries to exhibit sudden fiscal expansions, bouts of social unrest or a newfound propensity to initiate wars. The only way to dodge these volatility-inducing events is to leverage geopolitics to foresee these shocks. Feature Only a few weeks before Russia’s war with Ukraine broke out, a client told us that he was having trouble seeing the importance of geopolitics in investing. “It seems like geopolitics was a lot more relevant a few years back, with the European debt crisis, Brexit, and Trump. Now it does not seem to drive markets at all”, said the client. To this we gave our frequent explanation which is, “Our strategic themes of Great Power Struggle, Hypo-Globalization, and Nationalism/Populism are now embedded in the international system and responsible for an observable rise in geopolitical risk that is reshaping markets”. In particular we highlighted our pessimistic view on both Russia and Iran, which have incidentally crystallized most clearly since we had this client conversation. Related Report  Geopolitical StrategyBrazil: The Road To Elections Won't Be Paved With Good Intentions Globally key geopolitical changes are afoot with Russia at war. In the coming weeks and months, we will write extensively about the dramatic changes we see taking shape in the realm of geopolitics and investing. We underscored the dramatic geopolitical realignment taking place as Russia severs ties with the West and throws itself into China’s arms in a report titled “From Nixon-Mao To Putin-Xi”. In this Special Report we highlight two key geopolitical themes that will affect emerging markets (EMs) over the coming decade. The aim is to help investors spot these trends early, so that they can profit from these tectonic changes that are sure to spawn a new generation of winners and losers in financial markets. (For BCA Research’s in-depth views on EMs, do refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy (EMS) webpage). Trend #1: Beware The Wrath Of EMs On A Debt Binge Chart 1The Pace Of Debt Accumulation Has Accelerated In Major EMs Investors are generally aware of the debt build-up that has taken place in the developed world since Covid-19. The gross public debt held by the six most developed countries of the world (spanning US, Japan, Germany, UK, France and Italy) now stands at an eye-watering $60 trillion or about 140% of GDP. This debt pile is enormous in both absolute and relative terms. But at the same time, the debt simultaneously being taken on by EMs has largely gone unnoticed. The cumulative public debt held by eight major EMs today (spanning China, Taiwan, Korea, India, Brazil, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Turkey) stands at $20tn i.e., about 70% of GDP. Whilst the absolute value of EM debt appears manageable, what is worrying is the pace of debt accumulation. The average public debt to GDP ratio of these EMs fell over the early 2000s but their public debt ratios have now doubled over the last decade (Chart 1). EMs have been accumulating public debt at such a rapid clip that the pace of debt expansion in EMs is substantially higher than that of the top six developed countries (Chart 1). These six DMs have a larger combined GDP than the eight EMs with which they are compared. Related Report  Geopolitical StrategyIndia's Politics: Know When To Hold 'Em, Know When To Fold 'Em (For in-depth views on China’s debt, do refer to China Investment Strategy (CIS) report here). Now developed countries taking on more debt makes logical sense for two reasons. Firstly, most developed countries are ageing, and their populations have stopped growing. So one way to prop up falling demand is to get governments to spend more using debt. Secondly, this practice seems manageable because developed country central banks have deep pockets (in the form of reserves) and their central banks are issuers of some of the safest currencies of the world. But EMs using the same formula and getting addicted to debt at an earlier stage of development is risky and could prove to be lethal in some cases. Also distinct from reasons of macroeconomics, the debt binge in EMs this time is problematic for geopolitical reasons. This Time Is Different EMs getting reliant on debt is problematic this time because their median citizen’s economic prospects have deteriorated. Growth is slowing, inflation is high, and job creation is stalling; thereby creating a problematic socio-political backdrop to the EM debt build-up. Growth Is Slowing: In the 2000s EMs could hope to grow out of their social or economic problems. The cumulative nominal GDP of eight major EMs more than quadrupled over the early 2000s but a decade later, these EMs haven not been able to grow their nominal GDP even at half the rate (Chart 2). Inflation Remains High: Despite poorer growth prospects, inflation is accelerating. Inflation was high in most major EMs in 2021 (Chart 3) i.e., even before the surge seen in 2022. Chart 2Major EM’s Growth Engine Is No Longer Humming Like A Well-Tuned Machine​​​​​ Chart 3Despite Slower Growth, Inflation In Major EMs Remains High​​​​​ Rising Unemployment: Employment levels have improved globally from the precipice they had fallen into in 2020. But unemployment today is a far bigger problem for major EMs as compared to developed markets (Chart 4). If the economic miseries of the median EM citizen are not addressed, then they can produce disruptive sociopolitical effects that will fan market volatility. This problem of rising economic misery alongside a rapid debt build-up, can also be seen for the next tier of EMs i.e. Mexico, Indonesia, Iran, Poland, Thailand, Nigeria, Argentina, Egypt, South Africa and Vietnam. While the average public debt to GDP ratios of these EMs fell over the early 2000s, the pace of debt accumulation has almost doubled over the last decade (Chart 5). Furthermore, the growth engine in these smaller EMs is no longer humming like a well-tuned machine and inflation remains at large (Chart 5). Chart 4Unemployment - A Bigger Problem In Major EMs Today​​​​​ Chart 5Smaller EMs Must Also Deal With Rising Debt, Alongside Slowing Growth​​​​​ Chart 6The Debt Surge In EMs This Time, Poses Unique Challenges History suggests that periods of economic tumult are frequently followed by social unrest. The eruption of the so-called Arab Spring after the Great Recession illustrated the power of this dynamic. Then following the outbreak of Covid-19 in 2020 we had highlighted that Turkey, Brazil, and South Africa are at the greatest risk of significant social unrest. We also showed that even EMs that looked stable on paper faced unrest in the post-Covid world, including China and Russia. In this report we take a decadal perspective which reveals that growth is slowing, and debt is growing in EMs. Given that EMs suffer from rising economic miseries alongside growing debt and lower political freedoms (Chart 6), it appears that some of these markets could be socio-political tinderboxes in the making. Policy Implications Of The EM Debt Surge “As it turns out, we don't 'all' have to pay our debts. Only some of us do.” – David Graeber, Debt: The First 5,000 Years (Melville House Publishing, 2011) The trifecta of fast-growing debt, slowing growth and/or low political freedoms in EMs can add to the volatility engendered by EMs as an asset class. Given the growing economic misery in EMs today, politicians will be wary of outbreaks of social unrest. To quell this unrest, they may resort broadly to fiscal expansion and/or aggressive foreign policy. Both of these policy choices can dampen market returns in EMs. Chart 7India's Performance Had Flatlined Post Mild Populist Tilt Policy Choice #1: More Fiscal Spending Despite High Debt Policymakers in some EMs may respond by de-prioritizing contentious structural reforms and prioritizing fiscal expansion. The Indian government’s decision to repeal progressive changes to farm laws in late 2021, launch a $7 billion home-building program in early 2022 and withholding hikes in retail prices of fuel, illustrates how policymakers are resorting to populism despite high public debt levels. As a result, it is no surprise that MSCI India had been underperforming MSCI EM even before the war in Ukraine broke out (Chart 7). Brazil is another EM which falls into this category, while China’s attempts to run tighter budgets have failed in the face of slowing growth. Policy Choice #2: Foreign Policy Aggression EMs may also adopt an aggressive foreign policy stance. Russia’s decision to invade Ukraine, Turkey’s interventions in several countries, and China’s increasing assertiveness in its neighboring seas and the Taiwan Strait provide examples. Wars by EMs are known to dampen returns as the experience of the Russian stock market shows. Russian stocks fell by 14% during its invasion of Georgia in 2008 and are down 40% from 24 February 2022 until March 9, 2022, i.e. when MSCI halted trading. If politicians fail to pursue either of these policies, then they run the risk of social unrest erupting due to tight fiscal policy or domestic political disputes. In fact, early signs of social discontent are already evident from large protests seen in major EMs over the last year (see Table 1). Table 1Social Unrest In Major EMs Is Already Ascendant Bottom Line: The last decade has seen major EMs go on a relatively unnoticed public debt binge. This is problematic because this debt surge has come at a time when economic prospects of the median EM citizen have deteriorated. Politicians will be keen to quell the resultant discontent. This raises the specter of excessive fiscal expansion, aggressive foreign policy, and/or social unrest. All three outcomes are negative from an EM volatility perspective. Trend #2: The Rise And Rise Of EM Defense Spends Great Power Rivalry is an outgrowth of the multipolar structure of international relations. This theme will drive higher defense spending globally. In this report we highlight that even after accounting for a historic rearmament in developed countries following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, a decade from now EMs will play a key role in driving global military spends. The defense bill of the six richest developed countries of the world (the US, Japan, Germany, UK, France and Italy) will increasingly be rivaled by that of the top eight EMs (China, Taiwan, Korea, India, Brazil, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Turkey). While key developed markets like Japan and Germany in specific (and Europe more broadly) are now embarking on increasing defense spends, the unstable global backdrop will force EMs to increase their military budgets as well. The combination of these forces could mean that the top eight EM’s defense spends could be comparable to that of the top six developed markets in a decade from now i.e., by 2032 (Chart 8). This is true even though the six DMs have a larger GDP. The assumptions made while arriving at the 2032 defense spend projections include: Substantially Higher Pace Of Defense Spends For Developed Countries: To reflect the fact that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine will trigger a historical wave of armament in developed markets we assume that: (a) NATO members France, Germany and Italy (who spent about 1.5% of GDP on an average on defense spends in 2019) will ramp up defense spending to 2% of GDP by 2032, (b) US and UK i.e. NATO members who already spend substantially more than 2% of GDP on defense spends will still ‘increase’ defense spends by another 0.4% of GDP each by 2032 and finally (c) Japan which spends less than 1% of GDP on defense spends today, in a structural break from the past will increase its spending which will rise to 1.5% of GDP by 2032. China And Hence Taiwan As Well As India Will Boost Spends: To capture China’s increasingly aggressive foreign policy stance and the fact that India as well as Taiwan will be forced to respond to the Chinese threat; we assume that China increases its stated defense spends from 1.7% of GDP in 2019 to 3% by 2032. Taiwan follows in lockstep and increases its defense spends from 1.8% of GDP in 2019 to 3% by 2032. India which is experiencing a pincer movement from China to its east and Pakistan to its west will have no choice but to respond to the high and rising geopolitical risks in South Asia. The coming decade is in fact likely to see India’s focus on its naval firepower increase meaningfully as it feels the need to fend off threats in the Indo-Pacific. India currently maintains high defense spends at 2.5% of GDP and will boost this by at least 100bps to 3.5% of GDP by 2032. Defense Spending Trends For Five EMs: For the rest of the EMs (namely Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Korea and Brazil), the pace of growth in defense spending seen over 2009-19 is extrapolated to 2032. For Turkey, we assume that defense spends as a share of GDP increases to 3% of GDP by 2032. Extrapolation Of Past GDP Growth For All Countries: For all 14 countries, we extrapolate the nominal GDP growth calculated by the IMF for 2022-26 as per its last full data update, to 2032. This tectonic change in defense spending patterns has important historical roots. Back in 1900, UK and Japan i.e., the two seafaring powers were top defense spenders (Chart 9). Developed countries of the world continued to lead defense spending league tables through the twentieth century as they fought expensive world wars. Chart 8Major EM’s Defense Spends Will Be Comparable To That Of Developed Countries​​​​​​ Chart 9Back In 1900, Developed Countries Like UK And Japan Were Top Military Spenders​​​​​​ Chart 10By 2000, EMs Had Begun Spending Generously On Armament But things began changing after WWII. Jaded by the world wars, developed countries began lowering their defense spending. By the early 2000s EMs had now begun spending generously on armament (Chart 10). The turn of the century saw growth in developed markets fade while EMs like China and India’s geopolitical power began rising (Chart 11). Then a commodities boom ensued, resulting in petro-states like Saudi Arabia establishing their position as a high military spender. The confluence of these factors meant that by 2020 EMs had becomes major defense spenders in both relative and absolute terms too (Chart 12). Going forward, we expect the coming renaissance in DM defense spending in the face of Russian aggression, alongside rising geopolitical aspirations of China, to exacerbate this trend of rising EM militarization. Chart 11The 21st Century Saw Developed Countries’ Geopolitical Power Ebb Chart 12EMs Today Are Top Military Spenders, Even In Absolute Terms Why Does EM Weaponizing Matter? History suggests that wars are often preceded by an increase in defense spends: Well before WWI, a perceptible increase in defense spending could be seen in Austria-Hungary, Germany, and Italy (Chart 13). These three countries would go on to be known as the Triple Alliance in WWI. Correspondingly France, Britain and Russia (i.e., countries that would constitute the Triple Entente) also ramped up military spending before WWI (Chart 14). Chart 13Well Before WWI; Austria-Hungary, Germany, And Italy Had Begun Ramping Up Defense Spends​​​​​​ Chart 14The ‘Triple Entente’ Too Had Increased Defense Spends In The Run Up To WWI​​​​​​ History tragically repeated itself a few decades later. Besides Japan (which invaded China in 1937); Germany and Italy too ramped up defense spending well before WWII broke out (Chart 15). These three countries would come to be known as the Axis Powers and initiated WWII. Notably, Britain and Russia (who would go on to counter the Axis Powers) had also been weaponizing since the mid-1930s (Chart 16). Chart 15Axis Powers Had Been Increasing Defense Spends Well Before WWII​​​​​ Chart 16Allied Powers Too Had Been Increasing Defense Spends In The Run Up To WWII​​​​​ Chart 17Militarily Active States Have Been Ramping Up Defense Spends Russia, Ukraine, Turkey and Gulf Arab states like Iraq have been involved in wars in the recent past and noticeably increased their defense budgets in the lead-up to military activity (Chart 17). Given that a rise in military spending is often a leading indicator of war and given that EMs are set to spend more on defense, it appears that significant wars are becoming more rather than less likely, which Russia’s invasion of Ukraine obviously implies. A large number of “Black Swan Risks” are clustered in the spheres of influence of Russia, China, and Iran, which are the key powers attempting to revise the US-led global order today (Map 1). Map 1Black Swan Risks Are Clustered Around China, Russia & Iran Distinct from major EMs, eight small countries pose meaningful risks of being involved in wars over the next. These countries are small (in terms of their nominal GDPs) but spend large sums on defense both in absolute terms (>$4 billion) and in relative terms (>4% of GDP). Incidentally all these countries are located around the Eurasian rimland and include Israel, Pakistan, Algeria, Iran, Kuwait, Oman, Ukraine and Morocco (Map 2). In fact, the combined sum of spending undertaken by these countries is so meaningful that it exceeds the defense budgets of countries like Russia and UK (Chart 18). Map 2Eight Small Countries That Spend Generously On Defense Chart 188 Countries Located Near The Eurasian Rimland, Spend Large Sums On Defense​​​​ Bottom Line: As EM geopolitical power and aspirations rise, the defense bill of top developed countries will be challenged by the defense spending undertaken by major EMs. On one hand this change will mean that certain EMs may be at the epicenter of wars and concomitant market volatility. On the other hand, this change could spawn a new generation of winners amongst defense suppliers. Investment Conclusions In this section we highlight strategic trades that can be launched to play the two trends highlighted above. Trend #1: Beware The Wrath Of EMs On A Debt Binge Investors must prepare for EMs to witness sudden fiscal expansions, unusually aggressive foreign policy stances, and/or bouts of social unrest over the next few years. The only way to dodge these volatility-inducing events in EMs is to leverage geopolitics to foresee socio-political shocks. Using a simple method called the “Tinderbox Framework” (Table 2), we highlight that: Table 2Tinderbox Framework: Identifying Countries Most Exposed To Socio-Political Risks Within the eight major EMs; China, Brazil, Russia and Saudi Arabia face elevated socio-political risks. Amongst the smaller ten EMs, these risks appear most elevated for Egypt, South Africa and Argentina. It is worth noting that Brazil, South Africa and Turkey appeared most vulnerable as per our Covid-19 Social Unrest Index that we launched in 2020. We used the tinderbox framework in the current context to fade out effects of Covid-19 and to add weight to the debt problem that is brewing in EMs. Client portfolios that are overweight on most countries that fare poorly on our “Tinderbox Framework” should consider actively hedging for volatility at the stock-specific level. To profit from ascendant geopolitical risks in China, we reiterate shorting TWD-USD and the CNY against an equal-weighted basket of Euro and USD. China’s public debt ratio is high and social pressures may be building with limited valves in place to release these pressures (Table 2). The renminbi has performed well amid the Russian war, which has weighed down the euro, but China faces a confluence of domestic and international risks that will ultimately drag on the currency, while the euro will benefit from the European Union’s awakening as a geopolitical entity in the face of the Russian military threat. Trend #2: EM’s Will Drive Wars In The 21st Century Wars are detrimental to market returns.1 Furthermore, as the history of world wars proves, even the aftermath of a war often yields poor investment outcomes as wars can be followed by recessions. It is in this context that investors must prepare for the rise of EMs as protagonists in the defense market, by leveraging geopolitics to identify EMs that are most likely to be engaged in wars. While we are not arguing that WWIII will erupt, investors must brace for proxy wars as an added source of volatility that could affect EMs as an asset class. To profit from these structural changes underway we highlight two strategic trades namely: 1.  Long Global Aerospace & Defense / Broad Market Thanks to the higher spending on defense being undertaken by major EMs, global defense spends will grow at a faster rate over the next decade as compared to the last. We hence reiterate our Buy on Global Aerospace & Defense relative to the broader market. 2.  Long European Aerospace & Defense / European Tech Up until Russia invaded Ukraine and was hit with economic sanctions, Russia was the second largest exporter of arms globally accounting for 20% global arms exports. With Russia’s ability to sell goods in the global market now impaired, the two other major suppliers of defense goods that appear best placed to tap into EM’s demand for defense goods are the US (37% share in the global defense exports market) and Europe (+25% share in the global defense exports market). Chart 19American Defense Stocks Have Outperformed, European Defense Stocks Have Underperformed​​​​​​ Chart 20Defense Market: Russia’s Loss Could Be Europe’s Gain​​​​​ But given that (a) American aerospace & defense stocks have rallied (Chart 19) and given that (b) France, Germany, and Italy are major suppliers of defense equipment to countries that Russia used to supply defense goods to (Chart 20), we suggest a Buy on European Aerospace & Defense relative to European Tech stocks to extract more from this theme. In fact, this trade also stands to benefit from the pursuance of rearmament by major European democracies which so far have maintained lower defense spends as compared to America and UK. This view from a geopolitical perspective is echoed by our European Investment Strategy (EIS) team too who also recommend a Long on European defense stocks and a short on European tech stocks. Ritika Mankar, CFA Editor/Strategist ritika.mankar@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Please see: Andrew Leigh et al, “What do financial markets think of war in Iraq?”, NBER Working Paper No. 9587, March 2003, nber.org.  David Le Bris, “Wars, Inflation and Stock Market Returns in France, 1870-1945”, Financial History Review 19.3 pp. 337-361, December 2012, ssrn.com. Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Regional Geopolitical Risk Matrix

Executive Summary The conflict in Ukraine will grind on until Kiev and the coastal cities fall and Russia is able to seat a government that will keep the country firmly within its sphere of influence. Rallies on slight hopes for an end to hostilities suggest that equities have more downside as they have yet to face up to the reality that the active military campaign has only begun. Surging energy prices imperil Europe’s expansion, but the net impact on the US economy will likely be modest, as increased employment and investment in the oil patch and better performance from high-yield borrowers offset higher gasoline prices. The US economy has enough momentum that it will be able to grow well above trend despite intensified inflation pressures from the Ukraine conflict. As US growth holds up, so too should S&P 500 earnings. Equities’ downside will be determined by how much P/E multiples contract. Though we expect additional near-term de-rating, we expect the market’s forward multiple will be resilient given the lack of positive-real-return alternatives. War Headwind Trumps Discount Rate Tailwind (For Now) Bottom Line: We do not think equities have bottomed, but we expect that they will generate a positive real return between now and the rest of the year. Feature All Ukraine, all the time has been the story since Russia invaded on February 24th. The headlines on the front page, the gyrations in financial markets and the internet’s perpetual loop of images from embattled cities and villages have kept the conflict front and center. Our daily meeting has revolved around updates from the ground, discussions of diplomatic moves and countermoves and the evolution of market and economic impacts. An investor could be forgiven for feeling nostalgic about the halcyon pre-invasion days when equity markets fixated on the pace of rate hikes and what they might mean for stocks with high P/E multiples. Until those days return, investors will have to figure out how to manage their way through the multiple issues raised by the conflict. We devote this week’s report to the most pressing questions that have emerged in our discussions with colleagues and other investment professionals. We don’t know how the various issues will turn out, but we offer our current thinking on the way events may impact the economy and financial markets. Conditions are evolving rapidly and we’ll change our minds as the flow of events changes but we hold tight to the central idea that markets are hoping in vain that a ceasefire might be reached before Kiev is overrun. The Military Campaign Q: How do you see the military campaign progressing? Ukrainian forces seem to be holding their own; has that changed your view of the end game? Our Geopolitical Strategy team cautions against reading too much into the plodding pace of the Russian advance. The Ukrainian military has acquitted itself well against a better endowed opponent, but the Russians still have an overwhelming advantage and show no sign of abandoning their goal. BCA continues to expect that Russia’s offensive will proceed until Kiev is captured and a pro-Russian government is installed. Russian leadership wants a buffer between NATO and its border, and it will sacrifice its own economy and inflict unlimited devastation on Ukraine to get it. Our base-case scenario is that the full fury of the fighting will continue until Russia controls the eastern half of Ukraine and its southern coast, effectively partitioning the country into a Russian east and south and a Ukrainian west. It is possible that Russia may move to take the entire country, though it seems that would be more trouble than it’s worth. Given the commitment Ukrainians have already shown to their country, stifling the resistance in the territory Russia must have (east of the Dnieper and along the coast) looks like it will be a tall order (Map 1). In our base case, the war will end once redrawn political borders allow for a new Cold War equilibrium, but the road to that new steady state may contain several twists and turns. Map 1Redrawing The Borders Q: How long do you think it will take to get to that steady state? Our Geopolitical Strategy team judges that Russian forces ought to be able to complete their mission of capturing Kiev in a matter of weeks or months and Ukraine’s coastal territory within half a year. While it appears that the victors face a determined ongoing insurgency, the clash between official forces will likely conclude by the end of the summer. We expect that Russia will move for a ceasefire once its objectives are met and a de facto partitioning of Ukraine could be accomplished by this time next year. Global investors will not wait for a full resolution before turning their attention elsewhere, but they will remain highly sensitive to any sign that the war will encompass more than Ukraine. Until Kiev falls, the risk of a broader conflict will remain high as Russia will attempt to cow all interested parties to hasten the inevitable. Conquering all of Ukraine would imply an extension of the war beyond our base-case scenario and our hypothetical timeline assumes that Russia does not attempt it because it doesn’t yet have enough boots on the ground to pull it off. The Russians will have their hands full with policing the rest of the country and the existence of a buffer zone between occupied territory east of Kiev and NATO territory on the Poland-Ukraine border may suit everyone’s interests. It will help reduce the probability of an accident that could turn into a battlefield face-off between Russia and NATO. A wider and potentially open-ended conflict would appear to be especially unwelcome from Russia’s perspective, given the way its economy is already buckling under sanctions. Involvement in a shooting war with the country holding the world’s second-largest nuclear arsenal is not in the West’s interests, either. The US and NATO have scrupulously avoided crossing the red line of direct involvement in Ukraine. Despite Ukrainian pleas, the American-European coalition will not impose a no-fly zone which could lead to head-to-head aerial combat, and no one would touch last week’s hot potato of providing Poland’s fleet of Soviet-era fighter planes to Ukraine. As heart-rending as it may be, the West is clearly willing to allow a partial conquest of Ukraine. We find it telling that Russia hasn’t extended the fight beyond the existing theater – hackers have yet to cut off access to our US-based team member’s checking and brokerage accounts or play havoc with the electric grid – and both sides’ revealed desire to limit the conflict supports our base case that they ultimately will. European anxiety will linger at Cold War-era levels, but the immediate risk of a larger conventional war on the continent should be limited once Russia neutralizes Ukraine. US Economic Impacts Q: How likely is the oil shock to tip the US economy into a recession? Chart 1Previous Shocks Have Heralded Recessions ... It took seven years for prices to grow tenfold in the decade marked by the Arab state oil embargo and the Iranian revolution, but only ten months for prices to surge 500% from the pandemic bottom in the spring of 2020. On an annual-change basis, the current move is twice as large as any past oil shocks. Sudden surges in oil prices have historically been precursors of recessions (Chart 1). The EU, Japan and oil-importing emerging countries may face dire economic consequences, but the US is relatively better positioned. The production of one unit of US GDP today requires a third of the amount of oil it did in the 1970s (Chart 2). All developed economies have benefitted from the technological progress and the shift away from manufacturing to services that has enabled a more efficient use of oil, but its status as the world’s largest oil producer separates the US from its peers in terms of its vulnerability to rising energy prices. For the first time since the EIA started reporting petroleum import and export data, the US became a net exporter of oil in 2020 and 2021 (Chart 3). Increased prices incentivize higher oil production and lift export revenues (curbs on Russian imports have the potential to increase global demand for US oil). These dynamics, in turn, lead to increased CAPEX and higher employment (Chart 4) when oil prices rise, along with marginally better credit performance, given that the energy sector is heavily represented in high-yield bond indices. Chart 2... But Oil Intensity Has Fallen ... Chart 3... Along With Import Dependency   There is a risk, however, that rising energy prices will push long-term inflation expectations higher and force the Fed to become more hawkish. They could also weigh on future consumption, as the dismal University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment Survey suggests. US households are well positioned to navigate higher inflation and higher interest rates nonetheless. A tight labor market is lifting income, particularly at the lower end of the wage distribution, while stimulus checks have allowed households to significantly reduce their level of indebtedness and amass large savings cushions. Rising wealth from financial market and home price advances will further support consumption. Chart 4Capex And Jobs Move With Prices Q: How worried are you about a growth shortfall this year? The Ukrainian conflict will unleash a spate of indirect economic effects by interfering with the supply of commodities in markets that were already quite tight. In additional to persistently high energy prices, we can expect higher prices for base metals, aluminum, steel, wheat, corn and perhaps semiconductors, as Ukraine is an important source for neon that is essential to one aspect of the chip manufacturing process. Widespread increases in input prices could give inflation an additional spur and therefore have the potential to dent consumer confidence while encouraging the Fed to tighten monetary policy more than it otherwise might. Although today’s macro backdrop has more stagflationary elements than it has had in decades, we think the US will escape its grip. Regarding consumers, we reiterate our view that they are unusually well positioned to overcome higher prices at the pump. They have built up an enormous pandemic savings cushion (largely concentrated among the bottom 70% of taxpayers who qualified for the full share of economic impact payments and the lower-income service workers who bore the brunt of job losses), seen the value of their homes rise at a rapid clip (nearly two-thirds of households own their own homes) and benefitted from robust advances in financial markets (largely reserved to households at the top of the wealth scale). Voluntary debt paydowns and rock-bottom interest rates have combined to make their debt servicing burden as light as it’s ever been in the four decades that it’s been tracked (Chart 5). Higher gasoline prices are not going to unleash a paradox-of-thrift vicious circle. Chart 5A Light Yoke The labor market is also poised to support consumption. Nonfarm payrolls are not likely to continue to expand at their 560 thousand a month clip since the start of 2021 (Chart 6), but the NFIB survey (Chart 7, top panel) and the record-high job-openings-to-unemployed ratio (Chart 7, bottom panel) indicate that businesses are still hunting for workers. The good times won’t last forever, but we maintain our view that the US economy will grow well above its 2% (inflation-adjusted) trend level this year. It has a lot of momentum, consumers have a lot of dry powder and COVID infections are dwindling by the day (Chart 8). Chart 6Job Gains Will Slow ... Chart 7... But They Won't Stop Chart 8Omigone Tighter monetary policy could cool things off, but it works with a lag and rate hikes will take a while to take effect. We endorse our US Bond Strategy colleagues’ projection of a 25-basis-point hike in the target fed funds rate at each of this year’s seven remaining FOMC meetings. That would get fed funds up to 1⅞% by year end, but the hikes would not fully filter through the economy until the second half of 2023, after a lag of six to twelve months. BCA estimates that the fed funds rate will have to exceed 3% before monetary policy begins to restrain activity. US Market Impacts Q: How much more can equities decline? Following on from the discussion of the previous growth question, we think the S&P 500 can live up to less-than-demanding consensus 2022 earnings per share (EPS) expectations. 4Q21 index EPS were $54.14 but are projected to be just $51.55 this quarter, a nearly 5% sequential decline. For the full year, 2022 S&P 500 EPS are projected to be $225.68, 4% above 4Q21’s annualized run rate ($54.14 x 4 = $216.56). Sequential declines outside of recessions are extremely unusual and a 4% four-quarter run-rate increase sets the expectations bar quite low (Chart 9). Chart 9A Low Bar Chart 10Multiple Compression Has Squeezed Stocks Most investors focus on year-over-year changes, and full-year 2022 earnings per share are expected to grow 8% versus 2021. That’s hardly a slam dunk in a decelerating economy, but the deceleration is coming from an extremely high level and it’s important to remember that earnings are measured in nominal dollars. With consensus 2022 real GDP growth and PCE price index estimates of 3.6% and 5%, respectively, nominal GDP is expected to grow 8.6%. If S&P 500 revenues grow in line with nominal GDP and buybacks shrink the index’s share count by 2-3%, 8% EPS growth is doable despite downward pressure on profit margins from rising wages and other input costs. The decline in the S&P 500 so far this year (Chart 10, top panel) has entirely been a function of multiple contraction. Forward four-quarter earnings expectations are 1% higher than they were at the start of the year (Chart 10, middle panel) but the multiple investors are willing to pay for them has dropped by 13%, from 21.7 to 18.8 (Chart 10, bottom panel). While we expect continued de-rating in the near term, we don’t foresee a decline of more than another 10% (below 17) unless the Ukraine conflict sparks a broader European war. There simply are no public market alternatives that offer investors a better chance of achieving positive real returns and historically low real interest rates would support a return to the 20s (Chart 11), where the forward multiple has lingered for most of the pandemic. Summing Up Chart 11Divergence The ideas that underpinned our pre-Ukraine view of financial markets and the US economy still apply, even though the distribution of potential outcomes has widened. We still believe that a recession is very unlikely over the next twelve months. We continue to hold that monetary policy will remain stimulative into 2023, as the fed funds rate will end this year well shy of its neutral level. We continue to flag inflation as the greatest risk to our constructive twelve-month views. Against that backdrop, we expect that equities and credit will rally once the outlines of our base-case Ukraine scenario take shape: Russia seeks peace once it topples the elected Ukrainian government, NATO and Russia exchange heated words but do not engage on the battlefield, and a rump state in western Ukraine provides a buffer against potential NATO-Russia accidents. As those events occur, COVID disruptions abate, commodity prices stop exploding higher and base effects rein in CPI prints beginning in April, inflation will start to decelerate. That should help financial markets and consumers breathe a sigh of relief and help earnings multiples to recover enough to allow the S&P 500 to generate positive real returns over the rest of the year. We remain constructive on markets and the US economy over the next twelve months. Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Jennifer Lacombe Associate Editor jenniferl@bcaresearch.com

Special Report

Executive Summary Failure Of Iran Deal Tightens Oil Supply The US and Iran suspended their attempt to negotiate a nuclear deal on March 11. Countries often get cold feet before major agreements but there are good reasons to believe this suspension will be permanent. A confirmed failure to restore the US-Iran strategic détente will lead to Middle Eastern instability. Iran will be on a trajectory to achieve nuclear weapons in a few years while Israel and the US will have to underscore their red lines against weaponization. The Strait of Hormuz will come under threat again. The immediate impact on oil prices should be positive: sanctions will continue to hinder Iran’s exports, while Iranian conflict with its neighbors will sharply increase the odds of oil disruptions caused by militant actions. Not to mention the Russia-induced energy supply shock. However, a decisive move by the Gulf Arab states to boost crude production would counteract the effect of Iranian sanctions and drive oil down. The Gulf Arabs will be more inclined to coordinate with the Biden administration as long as the Iran deal is ruled out. Thus oil volatility is the main implication beyond any short term oil spike.     Trade Recommendation Inception Date Return Long Gold (Strategic) 2019-12-06 36.8% Bottom Line: Go long US equities relative to global; long US and Canadian stocks versus Saudi and UAE stocks. Stay long XOP ETF, S&P GSCI index, and COMT ETF for exposure to oil prices and backwardation in oil forward curves. Feature The current Iran talks would have restored Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPA), which created a strategic détente between the US and Iran. Iran froze its nuclear program while the US lifted sanctions. President Barack Obama negotiated the deal in 2015, without congressional approval, while President Donald Trump nullified it in 2018, arguing that it did not restrict Iran’s ballistic missile development or support for regional militant groups. Chart 1Bull Market In Iran Tensions Will Be Super-Charged Since then there has been a bull market in Iran tensions (Chart 1), a secret war in which sporadic militant attacks, assassinations, and acts of sabotage occurred but neither side pursued open confrontation. These attacks can be significant, as with the Iran-backed attack on the Abqaiq refinery in Saudi Arabia, which took 6mm b/d of oil-processing capacity offline briefly in September 2019. The implication of this trend is energy supply disruption. Now the trend will be super-charged in the context of a global energy shortage. If no US-Iran détente is achieved, the Middle East will be set on a new trajectory of conflict, or at least a nuclear arms race and aggressive containment strategy. Since Trump turned away from the US-Iran détente and reimposed sanctions on Iran we have given a 40% chance of large-scale military conflict, according to our June 2019 decision tree (Diagram 1). The basis for such a conflict is Iran’s likelihood of obtaining nuclear arms and the need of Israel, its Arab neighbors, and the US to prevent that from happening. Diagram 1US-Iran Conflict: Critical Juncture In Our Decision Tree Between now and then, tit-for-tat military exchanges will increase, posing risks to oil supply in the short and medium run. Without a major diplomatic breakthrough that halts Iran’s nuclear weaponization, a bombing campaign against Iran will be the likeliest long-term consequence, due to the fateful logic of Israel’s strategic predicament (Diagram 2). Diagram 2Over Medium Term, Unilateral Israeli Military Action Is Possible Why Rejoining The US-Iran Deal Was Unlikely Under the Biden administration’s new plan, Iran would have frozen its nuclear program once again while Biden would have relaxed US “maximum pressure” sanctions on Iran, opening the way for foreign investment and the development of Iran’s energy sector and economy. The basis for a deal was the belief among some US policymakers that engagement with Iran would open up its economy, reducing regional war risks (especially in Iraq), expanding global energy supply, and fomenting pro-democratic sentiment in Iran. Also the Washington military-industrial complex wanted to reduce the US’s commitment to the Middle East and arrange a grand strategic “pivot to Asia” so as to counter the rise of China. Up till August 2021, we viewed a deal as likely, but that view changed when Iran’s hawkish or hardline faction came back into the presidency. Biden had a very small window of opportunity to negotiate with outgoing Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, who negotiated the original 2015 deal and whose administration fell apart after President Trump withdrew from the deal. When the hawkish Iranian faction took back power, this opportunity slipped. Iran’s hawks were vindicated for having opposed détente with the US in the first place. Since then we have argued that strategic tensions would escalate, for the following reasons: The Iranians could not trust the Americans, since they knew that any new deal could be torn up as early as January 20, 2025 if the Republican Party took back the White House. Indeed, former Vice President Mike Pence recently confirmed this view explicitly. The Iranians were not compelled to agree to the deal because high oil prices ensured that they could export oil regardless of US sanctions (Chart 2). The US no longer has the diplomatic credibility to galvanize a coalition that includes the Russians and Chinese to isolate Iran, like it did back in 2014-15. Chart 2Iranians Not Compelled To A Deal, Can Circumvent Sanctions As for Iran’s weak economy spurring social unrest and forcing Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to agree to a deal, the US has had maximum pressure sanctions in place since 2019 and it has not produced that effect. Yes, Iran is ripe for social unrest, but the regime is consolidating power under the hardliners rather than taking any risky course of opening up and reform that could foment pro-democratic and pro-western demands for change. With oil revenues flowing in, the regime will be more capable of suppressing domestic opposition. The Americans could not trust the Iranians because they knew that they would ultimately pursue nuclear weapons regardless of any short-term revival of the 2015 deal. The Iranians have a stark choice between North Korea, which achieved nuclear weaponization and now has a powerful guarantee of future regime survival, and countries like Ukraine and Libya, which gave up nuclear weapons or programs only to be invaded by foreign armies. Moreover the Iranian nuclear deal lacked popular support, even among Obama Democrats back in 2015, not to mention today in the wake of the deal’s cancellation. The deal’s provisions would have begun expiring in 2025 under any conditions. The Israelis and Gulf Arabs opposed the deal. The Russians also switched to opposing the deal and made new demands at the last minute as a result of the US sanctions imposed on Russia in the wake of its invasion of Ukraine. The Russians do not have an interest in Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon and they supported the 2015 deal and the 2021-22 renegotiation while demanding their pound of flesh in the form of Ukraine. But they also know that Israel and the US will use military force to prevent Iran from getting the bomb, so they are not compelled to join any agreement. Crippling US sanctions over Ukraine likely caused them to interfere with the deal. Our pessimistic view is now confirmed, with the suspension of talks. True, informal talks will continue, diplomacy could somehow revive, and it is still possible for a deal to come together. But given our fundamental points above, we would give any durable diplomatic solution a low probability, say 5%. That means that the US and Iran will not engage, which means Iran will re-activate its regional militant proxies and begin pursuing nuclear weaponization. Iran has a powerful incentive to increase regime security before the dangerous leadership succession that looms over the nearly 83 year-old Khamenei and the threatening possibility of a Republican’s reelection in 2024. At present, it is unknown which side of the Iran nuclear deal talks suspended them. While the Iranians were not compelled by an international coalition to join the deal as they were in 2015, we cannot ignore the possibility the suspension in talks arises from a deal being reached between the US and core OPEC 2.0 producers (Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Kuwait). Very simply, such a deal would entail that the Arab states increase output, to ease the global shortage, in return for the US walking away from the flawed Iran deal and pledging to work with Israel and the Gulf Arabs to contain Iran. Israel and the Gulf Arabs are increasingly aligned in their goal of countering Iran under the Abraham Accords, negotiated in 2020 by the Trump administration. If the US and Gulf states agreed, then the Gulf states are likely to increase production to ease the global shortage and prolong the business cycle, meaning that oil prices could fall rather than rise as their next move. Either way they will remain volatile as a result of global developments. What Next? Escalation In The Middle East The Iranians have made substantial nuclear progress since 2018, despite Israeli attempts at sabotaging critical facilities. Today Iran stands on the brink of achieving “breakout” levels of highly enriched uranium – levels at which it is possible to construct a nuclear device (Table 1). Table 1Iran Will Reach ‘Breakout’ Nuclear Capability The suspension of talks means the Iranians will soon reach breakout capacity, which will splash across global headlines. This news will rattle global financial markets as it will point to a nuclear arms race in the most volatile of regions. There is a gap of one-to-two years between breakout uranium enrichment and deliverable nuclear weapon, according to most experts.1 However, it is much easier to monitor nuclear programs than missile programs, which means western intelligence will lose visibility when it comes to knowing precisely when Iran will obtain a functional nuclear warhead that it can mount on a ballistic missile. The Iranians are skillful at ballistic missiles. The clock will start ticking once nuclear breakout is achieved and the Israelis and Americans will be forced to respond by underscoring their red line against weaponization. Starting right away, Israel and the US will need to demonstrate publicly that they have a “military option” to prevent Iran from achieving nuclear weaponization. They will refrain from immediate military action but will seek to re-establish a credible threat through shows of force. They will also redouble their efforts to use special operations and cyber attacks to set back the Iranian programs. The Iranians will seek to deter them from attacking and will want to highlight the negative consequences. The US-Iran talks were not only about the nuclear program but also about a broader strategic détente. The Iranians will no longer rein in their regional militant proxies, whether the militias in Iraq or the Houthis in Yemen or Hezbollah in Lebanon. In effect we are now looking at a major escalation of militant attacks in the Middle East at a time when oil is already soaring. In many cases the express intent of the Iran-backed groups will be to threaten oil supply to demonstrate the leverage that they have to intimidate the US and its allies and discourage them from applying too much pressure too quickly. Bottom Line: On top of the current oil shock, we are about to have a higher risk premium injected into oil from Middle Eastern proxy conflict involving Iran. If OPEC does not act quickly to boost production then financial markets face additional commodity price pressures, on top of the existing Russia-induced supply shock. Commodity And Energy Implications Our Commodity & Energy Strategist, Bob Ryan, outlines the following implications for the oil market: In BCA Research's oil supply-demand balances, while we recognized the Geopolitical Strategy view that the US-Iran deal would not materialize, nevertheless we assumed that Iran would return up to 1.3mm b/d of production by 2H22, which would have been available for export markets. This would have given a significant boost to oil supply as the market continues to tighten. Chart 3Failure Of Iran Deal Tights Oil Supply The failure of these barrels to return to the market will result in an oil-price increase of about $15/bbl in 2023, based on our modeling (Chart 3). We can expect backwardations to increase in Brent and WTI, as demand for precautionary inventories increases. The modelled prices include the oil risk premium of ~USD 9/bbl in H2 2022 and USD 5/bbl in 2023. Relative to 2021, we expect core- OPEC - KSA, UAE and Kuwait – and total US crude supply to increase by 1.7 mmb/d and 0.65 mmb/d respectively in 2022. Compared to 2022, core-OPEC supply will level off in 2023, and will increase by 0.6 mmb/d for total US. If the US has a deal with core OPEC, then, based on the reference production levels agreed by OPEC 2.0 in July 2021, core OPEC’s production capacity could cover a large bit of the volumes markets are short (Table 2). This is due to lower monthly additions of output that was supposed to be returned to markets – now above 1mm b/d – and the lost Iranian output (Table 2). Table 2OPEC 2.0 Reference Production Levels Per the OPEC 2.0 reference production schedule released following the July 2021 meeting in Vienna, Saudi Arabia’s output is free to go to 11.5mm b/d by May, the UAE's to 3.5mm b/d, and Kuwait's to just under 3mm b/d. Iraq also could raise output, but its output is variable and it will lie at the center of the new escalation in military tensions, so we do not count it as core OPEC 2.0 production. Assuming these numbers are consistent with actual capacity for core OPEC 2.0, that means Saudi Arabia could lift production by ~ 1.1mm b/d, UAE by ~ 0.5m b/d, and Kuwait by close to 0.3mm b/d. That’s almost 2mm b/d. These reference-production levels might be on the high side of what core OPEC 2.0 is able or willing to do. But they would be close to covering most of the deficit resulting from less-than-anticipated return of 400k b/d from OPEC 2.0 producers beginning last August ( ~ 1.2mm b/d). Most of Iran’s lost output also would be covered. More than likely, these barrels will find their way to market "under the radar" (i.e., smuggled out of Iran) over the next year or so. This was one reason our geopolitical strategists did not view Iran as sufficiently pressured to sign a deal. US shale-oil output will be increasing above the 0.9 mm b/d that we forecast last month for 2022, and the 0.5mm b/d we expect next year, given the sharp price rally prompted by the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Our Commodity & Energy Strategy service will be updating our estimate next week when we publish new supply-demand balances and price forecasts. Releases from the Strategic Petroleum Reserves of the US and OECD are available to tide the market over for brief periods due to Middle East shocks or sanctions on Russian oil. Releases from the Strategic Petroleum Reserves of the US and OECD are available to tide the market over for brief periods due to Middle East shocks or sanctions on Russian oil. Over time, a significant share of these displaced Russian barrels will find their way to China, and the volumes being displaced will be re-routed to other Asian and western buyers. Investment Takeaways One of our key geopolitical views for 2022 is that oil producers have enormous strategic leverage, specifically Russia and Iran. The Ukraine war and now the suspension of US-Iran détente bears out this view. It is highly destabilizing for global politics and economy. One of our five black swans for 2022 is that Israel could attack Iran – this is a black swan because it is highly unlikely on such a short time frame. However, if the US-Iran deal cannot be salvaged, then the clock is ticking to a time when Israel and/or the US will have to decide whether to prevent Iran from going nuclear or instead choose containment strategy as with North Korea. Yet the Iran dilemma is less stable than the Korean dilemma because the Israelis are committed to preventing weaponization. The Israelis will not act unilaterally until the last possible moment, when all other options to prevent weaponization are exhausted, as the operation would be extremely difficult and they need American military assistance. If diplomacy fails on Iran, the two options for the future are a major war or a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. The latter would involve an aggressive containment strategy. The global economy faces a major new risk to energy supply as a result of this material increase in Middle East tensions. A stagflationary outcome is much more likely. Europe’s energy security will be far more vulnerable now as it tries to diversify away from Russia but faces a more volatile Middle East (Chart 4). Undoubtedly Russia and Iran recognize their tremendous leverage. China, India, and other resource imports face a larger energy shock if the Gulf Arabs do not boost production promptly. They certainly face greater volatility. China’s policy support for the economy will remain lackluster in an environment in which inflation continues to threaten economic stability. China’s internal stability was already at risk and now it will have to scramble to secure energy supplies amid a global price shock and looming Middle Eastern instability. China has no choice but to accept Russia’s decision to cut ties with the West and lash itself to China as a strategic ally for the foreseeable future (Chart 5). Chart 4The EU’s Two-Pronged Energy Insecurity​​​​​ Chart 5China's Energy Insecurity​​​​​ Chart 6AGo Long US And Canada / Short Saudi And UAE ​​​​​ Chart 6BGo Long US And Canada / Short Saudi And UAE ​​​​​ Geopolitical Strategy recommends investors go long US equities relative to global equities on a strategic basis. We also recommend long US / short UAE equities and long Canadian / short Saudi equities (Charts 6A and 6B). Chart 7Worst Case Oil Risk In Historical Context Unlike Ukraine, the onset of a new Middle East crisis may not come with “shock and awe.” Weeks or months may pass before Iran reaches nuclear breakout. But make no mistake, if diplomacy fails, Iran will ignite a nuclear race and activate its militant proxies, while its enemies will increase sabotage, rattle sabers, and review military options. The Iranians will not be afraid to threaten the Strait of Hormuz, their other nuclear option (Chart 7). A total blockage of Hormuz is not by any means imminent. But war becomes more likely if Iran achieves nuclear breakout and diplomacy continues to fail.   Matt Gertken Chief Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      See Ariel Eli Levite, “Can a Credible Nuclear Breakout Time With Iran Be Restored?” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, June 24, 2021, carnegieendowment.org. See also Simon Henderson, “Iranian Nuclear Breakout: What It Is and How to Calculate It,” Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Policy Watch 3457, March 24, 2021, washingtoninstitute.org.   Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Regional Geopolitical Risk Matrix